Life on other planets

[John317]

...You have defend that such a conclusion is not what she meant. You have not even come close to doing that. The burden is on you. We don't know exactly what she meant. Thus, the issue is not whether such an "amalgamation actually did exist" but whether Ellen White believed that such "amalgamations did exist".

You thus need to prove that she did not believe such things. It is about what Ellen White believed not what I or any other person believes or what we surmise she meant.

Take the points I made earlier and discuss them one by one:

You can only arrive at that conclusion if you ignore the following 5 important facts in the case:

1) As she wrote it, the statement in 1 SP 78 would mean she also says that there is an almost endless variety of animal species which are part human.

2) Ellen White never wrote anything outside of this statement which would lead anyone to conclude that she believed some humans are part animal or that there are beasts which are part human. If anyone rejects this, let them give quotes and references.

3) Ellen White taught that all humans are in the image of God, and Christ died to save them. Christ did not die for the beasts. This would be impossible if some humans were the product of amalgamation between man and beast. Such products would not be in the image of God.

4) It is not possible for sexual relations between man and beast to produce progeny because the DNA of the beasts and the DNA of humans isn't compatable.

5) The language she uses can be understood in a way so that it harmonizes with the previous 4 points, i.e., that the amalgamation has been between humans and between animals, not between humans and animals.

Can you show how you can arrive at the conclusion she was teaching amalgamation BETWEEN humans and animals while at the same time considering the above 5 points?

[miz3]

John317 for all you or I know Ellen White could have believed that such part human/part animal creatures did exist. We just don't know.

Thus, to assert that Ellen White could not have meant part human/part animal creatures is not a correct statement because you don't actually know whether Ellen White believed that or not and neither do I or anyone else.

You can have an opinion but you cannot disregard others who have a different opinion from your own on this issue and assert that they are wrong because you don't actually know they are wrong. For all any of us know those who disagree with you could in fact be right.

[ClubV12]

At some point one has to recognize the evidence that supports an opinion. It is illogical and unreasonable to just throw your hand in the air and declare it is merely an opinion. A mere opinion is one presented without substantial data and logic to back up your position. The THEORY of evolution I reject, BUT, it is an opinion, a theory, offered with a reasonable and logical scientific basis. Thus, it's rises above mere "opinion", as does Johns "opinion" on this matter.

Those who disagree have a burden to defend their position with equal clairity, or withdraw.

[John317]

...

I did not advocate that there are part human/part animal entities existent at anytime.

All I was saying is that Ellen White left the thing so open ended that it appears Ellen White believed their were creatures that were part human/part animal.

She said, "Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." {1SP 78.2}

Her statement clearly shows that if she is talking about amalgamation between man and animals, it would be necessary for us to understand her to mean that she believed there to exist today some people who are part animal and many animals that are part human.

But that is nonsense, since there is absolutely no evidence in her writings or in what she said to suggest she believed this.

Therefore it is for people who accuse her of having taught this to prove that this is indeed what she believed and wrote. So far, all you have is an unsubstantiated accusation.

Let the readers make up their minds on the basis of what they read on this discussion.

[John317]

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...You have defend that such a conclusion is not what she meant. You have not even come close to doing that. The burden is on you. We don't know exactly what she meant. Thus, the issue is not whether such an "amalgamation actually did exist" but whether Ellen White believed that such "amalgamations did exist".

You thus need to prove that she did not believe such things. It is about what Ellen White believed not what I or any other person believes or what we surmise she meant.

Take the points I made earlier and discuss them one by one:

You can only arrive at that conclusion if you ignore the following 5 important facts in the case:

1) As she wrote it, the statement in 1 SP 78 would mean she also says that there is an almost endless variety of animal species which are part human.

2) Ellen White never wrote anything outside of this statement which would lead anyone to conclude that she believed some humans are part animal or that there are beasts which are part human. If anyone rejects this, let them give quotes and references.

3) Ellen White taught that all humans are in the image of God, and Christ died to save them. Christ did not die for the beasts. This would be impossible if some humans were the product of amalgamation between man and beast. Such products would not be in the image of God.

4) It is not possible for sexual relations between man and beast to produce progeny because the DNA of the beasts and the DNA of humans isn't compatable.

5) The language she uses can be understood in a way so that it harmonizes with the previous 4 points, i.e., that the amalgamation has been between humans and between animals, not between humans and animals.

Can you show how you can arrive at the conclusion she was teaching amalgamation BETWEEN humans and animals while at the same time considering the above 5 points?

Ok, John317.

1. You don't know what she believed. The statement is not clear. Thus, this point does not "prove" you are correct. It only shows that you don't know what she meant and neither does anyone else.

2. The fact that Ellen White does not say anything more about this topic does not prove that she meant what you say she meant. It only adds to the ambiguity of the situation. Thus, this is not an argument for your belief. No proof here on your part.

3. John317 this is silly. All you are saying here is that you believe Ellen White is "always" consistent and if we believe that she believed in the amalgamation of part humans/part animal that would make Ellen White "inconsistent".

The fact is our own experience demonstrates that humans can and are often horrendously inconsistent. Ellen White is not immune from this human foible. She could very well have been inconsistent and like most humans their inconsistency is not even evident to them.

Your assertion that Ellen White could not be inconsistent is not valid.

4. Given your views in previous posts on this thread about how great these antideluvians were how easily they could accomplish great and seemingly impossible things (possibly in partnership with the devils) this is a fallacious statement on your part at best.

None of us know for sure what can and cannot be possible genetically not what the level of expertise they had before the flood.

You cannot play both sides of the street on this point. Choose one or the other side and stick to it.

5. As already pointed out the language she uses can be used either way. If it could be used only one way then there would be no controversy.

This is a very weak point. So weak in fact that it does not exist.

There it is John317. Your five points have been taken care of and shown to be fallacious and weak.

As I said before we are allowed to have an opinion but that is all we can have on Ellen White in regard to these statements on amalgamation. And no opinion is better or superior to any other opinion in this case.

[John317]

John317 for all you or I know Ellen White could have believed that such part human/part animal creatures did exist. We just don't know.

This wonderful Christian woman wrote tens of thousands of pages in regard to what she taught and believed. Outside of the two paragraphs in Spiritual Gifts and Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, there is absolutely nothing which suggests she believed such a thing.

In fact, it flatly contracts what she plainly wrote about all humanity being in the image of God.

Therefore it is absurd to claim we can't know what Ellen White believed in this matter. She preached hundreds of sermons, most of which were transcribed, and she wrote thousands of letters and many books, all of which we can still study today.

If you don't think we can know what she believed, it is wrong to argue that Ellen White believed or may have believed in the amalgamation between man and beast.

We could argue with equal basis that you may believe any number of things, all of which you would have a right to object to.

It's necessary to study people's writings and what they've said in order to find good reason for drawing conclusions about what they believed. To do otherwise is unfair and dishonest, to say nothing of being unreasonable.

[ClubV12]

Actually,,, I was hoping someone could show reasonable support for a conflicting theory opposing John317's theory. But all we got against John317's view piont at this point is literally "opinion".

Let me try it:

As I've mentioned already, one opposing theory is that antideluvian man COULD have created a man/animal hybrid. Due to exceptional mental prowess and long lives building on the time honored principle, "live and learn". I propose, that if man, today, could create such a hybrid, then man during Adams time could have also done it.

[BobRyan]

Indeed - the claim some make is that the preflood sin should not be thought of as a kind of family or marriage between humans and animals. Certainly that is true.

But the question raised in today's climate - is what about science manipulating genetic information and creating a "blend" of human and animal - just as they are doing today!

So now the mechanism is no longer hypothetical. Now it is a point about how far advanced in science was mankind pre-flood.

Even so - you cannot ignore the Genesis 6 point that also matches with the point that Ellen White makes when speaking about this subject - of believers marrying unbelievers.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

..4. Given your views in previous posts on this thread about how great these antideluvians were how easily they could accomplish great and seemingly impossible things (possibly in partnership with the devils) this is a fallacious statement on your part at best.

Please post what you claim I said about this. You'll find I never said it.

[John317]

5. As already pointed out the language she uses can be used either way. If it could be used only one way then there would be no controversy.

Originally Posted By: miz3

This is a very weak point. So weak in fact that it does not exist.

This is a mere claim and a conclusion.

That would be like my saying your conclusion is wrong. I need to show that your conclusion is wrong, not merely claim it. The same with you: you need to show by reasoning how my point is weak or fallacious. So far you have not done this.

In other words, show how her language can only be understood in one way.

Originally Posted By: miz3

There it is John317. Your five points have been taken care of and shown to be fallacious and weak.

If your post contains your best arguments and evidence, I really wouldn't have needed to reply to it.

All you did was make claims but you haven't yet shown how you arrive at your conclusion that my arguments are fallacious. You need to do more than merely state that my arguments are fallacious and weak. You need to demonstrate it or show your reasons that lead you to your conclusions.

What if a defense attorney merely stood up at the end of the prosecutor's case and said, "This is a very weak point. So weak in fact that it does not exist. All the prosecutor's points are fallacious and weak"?

Would that work?

It wouldn't work unless he's taken the prosecutor's points one at a time and shown how each doesn't stand up under close examination. He won't do that if all he says is that they don't stand up. He has to show it, not merely say it.

That's what I was hoping you would do.

[John317]

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: John317

5. As already pointed out the language she uses can be used either way. If it could be used only one way then there would be no controversy.

Originally Posted By: miz3

This is a very weak point. So weak in fact that it does not exist.

This is a mere claim and a conclusion.

That would be like my saying your conclusion is wrong. I need to show that your conclusion is wrong, not merely claim it. The same with you: you need to show by reasoning how my point is weak or fallacious. So far you have not done this.

In other words, show how her language can only be understood in one way.

Originally Posted By: miz3

There it is John317. Your five points have been taken care of and shown to be fallacious and weak.

If your post contains your best arguments and evidence, I really wouldn't have needed to reply to it.

All you did was make claims but you haven't yet shown how you arrive at your conclusion that my arguments are fallacious. You need to do more than merely state that my arguments are fallacious and weak. You need to demonstarte it or show your reasons that lead you to your conclusions.

What if a defense attorney merely stood up at the end of the prosecutor's case and said, "This is a very weak point. So weak in fact that it does not exist. All the prosecutor's points are fallacious and weak"?

Would that work?

It wouldn't work unless he's taken the prosecutor's points one at a time and shown how each doesn't stand up under close examination. He won't do that if all he says is that they don't stand up. He has to show it, not merely say it.

That's what I was hoping you would do.

Whatever, John317.

[ClubV12]

The point you make, Bob, concerning marriage, was also brought out in Johns quotes of the commentary, the impact of that is certainly not lost on me. It's frightening in it's scope and heart breaking. I consider it of such a grave nature it makes the rest of the discussion, amalgamation of life, yes or no, pale in comparison and seem of little consequence.

[John317]

What would happen if EGW was ever proven wrong? (she has but you have the best spin doctors on the job)

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Who are the spin doctors? Which books about Ellen White have you read?

I think the spin is on the side of those who are out to attack Ellen White rather than the other way around.

Can you give an example of "spin"?

Originally Posted By: Klapas

Ok. If you think this is the right Place.

I'll post the EGW lie and you can do the spinning.

"But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.64).

"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75).

So much for the accusation that Ellen White was proven wrong in the above quotes.

I think most readers who read the evidence that's been presented here will agree that the accusation itself is fallacious and a poor "spin."

In any case, I'll leave this issue and return to the question of whether there is life on other planets.

PS. I'm still interested to know which books about Ellen White you've read all the way through. Also, if you don't mind, which of her books have you read?

[Klapas]

Even if you are right, there is only one race of humans. The human race. Just because my friend Lee has no folds over his eye lids, jet black hair and doesn't ever need to shave often, doesn't meen he is of a different race. His great,great, great, great, great, great..... grandfather and great great.......grandmother left Bable for another part of the world. There they had children who also had fat eyelids and everything else that you associate with Asians

Same thing happened to my friend Running Bear with his forefathers and mothers.

We are all one race. So when she says other races, she is wrong unless she's talking about those pesky aliens that we can't agree on.

[John317]

I've been told that SDAs believe that there is life on other planets. I've been researching the topic but all I can find is EGW had a vision of life on other planets.

Please tell me, is there life on other planets and if so are they also sinners and did Christ die for their sins?

1) Yes, there is life on other planets. Since we know there's lots of life in heaven, it's not so hard to believe that there is also life on other planets. Heaven is a real place, where real human beings live. Jesus Christ Himself is a real Man with a real human body. This means that Christ must be in a real place-- as real as this earth.

2) No, they are not sinners. There's no reason to believe that there is sin on any other planet except this earth.

3) Christ did not die for their sins but only for the sins of the human race.

Nevertheless, it is quite true also that Christ's death affects the entire univese, not merely human beings. Even the angels are learning important lessons from the cross of Jesus Christ.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Klapas

I've been told that SDAs believe that there is life on other planets. I've been researching the topic but all I can find is EGW had a vision of life on other planets.

Please tell me, is there life on other planets and if so are they also sinners and did Christ die for their sins?

1) Yes, there is life on other planets. Since we know there's lots of life in heaven, it's not so hard to believe that there is also life on other planets. Heaven is a real place, where real human beings live. Jesus Christ Himself is a real Man with a real human body. This means that Christ must be in a real place-- as real as this earth.

2) No, they are not sinners. There's no reason to believe that there is sin on any other planet except this earth.

3) Christ did not die for their sins but only for the sins of the human race.

Nevertheless, it is quite true also that Christ's death affects the entire univese, not merely human beings. Even the angels are learning important lessons from the cross of Jesus Christ.

John317, is this meeting people where they are?

[John317]

Can you explain?

[John317]

Even if you are right, there is only one race of humans. The human race. ...

Yes, of course. By the way, Ellen White says the same thing. Christ died for the entire human race, without exception. All are free human agents with the ability to choose to accept or reject the workings of the Holy Spirit on their hearts and minds.

[miz3]

Can you explain?

Yes.

To be honest about this I am expressing my own opinion by making such a statement and the explanation is also my opinion.

I applaud your efforts to witness to Klapas.

However, he is not ready for SDA hard facts. Especially when such facts come from Ellen White. Then when we mix such Ellen White statements with the Bible especially when using "murky" texts like Daniel chapter seven.

All such things are too complicated and too detached for him to accept.

However, I think it is better to stick to the Bible and the Bible only. In doing that we have to say it appears "such and such" but we cannot prove aliens. We can also say that it is our opinion that aliens do exist.

Then let him study and see what he thinks.

We may never make more ground than that with him. In that case it ends and we leave God to take the person to the next level.

If however, the door is open for more dialogue then I believe we proceed carefully because to most people Ellen White is not the Word of God. It is to you and that is fine. For you to discuss with others who see Ellen White as you do then dialogue with her writings to your hearts content.

I find when dealing with others who are adamantly against Ellen White it is better to leave her out of the discussion altogether until the person is as open as you are about her.

Otherwise we alienate many people who could make some progress rather than no progress.

I think the Church has made sooo many mistakes in regard to Ellen White because of their Church ego.

All of this above is just my opinion which I share with you as a friend and a brother in Christ. I meant no ill toward you personally.

I just think it is typical for SDA to push too hard and to move too fast in regard to those outside its boundaries.

If I have overstepped my self I apologize to you because it was done unintentionally. I will not be offended if you disagree because I only expressed my own opinion.

[John317]

Thanks for your thoughtful observations.

I tend to agree with the gist of what you're saying. But in this case, we're talking about someone who brought up Ellen White in her/his very first post. (See the beginning of this discussion) I wouldn't have brought her up if he/she hadn't. I don't talk about Ellen White or quote her to people who know nothing about her or haven't asked about her or quoted her. But it's pretty obvious that the poster of whom you speak has read a good deal of anti-EGW material.

Also, I don't only post for the original poster, but I post also (and even especially) for the thousands of people from all over the world who read these discussions without ever writing a word. They ALWAYS deserve to read responses to the questions or statements other people write on the Forum.

[John317]

I think the Church has made sooo many mistakes in regard to Ellen White because of their Church ego.

Klapas would doubtless say the same thing-- or at least in very similar words.

Question: Can you think of anything Klapas has said so far that you disagree with?

[Klapas]

You're avoiding the question.

Let me rephrase it.

Was she prophesising when she talked about the amalgamation of the races?

There are no races. They are all humans. They may have been races 100 years ago but now we know better. People from different parts of the world have been isolated therefore the genetic pool hasnt changed since the days of Babel.

If she was prophesising, she should have known better. If a prophet is wrong once.......

[John317]

You're avoiding the question.

No, I don't avoid any question. But I can see from the posts here that you do avoid them. I've asked you quite a few that you have failed to answer.

Originally Posted By: Klapas

Let me rephrase it.

Was she prophesising when she talked about the amalgamation of the races?

There are no races. They are all humans. They may have been races 100 years ago but now we know better.

There are no races?

Yes, all the races of human beings are humans. No question of that. But what you apparently don't see is there is more than one definition of race. You are using it one way, and Ellen White is using it in another way. Ellen White's way of using "race" is just as legitimate as your way.

You might check the dictionary or the encyclopedia.

Here's one definition an encyclopedia:

Quote:

Race is classification of humans into large and distinct populations or groups by factors such as heritable phenotypic characteristics or geographic ancestry, but also often influenced by and correlated with traits such as appearance, culture, ethnicity, and socio-economic status.

My Webster's dictionary says, "1. A local global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. 2. Mankind as a whole. 3. Any group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographical distribution. 4. A geneological line; lineage; family."

Originally Posted By: Klapas

People from different parts of the world have been isolated therefore the genetic pool hasnt changed since the days of Babel.

If she was prophesising, she should have known better. If a prophet is wrong once.......

Must be your dislexia again. :-)

Seriously,though: you've just demonstrated that not only do you not know the definitons of race but you also don't know much about the nature of prophesying.

God doesn't reveal to prophets the meaning of words as they will be defined after the death of the prophet. Prophets choose the words they will use from among the words common in their day based on the meaning those words have in their own time, not some other time.

But in any case, the word "race" as Ellen White used it still applies.

There are indeed races of men. Modern man still speaks of the various races of mankind. And yes, there's also the human race, too.