Archive for the ‘Religious Issues’ Category
You might be aware that during the month of August, the main topic of Pastor Randy Robert’s sermons at the Loma Linda University Church was the abundant life Jesus promised to his followers. An abundant life seems to have been the main purpose for Jesus’ earthly mission, because he declared:
“The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” [John 10:10]
Sometimes we think that this abundant life Jesus promised is for the future life with him following his Second Coming in the clouds of heaven in order to take us to his eternal home in heaven; nevertheless, it seems that this abundant life is meant to begin here and now.
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” [Mark 10:29-30]
How do we know that this abundant life begins here and now? Because Jesus told us that this eternal life is the result of our knowledge of Jesus Christ, and this knowledge begins the moment we believe.
“And this is the way to have eternal life–to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.” [John 17:3]
This is confirmed by the following statement made by the Lord following the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda:
“I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.” [John 5:24]
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
Human Life is Sacred.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has officially declared that human life is sacred and that it needs to be protected. Here are some statements taken from the SDA officially approved document entitled Guidelines on Abortion:
1) Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life. [1]
Quote:
2) Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God. [1]
Quote:
3) God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God’s creation and the object of His redeeming love. [1]
Quote:
5) God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction. [1]
Quote:
6) God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed. [1]
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
Bernard Brandstater
Loma Linda University
Part 1: WHERE WE ARE: predicament and potential
Christians in the Seventh-day Adventist tradition have long assumed the importance of Creation. But I want to go further and plead for its centrality in Church life and witness. Creation should be central because major aspects of our daily existence are connected to it: how we view the world and reality, what we teach, how we worship, our task as disciples and gospel-bearers, and how others perceive us. If we give to Creation the centrality it deserves, we could see an Adventism with renewed vision and energy.
In the past we have kept Creation teaching somewhat in the background because we have been nervous about it. Presenting it convincingly requires competence in theology, but especially in science. People so equipped are rare, and we are hesitant to confront brilliant Nobel prize-winning scientists with a story that opposes them, defiantly in their face. Our biblical story of beginnings is told using simple words that dismiss their intricately devised theories. We quote fantastic miracles and an other-worldly, all-powerful God. How medieval and naive it sounds! Have we not heard of the Enlightenment ?
Continued below.<strong> Click on “Comments” if needed and ignore all the “Nic Samojluk says remarks. I have no way of deleting them! The entire documents was authored by Bernard Brandstater.
“The situation at the La Sierra University Biology Department is reviewed, including material recommended by the Biology Department. A comparison is made with the situation at Battle Creek College, and Ellen White’s response to the situation. For reference, read 5T 21-36.” Paul Giem.
Watch the video recording of Dr. Paul Giem’s lecture about the similarity between the Battle Creek College and the current situation at La Sierra University where the theory of evolution is being taught as the only credible explanation for origins.
Read also the interesting debate it generated in the pages of the Educate Truth Internet forum. I am selecting some of the comments and posting them below, but you might be interested in reading the debate in its entirety. Nic Samojluk.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
I received the following comments from Dr. Sean Pitman:
“There are no publications by creationists or intelligent design theorists in mainstream literature specifically promoting the need for intelligent design to explain various features of living things… except for one. That one paper was published by Stephen Meyer, in 2004, in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The title of Meyer’s paper was, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” and can be reviewed here.
What is particularly interesting about Meyer’s paper, however, is the reaction to its publication by mainstream scientists. It wasn’t without passion, even anger, that’s for sure.
Dr. Richard Sternberg, the editor of the journal at the time, was subjected to harassment and discrimination in an effort to force him out as a Research Associate. In fact, NMNH officials demoted Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator.
As an aside, note that Stephen Meyer has a new book out, Signature in the Cell that is excellent – the best I’ve personally read on the topic. I highly recommend anyone who is interested in such ideas to read this book. –
Sean Pitman
For further information on this story see:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2399
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
“Aisha, 18, was dragged from her home by the Taliban after running away from her husband. Despite her pleas that her in-laws had been abusive, that they had treated her like a slave, that she had no choice but to escape, a Taliban commander said she must be punished, lest other girls in the village try to do the same thing.
Aisha’s family members carried out the punishment: her brother-in-law held her down while her husband sliced off her ears and nose, then left her to die. She is now hidden in a secret women’s shelter, where she was taken after receiving care from U.S. forces.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2007161_2170316,00.html#ixzz0wFWdUPJP
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2007161_2170316,00.html#ixzz0wAnzLAjW
“There have always been mad-men, but the 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history. Why? What changed? Why did the world suddenly find itself murdering millions of innocent people?
Is it possible that one specific idea influenced or provided a justification for the atrocities we know as Nazi Germany, the eugenics movement and abortion?
Is it possible that idea was Darwinian evolution?
Charles Darwin loved his wife and children. He paid his taxes and he never kicked his dog. But Charles Darwin had a big idea, and ideas have consequences.
Can we thank the advocates of natural selection for the deaths of millions of people? Or were their ideas twisted and misapplied? Dr. John West, Dr. Richard Weikart and Dr. David Berlinski present the evidence that seeks to resolve the question,
“What hath Darwin wrought?”
This 2-DVD set features the full television presentation and over ninety minutes of bonus features. …”
Read More:
https://store.afa.net/pc-10000578-65-what-hath-darwin-wrought-dvd.aspx
“I gather from what I hear and read that some Seventh-day Adventists might be uncomfortable with panentheism, the idea that “everything is ’in’ God and that “God is ‘in’ everything.
This would be unfortunate because on at least one occasion even the Apostle Paul pictured God along these lines. Quoting one of their own poets to some of the philosophers in ancient Athens, he referred to God as the One “in whom we live and move and have our being.” [Acts 17:28. NRSV]
It is true that the word “panentheism” is an umbrella term which covers a wide range of concepts and practices and all those who have checked the Internet know that some of them are silly and superstitious. Yet this is not the case in serious Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology today.
In these contexts, the word refers to attempts to think through a conceptual alternative to identifying God and the universe too closely (pantheism), on the one hand, or separating them too thoroughly (deism), on the other. This try for a third option is what panentheism is all about and we should focus on it instead of getting stuck on spatial metaphors like “in,” “out,” “up” or ‘”down.”
Also, figures of speech, such as the universe as God’s “body,” or God as the “Mind” or “Womb” of the universe, help some and hinder others and we should use or not use them accordingly. Again, the purpose of panentheism is to find a path between opposite and erroneous extremes.
Although I don’t agree with everything every panentheist says [Nobody does!], some of its recurring themes strike me as especially congruent with Seventh-day Adventist thought. Here are six of them:
1. Panentheism rejects pantheism.
2. Panentheism rejects deism.
3. Panentheism rejects contra-naturalism.
4. Panentheism rejects body/soul dualism.
5. Panentheism rejects determinism.
6. Panentheism rejects radical individualism.
“What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?
Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?
Would you be justified in doing so?
Is it time for Americans to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?
There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.
His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
“A California school district has decided in a 5-0 vote to adopt a Bible course that will be available to students in the upcoming school year.
Beginning this fall, high school seniors of the Chino Valley School District will have the chance to enroll in a new course called “Bible as/in Literature and History.”
Envisioned by the board’s Vice President James Na, the class will focus on giving students an understanding of the Bible’s influence in history, literature, religion and politics. It will offer a survey of the Bible, beginning with the historical context of the Old Testament, and then will focus on the New Testament later in the semester. It will also provide students with a historical knowledge of the Middle East.
Students may take the course as an elective, fulfilling the general requirement for admission into California State University and the University of California.
Fred Youngblood, president of the Board of Education, believes the course will better equip students in life, and he hopes other school districts will offer a similar class.
“It is my belief that better understanding the Bible will help all students with their decision-making process,” he explains.
The class stems from parents in the district who showed an interest in having the Bible taught in the public school system. The committee considered the comments and began to research how the district could meet the request.
The Chino Valley Board of Education must make sure that the course will adhere to the state education code and to California state laws, so it will remain neutral in its religious teachings and will portray the Bible as a monumental piece of literature.
Youngblood is in the process of securing a textbook that will provide the basis of the course’s curriculum.
“The preface of the textbook…states, ‘The Bible has been and still is one of the most influential books ever published. Its influence is seen in literature, art, music, culture, public policy and public debate,’” the board president reports. …”
More:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1075884
“In his first major initiative since becoming president, Wilson urged delegates to endorse a response to the 2004 Annual Council affirmation “that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature.”
Wilson also appealed to delegates to allow the General Conference to initiate a process to integrate the 2004 affirmation with the church’s current fundamental belief no. 6. This states that in “six days the Lord made ‘the heaven and the earth’ and all living things upon the earth and rested on the seventh day.” But the leadership now thinks it is too ambiguous on biblical origins.
The president said: “It is absolutely critical that we accept Scripture as it reads. Personally, and I know in the Seventh-day Adventist Church we believe, that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not allegorical, not symbolic in some abstract way, but they represent an authentic, a true literal explanation of how God created this earth and also those events following creation, including a global flood of massive proportions.
Holding up a Bible he added: “We are facing a critical time. The devil is trying his best to undermine the very foundations of our beliefs that are derived from this Word.”
A succession of the denomination’s leading figures followed Wilson’s lead. Vice presidents Ella Simmons and Artur Stele, Ellen White Estate associate director Cindy Tutsch, and Adventist Review editor Bill Knott, all spoke strongly in favor of rewriting fundamental belief six.
Even Dan Jackson, newly elected president of the North American Division, who raised hopes in a press conference two days ago of a more tolerant approach to La Sierra University, which has been under fire for allegedly teaching evolution in science classes, said he was in “full agreement” with the change.
Ben Clausen of the Geoscience Research Institute said that Ted Wilson’s statement put science teachers in Adventist schools in an untenable position. Quoting from the statement, Dr. Clausen said that “it is impossible,” to teach students “scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation.”
He added: “There are no available models.”
With very little time set aside for debate and only a few delegates publicly opposing any modification of the church’s current statement on creation, the proposals easily cleared the floor
The process will now begin to rewrite fundamental belief 6, according to the protocol established at the last General Conference session for amending the church’s statement of fundamental beliefs. This requires that any such revision should be lodged with the General Conference at least two years before the following session.
Geraty was also responsible for drafting the original fundamental belief 6 when he taught at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary thirty years ago. He adds:
“I fear that the proposal will result in a more literalistic interpretation that will serve to exclude members who love the church, believe in the authority of the Bible, but interpret it in harmony with accepted standards of interpretation for God’s revelation in both nature and Scripture.” …”
Read More:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/06/30/creation_devolves_politics
“Established in 1874, Battle Creek College had undergone some challenges in its leadership. In 1881, a new president was installed who was new to the Adventist church. A greater emphasis was placed on the study of both the classics and the sciences to the detriment of Biblical instruction.
During the summer of 1881, Ellen White wrote a testimony regarding the College to be publicly read at the Michigan Conference camp-meeting. Instead, the testimony was read at the even more public venue of the General Conference session in December of that year. Relevant portions of that testimony can be read at my earlier posted quote. (The full message can be found at Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 21-36.)
A main concern of Ellen White was the emphasis on the sciences at the expense of the Bible. She showed a special interest in maintaining a clear teaching on creation. “In God’s word alone,” she asserted, “we find an authentic account of creation” (5 Test., 25). She displayed a willingness to both publicly rebuke the leadership of the college and to warn church members of the problems at the College. “We can give,” she memorably warned, “no encouragement to parents to send their children to Battle Creek College” (5 Test., 21). She proposed that if the College was not returned to the Biblical-centered model, that the church should “sell it out to worldlings” and “establish another school” upon the “plan which God has specified” (5 Test., 25-26).
In light of the problems and the publicity regarding them, the College closed the following year. It was re-opened, however, on firmer scriptural foundations the following year. It flourished for a couple of decades, until once again it encountered problems with the handling of science in relation to the Bible. …”
More:
http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2010/06/our-college-today-.html
“A critic of Islam is pleased that two Muslims in Canada will spend 25 years in prison for murdering a relative in an alleged “honor killing.”
According to The Globe and Mail, 60-year-old Muhammad Parvez and his 29-year-old son Waqas Parvez recently plead guilty to second-degree murder for the December 10, 2007, slaying of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez.
The paper said the teenager fought her parents for the right to wear Western clothing and to jettison the “hijab” (Islamic head covering) they wanted her to wear. Asqa wanted to apply for a part-time job against her father Muhammad’s wishes and she ran away from home twice, after which her father vowed he would kill her he ever ran away again.
While agreeing with the sentences imposed, Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, says more needs to be done.
Robert Spencer”It’s a good thing that Aqsa Parvez’s father was convicted and will serve, along with her brother, a life sentence,” he remarks. “But it’s not enough because it is something that’s going to continue in Muslim communities in the United States and Canada until we confront the root of the problem.”
And the root of the problem, he says, is Islamic sharia law, which condones such honor killings. “This is something that the American press has gravely omitted in its coverage of such events in the United States and in Canada and elsewhere in the West,” says the Jihad Watch director. “But the unpleasant reality is that many Muslim countries — notably Syria and Jordan — actually have it on their books.” …”
More:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1059526
Dear Brother Wilson,
I was thrilled when I heard you speak about “revival and reformation” in the first sermon you preached as our new president and I realized that we need to pray more fervently than ever before for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon each member of our church and especially upon the new leaders of this great movement the Lord has blest so much in the past.
You made specific reference to a few areas where reformation is needed. One of them is regarding a new emphasis on the most cherished doctrine of the Christian Church, the doctrine of creation. This sacred belief runs like a golden thread from Genesis through the last book of the Bible. If we compromise on this, the most fundamental belief of Christianity, our church will loose its reason for its existence.
Continued below. Click on {Comments” if needed.
The Question
After a long protracted debate with a young man I greatly admire for his keen intelligence and his unswerving loyalty to the Genesis account of Creation, I wondered: Can the elect become the victims of deception? You may wonder why would such a question pop into my mind when dealing with someone apparently so loyal to the Bible story of origins.
The reason is rather simple. The topic we had debated was not the origin of heaven and earth and life on earth, but rather the origin of human life inside the womb. I hold to the belief that human life is sacred from the moment of its inception, while he defended with deep conviction the notion that until the unborn baby–fetus if you prefer since fetus is the Latin word for baby–develops a cerebral cortex, you actually do not have a human being, but rather nothing that can be morally differentiated from a human appendix.
When pressed for a point in time when taking the life of the unborn would be morally wrong, he pointed to twenty weeks after conception, because that is the time science can verify the development of the human brain cortex, which will eventually distinguish the unborn as a member of the human race. It became a no win-situation, for which reason, since both of us are Seventh-day Adventists Christians who pride to be members of the elect of God, I wondered whether either I or him could be deceived into adopting an erroneous moral position regarding the sanctity of human life.
So the question is: Can Christians who were referred by Jesus as the “elect” be candidates for deception? This question is especially important for Adventists, because we have been claiming to be the “Remnant of God” with the “last message for a perishing world.” Jesus did state that before his Second Coming false prophets will deceive, “if possible” even the elect, but he did not say whether this is feasible or not. [Matthew 24:24]
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.