Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

You know a bad one when you see one,right? I did much of the same research that Nic did 10 years before him.I agree with his conclusions. I know what the historical facts are?

Overaged, and others here disagree with you and Nic. The fact that you "did much of the same research that Nic did 10 years before him" doesn't make it any more reasonable. Are you also purporting to be an expert now as well as Nic? And you end your remarks with a question mark. LOL

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged,

Thanks for clarifying the reasons for rejecting my views about abortion and related issues. This is helpful, in spite of the fact that I disagree with most of what you have said. Unfortunately, you are avoiding the real heart of my research, which is the fact that the church has deviated from the pro-life position of the early Adventist pioneers. Do you deny this? You are concentrating your efforts on a few details here and there, but seem to be afraid to disagree with me on what really counts, which represent the center piece of mi dissertation. So let me ask you the following questions:

1. Do you agree that the early Adventist pioneers were opposed to abortion?

2. Do you agree that the Adventist Church has departed from said strict pro-life position?

I think that I have enough evidence to support my original thesis: That the Adventist Church has departed from the strong pro-life position on abortion and has adopted a pro-choice attitude instead. Can we discuss this? This is really the heart of my dissertation. If you can prove me wrong on this, you could declare victory and we could discuss something else. You stated:

Quote:

Your "dissertation" cannot be accepted as credible by many of us, because it is based upon false rationalization.

Please, be more precise and identify my alleged “false rationalization. Unless you do this, I have no way of reading your mind and find out what you mean! In addition, you state:

Quote:

Trying to flavor this topic with mentions of your alleged credentials, with things like what you will do/are doing with your tithe, the Church collaborating with the Nazi regime, along with a plethora of other issues which you host with the abortion projectile that you so adamantly impel the Church with, simply makes it even more worthless.

Thanks for identifying a couple of things you don’t like. I can respond to that, but I cannot deal with the other “plethora of other issues” you claim to dislike unless you identify them. I firmly believe that the tithe and offerings I have been donating to my church for seven decades now are very relevant to the issue of abortion. I don’t want to be an accomplice in the killing of the innocent human beings. I do not want have some of the blood of innocent babies on my hands. You may think that this is irrelevant, but for me this is crucial. I continue donating a portion of my tithes and offerings to my church simply because I think that defending the Sabbath is important.

Regarding the Adventist cooperation with the Nazi regime, I believe that this historic fact is quite relevant, because Hitler killed six million human beings, and recently the Austrian and German SDA leaders had to apologize for the role of our church played then. You may think that this is irrelevant, but I strongly disagree. In Germany our church compromised on the issue of the genocide of the Jews. Today my church has compromised on the genocide of the unborn. How can you argue that this is not relevant? You also argue as follows:

Quote:

You try to bolster your "dissertation" with these false representations, then you deny doing it;

Can we take one of these allegedly “false representations” and figure out whether they are false indeed? Which one would want to deal with first? Then you claim the following:

Quote:

What you actually say about the Church and their position on abortion is false.

Can you be more specific? Which assertion about the Adventist Church I have made is false? I cannot answer unless you identify what you seem to think is false! If you do this, please state the reason you think what I have said about the church is false. You did document in your posting several statements of mine, but you failed to state precisely why you think what I said is wrong! I cannot read your mind and I have lost my crystal ball a long time ago!

[Guest]

Ok Overaged,since you seem to be an expert on the SDA church and abortion detail exactly what the church's position is, not what it is not! I find your dismissal of Nic's dissertation as non "credible","irrational",and his conclusions about the church's position on abortion as "deliberately" misrepresentative, both arrogant and confidentally judgmental. No mercy from you, right? You know a bad one when you see one,right? I did much of the same research that Nic did 10 years before him.I agree with his conclusions. I know what the historical facts are? Do you? How many hours have you spent in the Heritage Room disproving Nic's conclusions? How many papers have you researched to qualify you to stand in judgment on his conclusions? How many letters and printed articles have you detailed in order to come to your ability to discredit his 'irrationality'? You base your whole response to the focus on Nic's (alleged)subliminal "other issues" as a rationale to dismiss his credibility on the subject under discussion. But if you are right, your reasoning also discredits your credibility on the abortion question because you too are focused on those issues!! You claim to be "very much against abortion",ok, what have YOU done to try to prevent it?Maybe doing 10 years of research doesn't make someone an expert in your eyes,but when compared to 10 minutes I'll go with the former.

Yeah

[Woody]

Quote:

How many hours have you spent in the Heritage Room disproving Nic's conclusions?

I've spent a number of hours there. Have you?

[Guest]

Stick to politics and football Red.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I did much of the same research that Nic did 10 years before him.

That puts you even further back behind the current situation than Nic. Hardly a recommendation from you is commendable.

[Overaged]

Stick to politics and football Red.

LOL, I think you need to get out and run around the block a few times to clear the air a little. Redwood made an interesting reply that you are referring to. It would have been more fruitful to this discussion if you had asked him to highlight some of the main points he learned in The Heritage Room. I might add though that it is not proven that someone has to sit in that room in order to study relevant materials on the subject at hand.

Too often, ones like Nic who have "special truth" make it so special that no one else has access to the materials they do; thereby setting themselves up as the sole authority on the subject at hand. Its a very common ruse these days. The historical points in question should be able to be established just fine with materials easily available to the general public. I am not belittling what you did in the Heritage Room Redwood, I am very interested to hear you comment more on what you learned. I am making a separate point re Nic with that comment.

And Nic; thanks for sharing some of your views on why you feel certain side issues I mentioned are related to abortion questions we are looking at here. To me, and I know to many others, they are distractions and smokescreens. But I am out of time for tonight...

[Guest]

I've never known Nic to hide his sources, or to claim that he was the only one with access. In fact if you read his dissertation, you will see that all of his sources are listed.

[Woody]

Sorry. The room is secret. You have to sign on the dotted line just in order to enter the room. After they verify your identity to make sure you aren't a Jesuit. Once you enter the room you are sworn to secrecy. And you are not allowed to take any of the materials outside of the locked room.

Thus, it is all secret and I am not allowed to divulge any of it's vast materials.

[Guest]

Like I said, all his sources are listed.

[doug yowell]

Stick to politics and football Red.

Richard,Does that mean I don't need to divulge my time to Redwood?

[doug yowell]

Sorry. The room is secret. You have to sign on the dotted line just in order to enter the room. After they verify your identity to make sure you aren't a Jesuit. Once you enter the room you are sworn to secrecy. And you are not allowed to take any of the materials outside of the locked room.

Thus, it is all secret and I am not allowed to divulge any of it's vast materials.

Come on Redwood, can't you just tell us 1 thing? We promise not to reveal our sources!! By the way, how did you manage to hide your Jesuit trail from Colleen? She's usually impossible to fool.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Stick to politics and football Red.

Richard,Does that mean I don't need to divulge my time to Redwood?

Yes, Richard is the authority for this topic, and what he says is to be taken as the gospel truth. (Sorry Nic, Richard has trumped you.)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Like I said, all his sources are listed.

So what? Are they verifiable? We've already found that one that was completely wrong.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Sorry. The room is secret. You have to sign on the dotted line just in order to enter the room. After they verify your identity to make sure you aren't a Jesuit. Once you enter the room you are sworn to secrecy. And you are not allowed to take any of the materials outside of the locked room.

Thus, it is all secret and I am not allowed to divulge any of it's vast materials.

Come on Redwood, can't you just tell us 1 thing? We promise not to reveal our sources!! By the way, how did you manage to hide your Jesuit trail from Colleen? She's usually impossible to fool.

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

[Overaged]

I've never known Nic to hide his sources, or to claim that he was the only one with access. In fact if you read his dissertation, you will see that all of his sources are listed.

I didn't say he "hid" his sources. Go back and look more closely at what I said.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Sorry. The room is secret. You have to sign on the dotted line just in order to enter the room. After they verify your identity to make sure you aren't a Jesuit. Once you enter the room you are sworn to secrecy. And you are not allowed to take any of the materials outside of the locked room.

Thus, it is all secret and I am not allowed to divulge any of it's vast materials.

Come on Redwood, can't you just tell us 1 thing? We promise not to reveal our sources!! By the way, how did you manage to hide your Jesuit trail from Colleen? She's usually impossible to fool.

LOL, I think Richard's dog just bit you.

[Guest]

Did Mr. Murphy bite Redwood again?

[Overaged]

Did Mr. Murphy bite Redwood again?

No! it was your dog! My cat saw him do it!!

[Guest]

Mr. Murphy is my dog.

[doug yowell]

This may be true using today's technology,I am obviously no expert in computer use, but it was not so just a few years back. If one wanted info that was not readily available,like the many unpublished manuscripts,one had to go to the White Estate. This was also true for access to every SDA related publication. But it would be ridiculus to suggest that common knowledge would be an equal substitute.All of our claims are easily verifiable if one cares to know, we have no secret stash from which we create deceptions. But, so far, you still haven't addressed evidence presented. I understand a natural skepticism, I don't excuse a willingness to ignore the facts.

[doug yowell]

Mr. Murphy is my dog.

Is he a specially trained Jesuit sniffing dog?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Mr. Murphy is my dog.

Is he a specially trained Jesuit sniffing dog?

He sure is. He can sniff em out online even.

[Woody]

Just wondering. That part was left off.

[Nic Samojluk]

Doug,

Thanks for your comments. It is significant, I believe, that after studying the facts of the case, both of us arrived at similar conclusions independently; actually we learned of each other’s work and we met for the first time only about one year ago, if my memory serves me right. For me it was a wonderful experience to learn that someone else had analyzed the same historical facts and had reached similar conclusions. I praise the Lord for what he has revealed to you and to me. In this web site we find fierce opposition from some of the participants, but thanks God that there are other web sites where most of the bloggers are pro-life. One of them is “The Narrow Way.” What a breath of fresh air it was to discover said web site. God certainly works in mysterious ways. I suggest that Overaged visit said site. Here is the link: http://www.thenarrowway.yourlivecommunity.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=599&PID=14774#14774 .

By the way, Pam is still insisting that my degree is worthless. She thinks that her expert opinion is superior to the two genuine experts I consulted before signing up for the doctoral program. Neither one of them suggested that my degree would be worthless in the event the Ph.D. program failed to be accredited because they knew that my objective had nothing to do with securing a teaching position in an accredited institution. I did reach my objective, and I praise God for it. I have no regrets for having taken the route I have followed. The worth of any project is determined by the purpose it is destined for. This is so simple, my neighbors five year old can understand. I have no right to denigrate the inventor of the screwdriver because it is worthless for hammering a nail. A piece of board can be secured by nails, screws, or even glue. It is foolish to describe either method as worthless. It must be judged on the basis of the results obtained.

I am glad that Pam got the message and has stopped insisting that Andrew Jackson University is not accredited. It took me some efforts to help her se the light in this respect. The fact is that an accredited university was allowed by the accrediting committee to grant me the Ph.D. in religion with the proviso that the Ph.D. in religion should be discontinued. I got my degree with the blessing of the accrediting committee. Describing this as “illegitimate” is an outright lie for which Pam and company should be ashamed!

Since we got this straightened out, I think it is high time that we now turn to the real purpose of the current topic being discussed: “IS THE ADVENTIST CHURCH REALLY PRO-LIFE.” On this, Pam has conceded sometime ago that I was right. The Adventist has departed from the strict pro-life attitude of our early pioneers and has adopted a pro-choice position on this issue. This is what we need to discuss and to emphasize instead of wasting precious time on non-essentials.

By the way, Pam did attribute to me a quotation which I do not recognize as mine. If it is mine, I would like to see it in context. If Pam wanted to insinuate that I might be working in conjunction with Catholicism, let me assure her that I am as second generation Adventist and have never had any connection with Rome.

Quote:

The Adventist Society of Abortion Education is a nonprofit group dedicated to educating the general public (Adventists in particular) about the injustice of abortion and about abortion alternatives.