Walter Veith arrested in Germany for exposing Catholicism??

[BobRyan]

whenever we start saying God's judgements are falling because of this sin or because of that sin, we are on the ground of those who will punish whoever they believe are doing wrong and causing the judgements of God to fall. and this is persecution.

[BobRyan]

What exactly is your argument?

That no one is being persecuted in central and S. America by the RCC??

That the RCC has now rejected it's claim to infallibility when it comes to the command to "exterminate" the heretics as found in Lateran IV canon law?

[BobRyan]

Bob,

Let me add the following: I read that six decades ago the U.S. was the largest creditor in the world. Today our nation is the largest debtor there has ever been in history. Have you wondered why?

Could it be that we have compromised with evil regarding the right to life of the most vulnerable members of the human race?

I have written to the GC on this question and have been told from the GC president on down that they are against abortion.

in Christ,

Bob

[debbym]

I really appreciate your response and reviewing my statements.

with very increase of sin there is an increase in the burden of the consequences and impact on the world.

But i am concerned there are groups saying that the Newtown shootings occurred because of God's punishments, His judgements, falling on abortion and Gay marriage. we know the world is continuing to fall more and more under the control of evil, but we do not spout that all the troubles that come are God's punishments. I believe this puts on God the attributes of Satan as a arbitrary hateful and retributive.

http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/2012/12/james-dobson-connecticut-shooting-was.html

this is the kind of thinking that leads to persecution. It is not to far a leap to those who will say...those people who are keeping the Sabbath are causing the judgements of God on the land lets get rid of them so the world will be saved.

there are people who have been murdering and supporting the murder of abortion doctors, and gay killers. I can see this increasing with this mentality.

------------------------------------------------

i am not suggesting that the unborn has no value and is a non person, and that no consequences should come to the offender of a pregnant women. those consequences are spelled out. it does not use the word miscarry in this verse, it just says serious injury. If it had stated miscarriage it would be much clearer. if it was talking about miscarriage why wasn't the word there.

additionally this is referring to accidental injury. It is not referring to the intentional destruction of unborn life. and i would not wish to minimize the grief of those who have unintentionally or even intentionally respectively lost a baby due to miscarriage or abortion. this Chapter is about social justice.

in verse exodus 21:28 it states if a man has a bull that is a goring bull and it kills a man or a women he forfeits his life in consequence, but in vs 32, if a goring bull is not restrained and it kills a slave he has to pay 35 shekels of silver.

it is apparent there is a difference status and value of one human life compared to another. and a difference in consequences.

debjm

[Nic Samojluk]

Has everyone seen this -- yet...?

Quote:

"The Catholic Church has persecuted...when she thinks it is good to use physical force she will use it...Will the Catholic Church give bond that she will not persecute?...The Catholic Church gives no bonds for her good behaviour." Western Watchman (Catholic Paper), December 24, 1908.

"You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you for the sake of 'the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty'...Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself." The Rambler (English Roman Catholic Journal), "Civil and Religious Liberty," September 8, 1851, p 174, 178.

"The archbishop of St. Louis said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as crimes....

"'Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretic, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'" Josiah Strong, in "Our Country," ch. 5, pars 2-4.

"Communists destroy churches because they are God's enemies; Catholic's destroy (non-Catholic) churches because they are God's friends...Against such men-founded churches...Catholics in Latin America should arise and wipe them out with fire." John J. Oberlander, in The Voice of Freedom, 1954, p. 20.

"When confronted with heresy, she (The Catholic Church) does not content herself with persuasion, arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture." H.M.A. Baudrillart, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, in "The Catholic Church, The Renassance, and Protestantism", p 182-183.

"I do declare from my heart, without mental reservation. That the Pope is Christ's vicar-general and is the true and only head of the Universal Church throughout the world, and that by virtue of the Keys of binding and loosing given to his Holiness by Jesus Christ, he has power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred Confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I will defend this doctrine and his Holiness' rights and customs against all usurpers of the Protestant authority whatsoever, especially against the now pretended authority of the Church of England and all adherents, in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the Sacred Mother, the Church of Rome.

"I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any Protestant king, prince, or state, or obedience to any of their inferior officers. I do further declare the doctrine of the Church of England, of the Calvinist, Huguenots, and other Protestants, to be damnable and those to be damned who will not forsake the same.

"I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise, all or any of his Holiness' agents, in any place wherever I shall be, and to do my utmost to extirpate the Protestant doctrine and to destroy all their pretended power, regal or otherwise." Oath Taken by a Catholic Priest, by John Lyons, ex-catholic priest in a tract circulated in Glenside, Pa. (To view the entire Oath of the Priest, click here.)

"If Catholics ever gain sufficient numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an end. So our enemies say; so we believe." Peter Richard Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, in "The Shepherd of the Valley" (a weekly journal published from 1850-1854).

"Cut off from the Body (Catholic Church) into which alone the graces of Christ flow, you are deprived of the benefit of all prayers, sacrifices, and Sacraments. You will gain nothing except perhaps to be tortured somewhat less horribly in the everlasting fire than Judas, or Luther, or Zwingli." St. Edmund Campion, LFS, p. 175-176, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 2: "The Book of Salvation", Chapter 2: "Salvation is Found Only in the Catholic Church").

"I do further promise and declare, that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do to extirpate and exterminate them ...Congressional Record of the U.S.A., House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pp. 3215-3216.

Bob, I asked you for evidence that the Catholic Church is persecuting and killing heretics today, and you give a list of verbal quotations going back to almost a century ago?

My point is that God treats organizations and individuals on the basis of their present behavior--not on the basis of what they did or may do in the future!

Almost a century ago Mrs. White warned us that we were in danger of becoming a "sister to Babylon." Can you imagine what she would say today knowing that we have compromised on the issue of the unborn's right to life, while at the same time Rome which killed innocent human beings in the past has now become the default defender of the unborn?

[BobRyan]

As it turns out the Catholic church has a stated policy that is more than 5 minutes old. The point of her own statement that she is infallible when she calls for the extermination of heretics is pretty hard to ignore.

The reason this came up was your insistence that we pretend that the RCC was claiming that her calls for extermination - were just a examples of mistakes of the past and she now repudiates that part of Canon Law. As it turns out your premise was mere fiction as Catholic sources themselves continue to point out.

The idea that God pays no attention to the actions of the little horn in the past - and asks us to pay no attention to what He says will be the actions they take in the future - is also pure fiction.

I am sure you can see how that is the case when stated that way. So no real news there.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

I really appreciate your response and reviewing my statements.

with very increase of sin there is an increase in the burden of the consequences and impact on the world.

But i am concerned there are groups saying that the Newtown shootings occurred because of God's punishments,

I have not been reading the posts that apparently you have been reading.

(So not sure how that subject goes on this thread.) But in the spirit of that idea - lets take a slightly different example where we do have an inspired source for comment.

The infants killed in Bethlehem at the time of Christ's being a baby in Bethlehem and also the death of the many infants, children etc in the flood.

Ellen White states in both cases that God had a plan to avoid the flood and to protect the babies of Bethlehem from slaughter but the people stopped him from putting it in place.

in Christ,

Bob

[Nic Samojluk]

debjm, you wrote:

"If someone caused a woman to lose her unborn child in the old testament, the punishment was not the same punishment as for murder."

The original Hebrew text can be interpreted in a different manner. Read the following rendering of the same text:

New International Version (©1984)

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life."

This Bible translation says that if there is a premature birth and there is serious injury, the penalty is life for life.

[BobRyan]

His judgements, falling on abortion and Gay marriage. we know the world is continuing to fall more and more under the control of evil, but we do not spout that all the troubles that come are God's punishments.

In Lev 18 God says He is the one that will wipe out entire nations if they engage in the activities you list above.

Is God "in error" in that case?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/2012/12/james-dobson-connecticut-shooting-was.html

this is the kind of thinking that leads to persecution. It is not to far a leap to those who will say...those people who are keeping the Sabbath are causing the judgements of God on the land lets get rid of them so the world will be saved.

there are people who have been murdering and supporting the murder of abortion doctors, and gay killers. I can see this increasing with this mentality.

It is hard to tell if you are speaking of the author of that post or of the people that author is unmercifully slamming.

The author in your link begins his tirade with this "James Dobson, founder of the cancer like Focus on the Family joined the chorus of haters..."

Everyone of us can attribute to "the other side" the sort of thinking that "flies planes into buildings". We can all make that accusation of the other side on these issues. It proves nothing more than a bias or preference in condemning some point of view. And it is "a leap", as you point out, that is not justified by the details of the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

If someone caused a woman to lose her unborn child in the old testament, the punishment was not the same punishment as for murder. The person who did the wrong was not required to run to a city of refuge to be safe from the avenging family.

a fetus does not have the same status as a born child.

[Nic Samojluk]

Bob, you wrote:

“I know of no statement from the Bible or Ellen White or the GC stating that abortion on demand is ok or that late term abortions are ok etc."

You may need to study this issue a little bit deeper. I did my doctoral dissertation on this topic and discovered a few things which are rather alarming.

When the State of Hawaii legalized abortion back in 1970 and the non-Adventist physicians at our Castle Memorial Hospitals demanded the right to provide elective abortions to their patients, this request was elevated to the office of Neal Wilson, the NAD president.

After serious considerations and consultation, he publicly announced the due to the hunger and overpopulation in the world, the Adventist Church was leaning toward abortion.

The net result was that our Adventist hospital in Hawaii was allowed to offer elective abortions to their patients. Soon at least five other Adventist hospitals followed their example.

Eventually, the church condemned elective abortions, but did nothing to stop our medical institutions from continuing to provide abortions on demand. In this, the church followed the example of Pilate who declared Jesus to be innocent of any crime, but allowed the killing of Jesus to take place.

It is true that our Guidelines on Abortion do not approve abortions on demand, but provide a long list of exemptions under which abortion is acceptable, including the mental health one.

All a pregnant woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy need to claim is that she is mentally depressed and cannot sleep, study, nor work, and bingo, another violation of the Sixth Commandment takes place.

What is Veith teaching about this? Can someone tell me? Doesn’t the Gospel include “the least of these”?

[Nic Samojluk]

I have written to the GC on this question and have been told from the GC president on down that they are against abortion.

Pilate was also against the killing of an innocent man, but did nothing to stop the murder of Jesus.

Thousands of innocent unborn babies have perished in our Adventist medical institutions. This issue was published by the Washington Post more than once.

[BobRyan]

I have never claimed infallibility for our administrators.

By contrast - the RCC has claimed infallibility -

[BobRyan]

When the State of Hawaii legalized abortion back in 1970 and the non-Adventist physicians at our Castle Memorial Hospitals demanded the right to provide elective abortions to their patients, this request was elevated to the office of Neal Wilson, the NAD president.

After serious considerations and consultation, he publicly announced the due to the hunger and overpopulation in the world, the Adventist Church was leaning toward abortion.

The net result was that our Adventist hospital in Hawaii was allowed to offer elective abortions to their patients. Soon at least five other Adventist hospitals followed their example.

Eventually, the church condemned elective abortions, but did nothing to stop our medical institutions from continuing

good proof that our medical institutions and our administrators are not infallible and a good thing that they do not claim to be.

in Christ,

Bob

[Nic Samojluk]

there are people who have been murdering and supporting the murder of abortion doctors,

Taking the law in our own hands is wrong. Nevertheless, how does the killing of four or five doctors performing abortions compare with the death of 55,000 innocent unborn babies?

[Nic Samojluk]

it does not use the word miscarry in this verse, it just says serious injury. If it had stated miscarriage it would be much clearer. if it was talking about miscarriage why wasn't the word there.

The NIV uses the expression "gives birth prematurely." This makes sense to me. A premature birth forces the mother to additional expense connected with the care of the baby born prematurely. A fine would take care of this. But if there is serious injury, then the ruling is "life for life."

22“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." [Ex. 21:22-25]

[Nic Samojluk]

The idea that God pays no attention to the actions of the little horn in the past - and asks us to pay no attention to what He says will be the actions they take in the future - is also pure fiction.

I would suggest that you consider what the Lord inspired Ezekiel to write in Chapter 18.

New International Version 1984

20The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

If God judges organizations strictly on the basis of past actions, then Rome should get also credit for the actions of the Christian Church when it was founded and remained pure for many centuries.

Would you like to be judged on the basis of what your ancestors did in the past or the sins of your grandchildren?

[thx4mercy]

How did this get from a discussion about Veith's talk in Germany to our church doing abortions?

[Gerr]

How did this get from a discussion about Veith's talk in Germany to our church doing abortions?

That's the only string in Nic's banjo.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The idea that God pays no attention to the actions of the little horn in the past - and asks us to pay no attention to what He says will be the actions they take in the future - is also pure fiction.

[color:#3333FF]I would suggest that you consider what the Lord inspired Ezekiel to write in Chapter 18.

New International Version 1984

20The soul who sins is the one who will die.

Interesting as that is - it does not delete Daniel 7 and 8 nor Daniel 11 nor Rev 12 and 13 nor 2Thess 2.

So given that the part of the Bible that warns us of the future actions of the Little Horn are still in the Bible - we still have to read those texts and warn the world about coming events.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Regarding Exodus 21:22

NASB Ex 21

22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

YLT - Young's Literal Translation

22 `And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;

23 and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Holman

22 “When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. 23 If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

NLT - New Living Translation

22 “Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,

NKJV

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

The NIV uses the expression "gives birth prematurely." This makes sense to me. A premature birth forces the mother to additional expense connected with the care of the baby born prematurely. A fine would take care of this. But if there is serious injury, then the ruling is "life for life."

22“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." [Ex. 21:22-25]

Indeed it is not just the NIV that picks up on this detail where the pregnant woman gives live birth and no injury at all being in the result.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

How did this get from a discussion about Veith's talk in Germany to our church doing abortions?

Ok - back to the original topic then.

Veith's sermon on Daniel 11 shows no sign at all of antisemitism unless you want to argue that his comment about the King of the North hearding the whole world into it's own false teaching on end time events - is anti-world-ism, or anti-humanity-ism. So why are German conference adminstrators up in arms? Is it possibly due to the fact that Dr Veith has views that promote a lot of quotes from Ellen White on topics that do not always agree with the administrator's views in Germany? Is this a chicken-vs-egg thing needing to be unraveled?

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Veith referred disparagingly to the yellow star worn by Jews during the Holocaust as a 'little yellow piece of cloth'.

In Germany.

[debbym]

someone saith something to the effect Veith was not a hardline pro lifer. I believe there is room for more then one view on this, without casting judgement on someone's theology.

there is a disagreement on the interpretation of exodus 21:22 and 23, that dates back to when the catholic church retranslated the old testament.

Jews always historically held that if you caused a women to have a miscarriage that was not equal to murder. for thousands of years they held this view. But when the Catholics took hold of these scriptures they stated that from conception the fertilized cell was was equal to a human life and this is to this day where the prolife perspective was reinforced.

this is a deep disagreement, and the source of much debate historically. Both sides holding to scripture, but the Catholic view was from bias inserted into scripture. Sunday keeping is not the only inheritance the Protestants have from Catholicism.

i am not saying abortion services should have no rules and limitations, just that i don't believe early abortion is murder.

the jews described the unborn as the woman's thigh, not equal to her life until it was over half way out of the birth canal enough to see that it was ready and able to breath. This allowed abortion to occur without it being murder, in order to save the mothers life. The unborn's life was not equal to hers. Her life was to be saved, and it was not murder to save her at the cost of her unborn.

this is Judaic, we do have a Judaic Christian faith.

i am sure there are SDA's that may have come from protestant or Catholic churches who feel strongly that any measure of abortion is murder, but i do think there is more then one point of view on this that is substantiated. I don't believe we will have single cell conceptions, or unborn in heaven, this would not make God a murderer.

deb