Looks like there's nowhere else for evolutionists who believe in the Sabbath and death-sleep to go but the Adventist church (1% of 1%). So, Cliff, are they now welcome? (I know, you'll argue that the Sabbath and state-of-the-dead doctrines have no meaning if not rooted in Gen. 1 & 2, but the fact remains, Adventist evolutionists exist, regardless how difficult you find that to understand).

They exist but if they had a modium of rational thought they would know that they don't belong in this church. There are plenty of others for them but Adventism isn't one. They ought to become Unitarians, or join the some atheist group because, in the end, that's what evolution really is: atheism. Or as EGW says, it's "disguised infidelity." Clifford Goldstein

Perhaps. Maybe it will come to that. But how does one explain the existence of evolutionist non-atheist Christians in many other denominations? Are they all disguised atheists too? That would be news to people like Francis Collins.

I think rational thought pervades the scientific process more than much of religion. It is impossible to "rationally" reconcile ice core data with a 6000 year span of life on earth or to reconcile present scientific understanding of volcanism with EGW's explanations of its mechanism unless one defines "rational" to mean ignoring data from all the senses and instruments that extend those senses and relying entirely on a particular traditional method of interpreting a book assembled in the prescientific world. If these interpretations are required to remain SDA, then one could argue that there isn't a modium of rational thought among traditiional Adventists either.

So maybe the problem isn't that one approach is more rational than the other. The problem is that there it is a contradiction between a literalist biblical interpretation and science, and one can therefore choose either to be biblical literalist/non-scientist, or non-literalist/scientist. Either position is "irrational" as you put it, though maybe incoherent would be better. Other options include biblical non-literalist/non-scientist (logically consistent but useless), but not literalist/scientist. Therefore, regardless of which path one chooses within an SDA context, there will be cognitive dissonance until/unless the Adventist church adjusts to match the realities revealed by science (not unlike the Catholic church did with Galileo and Copernicus long ago). That may never happen, but the irrationality will persist until it does--on both sides. Perhaps an analogous response to encouraging scientists to leave the SDA church because of contradiction between belief and practice would be for scientists to urge literalists to leave the scientific and technological world (maybe join the Amish)?

If the SDA church was dogmatically literalist, I think all scientists would indeed have to leave because the contradictions would become too strong. I probably would have had to do that had the church adopted the Denver statement on creation as official church doctrine (one of the 28) and made it a test of fellowship. But they haven't (yet), and we still don't hold to verbal inspiration. So until that point, I think it is still "rational" to stay even though there are contradictions.

Since I don't think we can resolve the contradiction either way anytime soon, why not encourage irrational literalist/non-scientists and non-literalist/scientists to talk to each other within a church communion when they share many beliefs/practices/history? Maybe the focus would become more centered on Christ in history (vs. creation in history) and on the current workings of God in the world. I think that if there is such a thing as a personal God who intervenes in lives and history, it should be possible to experience and share that independent of early earth history. Is your experience so dead or hidden than it can only be supported by reference to a book? If God is working amongst us, shouldn't we be able to see it? Isn't this what EGW referred to as "experimental religion" or the "science of religion"? This ties in with the parallel blog on why no miracles in first world countries by Taylor, and perhaps explains the rapid growth amont Pentacostals. Can we have a "rational" faith and still experience God today in tangible ways? We're a long way from the book of Acts.

Some of what you say makes sense, but at the same time, folks don't always realize the implications of what they believe. Humans have a great capacity to decieve themselves. At the same time, what about those who believe in evolution who teach in our schools? Isn't that morally wrong? Shouldn't they have the moral integrity to leave and go somewhere else? Clifford

That is funny, Cliff starts out saying there is no place for Adventists to go if they hold to some key doctrines, if my math is right our choice is stay in the Adventist church or find that elusive .01% to go to. Then in the comments section he wants Adventists to leave if they accept theistic evolution. It may just be me but the message seems contradictory. Maybe an article by Cliff telling us what we can disagree with in the Adventist church would be more helpful than proclaiming that we have no place to go. Then again what good would it do for Cliff to tell us what we must agree with and where we must go if we disagree with Cliff...Cliff is not the Adventist church for which I think all the universe both in earth and in heaven may rejoice.

I'm not saying, Ron, that they have to agree with me. That's a typical distortion. Simple honesty and logic would seem, IMHO, to say that if you believe in a teaching that, at its core, is completely antithetical to the basic beliefs of a group--and NOTHING is more antithetical to Adventism, to Christianity, really, than evolution-- then you ought to go somewhere else. I will never, never change my position that if you believe in evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution or the like, you do not belong in the SDA church. Period. If you can't see that, then you're decieving yourself. Believing in evolution and keeping the Sabbath! What a joke. It would be like King George III celebrating the fourth of July, or Yassir Arafat celebrating Israel's Independence Day. But, again, as I have said a million times: what boggles my mind is the question WHY, Why would someone who beleives in evolution even want to be in this church? Becuase they believe in the Sabbath? Give me a break. Clifford

Cliff wrote:

"I'm not saying, Ron, that they have to agree with me. That's a typical distortion."

I never said that you were saying that we had to agree with you, in fact I expressed my joy that you are not the Adventist church so that we don't have to agree with you. So what you call a typical distortion was not even present in my comment. Now lets assume for the moment that a person believes in evolution of the non theistic kind. Do you not think that there could be some benefit to a sabbath day's rest in their lives?

It always seems funny to me to hear people like Cliff express their contempt for evolution yet they don't believe that animals were created with those ripping and tearing teeth, that predator and prey web of life. It is OK for God to make those evolutionary changes but the idea that evolution beginning from simple forms to more complex forms under the guidance of God is just too much to believe. Both would be God's creation, both would be systems established by God. The question is what makes the most sense with the evidence around us. The idea that there was once a perfect world of which we can't even imagine, of which God expelled humans from for one violation prompted by a talking snake and then cursed the entire earth, humans and animals and plants seems less likely then a world where God established life through a process of growth and development until humans developed the capability to communicate with God just seems more reasonable.

The other day I was playing tennis and watched a hawk capture a small animal and fly away. Anyway you look at it if you are a deist that is something that God had a hand in. If there was indeed once a perfect world why not keep the perfection in the world, let man have his consequences from sin, why inflict it upon the small animals, why should they have to deal with the terror of being picked up and carried away from everything they have known only to be torn apart by the hawk. How much more we would have learned seeing the way animals responded without fear from other animals. What a marvelous opportunity to see what God had really intended for us all. No that is not the world we see, in fact in our Bible stories we see God so upset at wickedness that he wipes out all living creatures not in Noah's ark.

So the question we have to ask is are these stories reasonable or our they methods ancient people used to inspire a conception of God, primitive true but introducing the idea that God could be more then a local deity who we have to pay homage to. The beginnings of a great new understanding of man and God...unless we become stuck in the primitive mindset by making the stories into literal history to which God must be tied and restricted to, what today would be viewed by most intelligent people as unreasonable and backward. Do we grow in our understanding as we grow in our other human areas of knowledge or is our faith placed not in God but in the ancient assumptions and stories as if they were God. This is not merely a struggle about Adventist doctrines but about how we understand ourselves and our God. If the answer is to force those people out of the church then it is likely on the wrong path, a path similar to the Roman Catholic church took during the reformation. The path of least resistance usually goes downhill.

Ron-- I don't have the answers to some of your questions; I don't know if any of us do. but that's hardly proves my posiion is wrong. I don't have answers to questions about a lot of things, secular or sacred, that I believe. I'm trying simply to get people to be honest about the logical consequences of their beliefs. If you are so sure our basic view of the Bible is wrong, and that the "primitive mindset" of the Bible is "unreasonable and backward," then why are you a member of a church which accepts the "primitive mindset" of the Bible as gospel truth? Have some integrity: go join a community of faith that reflects your views, instead of trying to tear down the views that our community of faith holds, and holds dearly. I guess it's because I didn't become an SDA until I was 24 that I don't have this kind of attachment to the community, in the sense that I would stay in the community even if I held beliefs that were so bascially contradictory to that community. It's the beliefs, and the beliefs alone, that keep me in this church. If convinced of evolution, for instance, I'd have no choice but to leave. In good conscience, I could never stay here; and to take a paycheck . . . ? I find the lack of moral integrity astounding, and depressing, to be honest.

Cliff wrote:

If you are so sure our basic view of the Bible is wrong, and that the "primitive mindset" of the Bible is "unreasonable and backward," then why are you a member of a church which accepts the "primitive mindset" of the Bible as gospel truth?

You have placed two things together there that are not the same. Your basic view of the Bible is wrong, that is pretty clear. That does not however mean that all the Bible is unreasonable and backwards, only sections are. The Bible as a progressive work also goes on to correct some of the earlier primitive mindsets. That is why Job deals with why bad things happen even to good people, why Jesus did the same thing correcting the view that if you were righteous then you would be healthy and wealthy. In an article you wrote about the test of adultery preformed in Numbers 5, I think you are in the minority who don't think that was a primitive and backward mindset.

The interesting thing also is that the Adventist church is not really made up of those who accept the primitive mindset, true there are many that do, the people who collect their pay from the denomination and who never talk about their beliefs or those who are paid by the denomination to defend it's beliefs (I guess if you can hire a lawyer to defend you the church can hire apologists to defend it, both probably on the same level of respect). Does that make the church right because they hire people to defend and support them, or is that simply how bureaucracy's work? Is supporting a bureaucracy the high calling of a Christian, again shades of middle ages Roman Catholicism there. Yet there are others in the Adventist church who don't tow the line but seek to raise the standards, the standards of reasoning and textual criticism in ways that make God respectable. Now I know there are people who trust God no matter how they view Him. There are those who rejoice at the God who hates sin so much that He will torture people for eternity. It is right for God to do that because that is what God does and God does only what is right. Adventism rejected that because what they said was right is unreasonable, it is a poor representation of love and of God. They have wonderful verses they can use to demonstrate that that is what God will do. They have a method of interpretation that makes it easy to hold to the literal view of the texts they use. Just as you do with what appears to be an equally symbolic story (garden of Eden), but you would say it is not symbolic, and they will say their texts are not symbolic. We end up with only having our reasoning abilities to tell us which method to use.

So the Adventist church helped teach us to think and now when lay Adventists and Adventists College Professors do apply their reasoning abilities the traditional Adventists say "stop that, this is what we believe accept it or leave". So it is understandable that for many of us integrity means applying reasoning and knowledge even above the support of a bureaucratic church organization. Because really in the search for truth just because you have a denomination does not mean you have the truth. And just because we offer other methods of interpretation does not mean we are tearing down the denomination. It could tear down, it could build up or it could do nothing. We have yet to see the result, fundamentalism and it's fear of change is probably not the best course of action however.

Well, we have a whole lot of examples of other denomination in which the so called "progressives" got control, and look where those churches are today. Many of them are debating over whether the resurrection of Jesus was literal, or just a symbol of something else. Kind of like what the wacko left does to Genesis. We're holding the the line against that kind of compromise and apostasy, and if in so doing we are called anti reasonable and the like--who cares? I certainly don't.

Ella M Cliff, The biggest problem with evolution is not the Sabbath issue as you imply. I fail to see what difference it would make since Sabbath represents not only God's creation (ID) by whatever means, but it represents the rest that is in Jesus. The problem is tthe long time period that death reigned before a "fall." Can anyone rationalize that away? I don't understand the various evidences for evolution but I also don't understand how one could come back from the dead after three days. Both are very "unscientific" in the world as we know it. It would seem difficult to accept one and not the other. I am not sure that the Bible stories aren't often symbolic. I know they are at least parallel as the OT stories are used as metaphor for things in the NT. Since Jesus used a legend in the Richman and Lazarus story, I don't think fiction is out of the question. Truth in a story is not always the literal portrayal, but it is still Truth in what it means. It doesn't necessarily mean things happened as described (they were handed down for centuries) but their principle is Truth. They stand for a larger Truth. The Creation story while picked up and distorted by so many other cultures I believe was taken from an original event but why would we expect it to be expressed in our contemporary terminolgy when it was addressed to primitive peoples? The world at that time was obviously only the area where these people lived, and they had no idea what lay beyond. Thus a worldwide flood isn't necessary, but yet it may have happened. Maybe Lucifer had his own creation somewhere else, maybe..., maybe... What difference does it make? I think the most important thing is to show people that God created and His son was sent to save us. Only those who want all the answers would be dogmatic about it. (At times I really want these answers too!) By the way, Cliff, for someone with such intelligence you have a limited vocabulary when it comes to your opposition. I don't know how many times I have heard you say "wacko" and similar put-downs Just like Dawkins who embarrasses himself with them as if he would jail us to keep us quiet if he could. Or maybe it is just part of a game!

Ella M-- I guess just some of the views presented are so way out there that I can't think of a better term to describe them. I just get stunned at times of the things that folks who call themselves Adventists profess. Hard to understand why they bother being SDAs, that's all. Cliff

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

There are many other options, and many Seventh-day Adventists have seriously considered them, and some have opted to leave the church. Nevertheless, I agree with you, Cliff, that there are no other reasonable options for someone who believes in the Second Coming, the original sin and redemption through Christ, the state of the dead, the non-existence of an ever-burning hell, the direct access to the throne of grace for the forgiveness of sins, and the holyness of the true Sabbath.

Personally, I share with many Adventists the belief that Genesis 1 and 2 were written not to provide us with a scientific account of creation, but rather as a testament to the fact that God is the Creator of everything that exists. It represents a defense of monotheism in an age when most pagan religions worshipped the sun, the moon, and many other things the Lord had created.

I am convinced that the notion that God created this world--not the entire universe-- in six literal days is the most logical conclusion, but my faith in this conviction might differ from yours. As I read the first two chapters of Genesis, I discover that there is no evidence that Moses received the story of creation directly as a result of a revelatory experience. Had this been the case, common sense tells me that he would have made such a claim. There is nothing of that sort in Genesis 1 and 2.

Contrast this with everything else Moses wrote, as recorded in the Pentateuch. He went overboard each time to document the fact that the information he was giving his readers was the express result of a revelatory experience. If the creation story is not the result of a visionary experience, then we have the following alternative: Sacred oral or written tradition. I believe that Adam and Eve took great pains to share with their numerous descendants the story of creation he received directly from God, and someone, most likely Moses, decided to record for posterity this valuable information.

The theory of evolution does not represent for me a reasonable option for Adventists. If Jesus could bring Lazarus back to life in the time it takes to say: "Lazarus, come forth," and if Jesus will bring back to life millions of his children in the time it takes to sound the Last Trumpet; then it makes no sense for me to believe that the Lord took millions of years to create a single pair of human beings. This would be a clumsy way of doing this by the Author of all Life.

Then take the case of the origin of sin and suffering. If Darwin's explanation for the origin of life is correct, then we must conclude that suffering and death did exist for millions of years before the appearance of Homo Sapiens. Such a theory truncates the plan of salvation. There is nothing to save humanity from. The origin of sin and the story of God's plan for the salvation of sinners runs like a golden thread from Genesis through Revelation. Denying this is tantamount to destroying the most fundamental dogma of Christianity.

I cannot fathom how an Adventist can believe at the same time in the Bible and the theory of evolution. It is true that there is some scientific evidence suggesting that we might have had a Common Ancestor; nevertheless, this is more reasonably explained by the alternative theory that what we have is in fact a Common Designer. The fossil record tells me that the theory of evolution cannot account for the Cambrian explosion, and the geologic layers visible in the Grand Canyon. They point to catastrophism instead of uniformitarianism. There is hardly any erosion between those layers. Evolutionists have no reasonable explanations for this.

The carbon 14 method of determining the age of fossils is rather unreliable if we accept the effects of catastrophism. The ice core dating is unreliable as well. It is based on seasonal changes, and we have no clue what kind of seasons existed before the flood. In Argentina, in the middle of every winter there is what people call, "el veranito de San Juan," the little Saint John summer. The moment you alter the normal sequence of summer and winter, the ice and also the tree rings dating techniques get out of whack.

For these reasons, and many more, I conclude that in spite of the options Adventists have if they are unhappy with Adventism, none of them are sufficiently attractive to tempt me to leave the church. I tried this. Some years ago, for three months, I did attend the Seventh-day Baptist Church located in Riverside, California. Common sense led me back to my mother's church. Of course, this is another story which I intend to share with you in my next posting.

Nic-

 

I agree wholeheartedly that "The theory of evolution does not represent for me a reasonable option for Adventists. "  You made some interesting points too.  I've been trying to say this for years now, how ridiculous the idea is that someone could be an Adventist and an evolutionist at the same time.  But, as I am learning, the human capacity for self-deception is amazing.

 

Cliff 

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

Cliff, in my previous posting I described some of the reasons I find no better alternative than to remain as a member of the Adventist community. I want to explore this decision of mine a little bit further. In your case, you are a first generation Adventist; while I am a second generation. Back in the 1920's, a German SDA evangelist held some meetings in a small town in Ukraine, and my parents joined the church. An uncle of mine on my father's side did not. My dad quit drinking and smoking, while my uncle continued to enjoy his addiction so much that he died childless at a relative young age.

My parents had three children, eleven grand children, and many more great granchildren. Many of them are currently employed by the SDA church. What I am trying to say is that my parents and their children have many valid reasons for being grateful to the church for what it has done for us. Joining the SDA Church has been a great blessing for my parents and their progeny. I had the privilege of working for the church for a good number of years; my brother worked his entire life for the denomination; and my sister, who was never a paid employee of the denomination, started a church in her own home, which grew so much that they had to build a church to accomodate the increasing number of new members.

In spite of this, a couple of years ago, I almost left the SDA church for good. You may wonder why. This is why the title of your blog caught my attention: "No Other Options." Something happened a few decades ago which caused a serious turmoil in my spiritual life, and I asked myself the probing question: "Where can I go?" Since I strongly believe in the permanence of the Ten Commandments and the Sacredness of the Holy Sabbath of rest, my options were rather limited. Joining the Jewish Synagogue was out of the question. For three months, I attended the Seventh-day Baptist Church in the city of Riverside, California.

You might be wondering what might have taken place to tempt me to leave the Adventist community. The reason was my strong conviction that the Ten Commandments are sacred and that none of them should be sacrificed for the sake of profit. I was working on my doctoral dissertation; I had chosen the topic of abortion and my SDA Church attitude towards the killing of the unborn. I discovered that our SDA pioneers had condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest terms; while my churh had decided to compromise on this issue for the sake of profit.

It happened in Hawaii. The state had legalized the killing of the unborn, and half of the hospital staff who were non-adventists, threatened to take their patients elsewhere if the administration refused to allow them to offer abortion services to their clients. The then president of the North American Division of our church declared that the church was leaning towards abortion because there was "too much hunger and overpopulation in the world."

A few years later, other SDA owned hospitals followed the lead, and started offering elective abortion to their clients. Then the church issued the official "Guidelines on Abortion," which justify the killing of the unborn in case of rape, incest, malformation, if the pregnant female is a minor, and even if the pregnancy affects the mental health of the pregnant woman. Well, this pushed the door wide open for almost all kinds of abortions with the blessing of the "Remnant Church of God" which "keeps" [?] "God's Commandments."

Several SDA members of the church in good standing decided it was time to leave. The church had compromised on the sacredness of one of the Ten Commandments. I almost did the same. After three months with the Seventh-day Baptist Church, I discovered that their attitude towards abortion was as liberal as ours. This left me no option but to return to the church I had loved all my life, and to which I owe so much.

You are right, for someone who respects the sanctity of the Sabbath, there is no reasonable option. So here I am, trying to share my predicament with other members of the SDA Church. In the event you might be interested in checking the results of my doctoral dissertation, here is the Internet link to it: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html .

In your blog, you stated: "If you can't compromise on the Sabbath, then you have wiped out 99 per cent of your options." I say, How true!

You also state: "Almost whole Protestant world (not to mention Catholics) can't even get the Ten Commandments right." I say, we do get them right, but openly and officially justify the breaking of one of them. How sad!

A few years ago, the German and Austrian leaders of the SDA Church issued a public apology for our church's cooperation with the Nazi regine while the genocide of the Jews was taking place. Now another genocide is taking place, and we are making the same mistake. How tragic!

Nic--

I appreciate your post, and your concern.  I too am dismayed that our chuch has taken this position on abortion.  Just remember, though, that our hospitals are quasi-indepenedent. This doesn't justify it, of course, but does help add a bit of perspective.  Id' like to think there's some restrictions on the practice at our hospitals but then, again, I'm probably deluding myself.

As as Jew though, I'm not quite enamored with your analogy of the Holocaust with abortion.  If you really believed that, why aren't you out there shooting abortion doctors and bombing hospitals?  I certainly would have had no qualms about killing the Nazis who were perpetrating the Holocaust, and because abortion is the moral equivalent, I don't understand the ambivalence of those who rail against it as such but don't take their rhetoric to the logical conclusion.

 Anyway, brother, I didn't want to get into a debate about abortion (I do find it hilarous, though, that the same Adventist lefties who wail and wail about women's ordination and the rights of women don't have much say about the rights of the unborn; just a funny thought)

 Again, Nic, I appreciate your concerns.  In the end, we have to be honest with ourselves and do what we believe the Lord would have us do.  But I do appreciate your conundrum.  I mean, where do you go?  I couldn't be anything other than an Adventist, not with the things I've had happen to me and with the things I have learned.  I'm first generation; an adult convert, thus I see things differently.   

 

 

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

Cliff, Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that our medical institutions are "quasi-independent." In fact, they are free to implement the church's official "Guidelines on Abortion" or even modify them to suit their particular understanding of what is right and proper under the circumstances. What I don't understand is how the church had the audacity to make the Sixth Commandment of no effect by issuing guidelines that make the killing of the unborn morally justifiable almost in every circumstance.

For the "Remnant of God" which keeps [?] God's Commandments, this is anathema in my book! In this, the church of Rome, which we have traditionally labelled as the "Beast" of Revelation, has been setting for us an example of fidelity to the sacred Decalogue, which was for our pioneers a battle cry and a sancta sanctorum of our teachings. Catholic operated hospitals routinely refuse to perform abortions. They do not need any "guidelines" since they are firmly determined not to stain their hands with the blood of the innocents.

You argue that the genocide analogy is improper, since if I really believe it I would be shooting abortion doctors. This has been tried. Was anything accomplished as a result of such action? Did not Jesus say that a wise king, before going to war, considers his chances of success? Did not President Lincoln count the cost and his chances of winning the Civil War when he determined to free the slaves? And we are talking about human beings who were not being slauthered en mass. He merele felt it was time to free them from servitude. Some slaves were being killed, no doubt, but not 50 million like we have in the case of abortion.

I understand that you prefer not to discuss this subject. Nobody likes to rock the boat! Well, do you realize that we are repeating history? Like I stated before, the German and Austrian SDA leaders had to apologize for the SDA cooperation with Hitler when he was actively engaged in the genocide of six million innocent Jews. The Adventist Church preferred not to rock the boat. Somebody had to, but nobody dared to. The same mistake is being repeated today, and no Adventist wants to raise the alarm. Are we a prophetic movement? If we are, we need to do what prophets did, and many of them paid with their lives for their courage. False prophets are described in the Bible as dogs who won't bark. Their mission is to bark, but they have lost the ability to perform the purpose they were created for.

Nic, Most of us are avoiding confrontation with you over the abortion issue. I really am more or less indifferent to it....no dog in the fight. Just briefly, because I am not interested in the subject, I will say that you are completely confused and mistaken. I don't believe that God called you to leave the mission field to agitate this issue among Adventists. I reject the "sanctity of life." apologetic. The only life that is sacred or sanctified is the one connected by faith to Christ. Few of those "conception products"are shielded by the faith of their parents. Both Scripture and EGW indicate that there are some who would be better off not being born. Bigots judge people based on their abortion views rather than by their faith in Christ, which is the Biblical standard.

While abortion is a rather extreme form of birth control, it is better than unleashing a host of mean tempered, unwanted and unloved babies on a society already reeling from the impact of evildoers whose parents were incompetent and shouldn't have had children.

Smoke that.

Cliff, if you think this is not the right place for a post like this, feel free to delete it.

Hansen, Hansen, Hansen . . . .   Have a little mercy, my brother.

 Besides, am I to read you saying that the only life that is sacred is a life in Christ?  Where in the world did you get that from?   So my Jewish parents, who aren't (as far as I can tell) in the Lord, at all, have lives that can be snuffed out because those lives aren't sacred?

 Say it ain't so, brother, say it ain't so.  

Cliff 

 

Cliff, My thoughts have been shaped by a simple reading of the OT. Why would HaShem allow the flood to wipe out the inhabitants of the earth if their lives were "sacred?" Why was Israel instructed to slaughter, slaughter, slaughter, on numerous occasions, if the lives of their opponents were sacred? How did Elijah qualify for translation shortly after personally butchering the priests of baal, if their lives were sacred?

Gluttinous, disobedient children were to be stoned by the Israelite community. Were their lives sacred? There are too many examples of bloodshed and slaughter in the OT for me to believe that human lives are, in and of themselves, "sacred." It's like saying we are inherently immortal. We are not.

The lives of Jewish unbelievers are no less sacred than the lives of any other unbeliever. All of us are cursed from birth by the nature we receive. It is a sinful, defiled nature, not a sacred one. This "sanctity of life" stuff is a bunch of hokum advanced by the Papacy, perhaps to "atone" for the lives they have snuffed out through the ages. Obviously, those lives were not sacred to them, regardless of the mumbo jumbo they may have uttered in defense of their crimes against humanity.

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

On July 6th, 2008 Hansen said:
"Nic, Most of us are avoiding confrontation with you over the abortion issue. I really am more or less indifferent to it."

My Response: Your statement tends to prove my point. Most Adventists I have talked to about abortion in the last couple of decades tend to express apathy towards this issue. This is why I wrote the following article which was published by Adventist today a year ago: "The Puzzling SDA Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn" http://sdaforum.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=7349 .

There are a few exceptions, and one of them is James Standish, from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, who wrote an article in defense of the unborn on the 35th anniversary of the I.S. Roe v Wade ruling which opened the door for the killing of the unborn: "James Standish Comments About the 35th Anniversary of Roe v Wade" http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=58 .

You also stated:
"I am not interested in the subject, I will say that you are completely confused and mistaken. I don't believe that God called you to leave the mission field to agitate this issue among Adventists."

My Response:
The fact that you don't believe that the Lord inspired me to speak on behalf of the unborn does not negate the fact that I do believe that he did. I have seen his providential hand in my mission for the unborn. If it was not the Lord who inspired me to do this, then who was it? Satan, the one who has been "a murderer from the beginning"? Each time I ask God to relieve me from this unpleasant task, he provides an incentive for me to continue doing it. If this were the result of self delusion, this would not happen.

I would like to suggest that you contrast this apathy of yours regarding the killing of innocent human beings with what the Adventist pioneers felt about this issue. This has been the topic of my doctoral dissertation, and I want to share with you some evidence to what I am saying from said document:

James White
Quote:
"Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [2] "

J.N. Andrews
Quote:
"One of the most shocking, and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation, is the murder of unborn infants. Let those who think this a small sin, read Ps. 139:16. They will see that even the unborn child is written in God’s book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children. [4] "

John Todd
Quote:
"As to guilt, I want all to know that, in the sight of God, it is willful murder. “The willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence, is murder. It is quenching immortal existence, it is destroying what, in a few months or weeks, would bear God’s image: and if anyone thinks she can do it without the guilt of murder, she is greatly mistaken. The very remembrance of this guilt has often upset the reason, and by remorse, turned the doer into madness.” [5]"

To verify the sources of these quotations, use the following Internet link for these quotations from my doctoral dissertation: http://sdaforum.com/page114.html .

The main argument of my dissertation is that there has been a 180 degree shift in our SDA position on abortion. Our pioneers condemned abortion in the strongest imaginable terms and labelled such practice as "murder" and a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment, while my church today justifies what the pioneers condemed. Would you deny that there has been a drastic change in our attitude towards abortion? I you can provide solid evidence for this, then it would destroy the main hypothesis of the work I have done for the last decade at great financial sacrifice to my main real estate business.

Now, please notice the sharp contrast between your apathy towards this moral issue and what a well-known Adventist pioneer stated:

Uriah Smith
Quote:
"You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, [6] and I’ll show you a church that is spineless, irrelevant, and morally bankrupt. . . . No issue is too controversial for us to address and honestly in pages of our church paper. [7]"

And I cannot leave Ellen White aside. Those Adventists who defende the killing of the unborn argue that Mrs. White was silent about abortion. This is what I have discovered:

Ellen G. White
Quote:
"If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering [8] his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. [9]"

My question to you: If Ellen White stated that neglecting the health of the pregnant mother is equivalent to "almost murdering," then can we conclude that she would have justified the actual "murder" of the unborn?

You also stated the following:
"Both Scripture and EGW indicate that there are some who would be better off not being born."

My Answer: Yes, Jesus stated that it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born. The Lord knew this, yet he allowed Judas to be born. Can we play God safely? Do we know the future of each individual human being before they are born, or even after they have been born? Have you read the story of Bethoven? We are blest with his music, yet no modern physician would have advised his mother to carry him to full pregnancy term! If God did not orchestrate even the abortion of a man like Hitler, how can we dare to do this? Notice what the Bible says about our sacred duty:

Quote:
"Rescue those who are being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? . [Proverbs 24:11,12] "

When Hitler was engaged in the genocide of six million Jews, our SDA Church decided that a refusal to cooperate with the Nazi regime was too risky. They ignored the duty of God's church under such circumstances; and recently, the leaders of the German and Austrian SDA Church issued a public apology for their failure to act in defense of the innocent. Have you read this? "A Corporate Apology From the German and Austrian SDA Church" http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=92 .

A smililar moral failure took place when the State of Hawaii legalized abortion. Half of the physicians at our hospital there threatened to take their patients elsewhere if they were denied the privilege of offering elective abortion services to their patients. The hospital administration panicked, they consulted the North American Division of Adventists, and the decision was to save our hospital from the danger of bankruptcy by yielding to the pressure. Like Judas, they sold the unborn for profit. Here is the explanation the then president of the NAD gave for the SDA shift in policy regarding abortion:

Neal Wilson
Quote:
"Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population."

For over two decades after this event, the opinions of readers of our official "Ministry" magazine engaged in a dramatic debate over this issue, and two thirds of them condemned the new attitude of the church towards the killing of the unborn. Those in power prevailed, and the church issued the document entitled "Guidelines on Abortion" which pushed the door wide open for the new genocide. The fine print of this document has the following explanation for this new position of the church on abortion:

Quote:
"God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse. [Guidelines on Abortion]."

My Question: If Jesus died to restore our freedom to take the lives of innocent human beings, then perhaps he also died to restore our fredom to rape, steal, and abuse little children. I am free to shoot at the president of the United States, but there are serious consequences if I do. Some have done this and ended in jail or the electric chair.

Tell me: Where did I go wrong? Do you think the the Devil inspired me to carry on this mission on behalf of the unborn?

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

On July 6th, 2008 Hansen said
"My thoughts have been shaped by a simple reading of the OT. ... There are too many examples of bloodshed and slaughter in the OT for me to believe that human lives are, in and of themselves, "sacred." ... This "sanctity of life" stuff is a bunch of hokum advanced by the Papacy, perhaps to "atone" for the lives they have snuffed out through the ages."

My Question: If what you stated is true, then why did the Lord include the Sixth Commanment within the Decalogue? And why all the statements forbidding and condemning the shedding of the blood of the innocents? Did not the prophets of the Old Testament state that the Lord would allow his chosen people to be deported because they had filled the streets of Jerusalem with the blood of innocent human beings?

Was not the killing of Jesus and Stephen the last straw that broke the camel's back and caused the eventual destruction of the Holy City and the rejection of God's chosen nation? Can you tell the difference between the destruction of the guilty and the slaughter of the innocents.

Can you think of any group of human beings more innocent than the unborn? Doesn't the Holy Book condemn the pusnishment of the children for the sin of the parents? Isn't abortion a violation of said injunction? Children are the apple of the Lord's eyes, and anyone who attacks those dares to touch God where is hurts the most. The Lord is patient, but even his patience has a limit. Sacred history is evidence of this!

Nic, The thoughts of the pioneers on this subject, while perhaps interesting to yourself, are irrelevant in modern society. Most of them were legalists who didn't understand the gospel, so their opinion has no bearing on a variety of subjects

The reference to the sixth commandment is absolutely lame. Sure, it forbids killing, but there were a number of various laws that required killing. Sabbathbreaking, adultery, blasphemy, all required that the guilty one be killed. God himself killed numerous individuals such as the sons of Aaron, Korah, and others. Phineas was immortalized for killing two people. To suggest that "Thou shalt not kill" applies to abortion is ridiculous. A growing child could be killed for eating too much. The cities of refuge motif required that that avenger pursue and kill. If the slayer happened to make it it to a city and was not permitted to enter, he was doomed.

People abandon the mission field for numerous reasons. World loving wives, needs of children, love of the things of this world, professional advancement. John Wesley served as a missionary in Georgia. By his own admission, he was unconverted. Every one is first in his own cause. We have to justify whatever we do in order to live with ourselves.

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

Hansen,

I wonder whether you would take the time to answer some questions I have for you in response to your posting.

A. What was the purpose of the Decalogue?

B. Why did the Lord take the trouble of writing the Ten Precepts on table of stone with his own finger?

C. Were the Ten Commandments meant for the Jews only or for humanity in general?

D. Do we need them today, or are they an archaic expression of incipient morality which is no longer meaninful for modern man?

E. Would humanity be safer and happier if the knowledge of the Ten Commandments were fully obliterated from the memory of civilized people?

F. Do we still need the Commandments which forbids murder, which in Hebrew has the connotation of killing innocent human beings?

G. Do you consider the unborn as members of humanity? If they are not human, then what are they?

H. At what stage of development does it become a violation of the Sixth Commandment to take the life of a child, born or unborn. John Stevern Jr., a former religious liberty leader, tells me that this takes place at birth; Sean Pitman, a bright and otherwise strictly conservative Adventist physician, thinks that it is when the brain begins to develop, at about twenty weeks of pregnancy; Peter Singer, a renowned Harvard professor states that it is about 30 days after birth. In some states, the killing of the unborn is permitted throughout the pregnancy, while in others, the killing of a pregnant woman is considered double murder. I am confused. Please help me: At what stage of a child's development the killing of a child, born or unborn, becomes murder in the eyes of God?

I. In some states the so called Partial Birth Abortion is legally acceptable. The fully formed unborn child is killed while it is in the process of being born. Do you consider that this is morally acceptable in the eyes of the Lord?

J. What is the moral difference between crushing the brain of a child seconds before the baby is fully born and smashing its brain a few second after birth?

Nic, the Decalogue is not on trial. Your application of the sixth commandment to abortion is. Your interpretation of the range of the sixth commandment is the issue. The sixth comandment obviously did not apply to a range of killings directed by God and sometimes instigated by Him.

People become "holy" after they are justified by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ; consequently, your reference to the sanctity of life is bogus. Children of believing parents or even one believing parent are shielded by the faith of that parent, but are not in and of themselves holy.

You can parade all the blood and crushed brains around you like. Having been involved in the murder trial of two individuals who were doing time for murder and, while in custody, attempted to murder again, I can tell you that crushed brains or not, they both should have been aborted and should be executed now. Neither case would be forbidden by the Decalogue. And there is a host of other individuals about whom I would say the same thing. Abortion is not a good substitute for birth control. Neither is the execution chamber a good substitute for abortion.

The stigma attached to abortion by bigots does more damage than abortion. And in other societies, where people are too stupid or ignorant to use birth control, or it is not available, the alternative to abortion is large families for which food and shelter can not be adequately provided. These large families serve as justification for the plundering of the weak in order to feed the children, thereby taking food from the mouths of the elderly and infirm. Which is preferable, kicking an elderly person down the stairs in order to feed a child, or not having the child?

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

Hansen, you stated: "The Decalogue is not on trial. Your application of the sixth commandment to abortion is. Your interpretation of the range of the sixth commandment is the issue."

From this, I conclude that this statement by you implies that you recognize the permanence and validity of the Decalogue, and the prohibition against murder, which in Hebrew means no killing of innocent human beings, or what elsewhere in the Bible is referred to as shedding the blood of innocent human beings. If my conclusion is wrong, please correct me!

You argue that my interpretation of the Sixth Commandment is in error, and that, according to your reading of the Decalogue, said injunction against murder does not apply to the unborn, but that it does apply to those who were allowed to get through the loop. Correct me if I am jumping to unreasonable concludions! This forces me to ask you a few questions which, if answered, would clarify for me your position on this issue. So far it seems to me that is is rather fuzzy.

A. Would you grant that the unborn is a human being? If not, why not?

B. If the unborn is not a member of the human race, then what is it? An animal? An object?

C. From the point view of development, what does birth do to the unborn to make him/her now a member of the protected human species?

D. From the moral point of view, why is it acceptable to you the crushing of a babies brain a few seconds before birth, but makes it a murder to do this a few seconds after birth?

E. Human law allows a pregnant woman to take the life of her own unborn child. Doesn't this imply that the unborn is treated as an object, instead of a human being? Isn't this reminiscent of the way slaves were treated before the Civil War? They were considered to be objects that were owned by their masters, purchased and sold as if they were merchandize, and even killed at the whim of the owner.

You also stated: "People become "holy" after they are justified by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ; consequently, your reference to the sanctity of life is bogus."

You seem to be very keen on the Gospel, which means that you, as a sincere Christian, have been an object of mercy by the Lord. If God has shown mercy on you, a sinner, then should you not also show mercy on the unborn who has not had yet a chance to sin? Remember the parable of the man who was pardoned a great debt by the king, but refused to show mercy towards someone who owed him an insignificant amount of money? Am I missapplying the Gospel the way you allege I misapplied the Decalogue?

You stated the following as well: "Having been involved in the murder trial of two individuals who were doing time for murder and, while in custody, attempted to murder again, I can tell you that crushed brains or not, they both should have been aborted and should be executed now."

My question to you: What does this have to do with the killing of innocent babies? Can you tell the moral difference between executing a criminal and crushing the brain of an innocent baby.

You state that these criminals should have been aborted. Are you suggesting that women should be clairvoyant and abort those who they think might commit horrible crimes, and let live those who they think would be saints?

Is is morally justifiable to punish people before a crime is committed on the basis of simple suspicion? Do you think that there are human beings who could predict the moral behavior of human beings before birth? Is this the kind of justice you espouse? If you were a judge, would anyone trust in your moral jusgment?

You also state: "The stigma attached to abortion by bigots does more damage than abortion."

I am surprised that, even though you do not know me, and we have never met, you already know that I am a "bigot." Is it fair to attack the character of someone who happens to disagree with you? Did you know that this is a common reaction of people when they are loosing an argument?

Can we focus on the issue in question instead of demeaning ouselves by impugning the character of our opponent? Do you know what monkeys do when they feel threatened? If you don't, let me know. One of my friends found out the hard way on his trip to Africa.

And you also state: "Which is preferable, kicking an elderly person down the stairs in order to feed a child, or not having the child?"

I hope you agree with me that two wrongs don't make one right!

Nic, Let's put this "argument" into proper perspective. We are discussing an area in which you are supposed to be an expert, with what I assume is a legitimate earned doctorate from a respectable university. My interest in this is merely passing. I stated at the beginning that I have no dog in this fight. By that I mean that personally, I am and have been unaffected by abortion, except indirectly.

Originally you advanced the following points: 1)Historic Adventism was against abortion. 2) Abortion violates the sanctity of life. 3) Abortion violates the sixth commandment. 4)The denomination is in error for allowing it in its hospitals today.

I consider your first two points without merit. 1)Historic Adventism advocated the application of acid and electric shock to the genitals of young people to prevent masturbation. I have a photograph of a steel device approbated by J.H. Kellogg to use on young boys to prevent "self abuse." This was in the era when EGW said Kellogg was the recognized leader of SDA medical work. I consider their opinions on these matters of interest, but they require serious scrutiny.

2)The sanctity of life issue I also consider without merit. The Bible does not teach that life is holy unless it is joined by faith to Christ. While true that the child of a Christian might come under the shield of their parent's faith, faithless and irreligious people certainly do not. And it is exactly these kind of people who are most affected by abortion laws. Few Christian couples in a consecrated marriage use abortion as birth control.

3) The sixth commandment may or may not apply to the kind of babies we are discussing. Assuming that it does, the rights of the parents take precedence. If they want to "murder" their own child, they have that right, according to the laws of the U.S.A. Of course, homosexuals can legally marry, etc. according to those same laws.

4) The denomination is in error on many points. I doubt that EGW would have wanted abortions done in Adventist hospitals. I'm not sure about Kellogg's personal medical practice. It may be that he performed abortion in Adventist hospitals. Even if he spoke against the practice, that proves nothing. According to his biographer , he also spoke against eating between meals, yet kept a pocket full of peanuts which he snacked on at his convenience.

It seems to me that your primary objection is to the method of abortion, the "crushing of babies brains." The description of this process, as "crushing their brains," while no doubt sensational, might better be described another way. I doubt that such language would be employed by most obstetricians.

Many of the questions that you pose are best answered by the parents of the child in question. Parents who do not want a child and are uncomfortable giving it up for adoption are assured by the laws of the land that they will have that right. Apparently, Adventist hospitals also respect that choice.

There are many social issues with moral implications: Abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and others. While the church is free to impose its values on its adherents, when it imposes its values on those who do not subscribe to that belief system, the foundation of bigotry and ultimately persecution is laid down.

The preaching of the cross is the best remedy for a host of social issues including the ones mentioned above.

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

Hansen, thanks for further clarifying your position on abortion. I would like to coment on some of your statements. You did say the following: "My interest in this is merely passing. I stated at the beginning that I have no dog in this fight. By that I mean that personally, I am and have been unaffected by abortion, except indirectly."

I have not been directly affected by abortion either, except for the investment of time and money and loss of real estate business. If I were to compute this investment it would add to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Did I do this with the hope of ever recovering my investment? The answer is no. I am 76 years old, and my plan is to continue with my real estate activity for a few more years before retiring for good. Why did I do this? For the sake of the unborn.

The real question is not whether you or I have been affected by abortion, but rather whether the Lord has been affected by this genocide. I have no Jewish blood flowing through my veins. I have not been directly affected by the Jewish genocide. But God was affected, because innocent human beings were mercilessly slaughtered for mere convenience. Innocent people were conscripted for slave labor, their assets were confiscated, and when their usefulness had been exhausted, they were gassed together with their children.

You seemed to see no moral wrong connected with abortion, but the Lord does. The demand for the legalization of abortion did not mushroom overnight by mere accident. First came the sexual revolution, which increased the frequency of unwanted pregnancies, and what followed was the legalization of abortion.

There exists a strong and undeniable nexus between the disregard of the Sixth Commandment and the rejection of the Seventh one. Only a morally blind individual would try to deny this; yet you insist on asserting that you see no wrong with parents choosing to either have their own babies dismembered or poisoned before they have had a chance to see the light of day.

You also argue that "The sanctity of life issue I also consider without merit. The Bible does not teach that life is holy unless it is joined by faith to Christ." My question to you is: If what you are saying is true, then what was God's purpose for giving us the Sixth Commandment? This theory of yours is extremely dangerous. It seems to imply that taking the life of those who are not united with Christ is morally acceptable. This is what Moslems extremists believe. They see no wrong in the killing of "infidels." For them, Christians and non-Moslems are infidels, and killing them is morally acceptable. How can a Seventh-day Adventist fall for this kind of fallacy? This blows my mind!

Then, you state: "The sixth commandment may or may not apply to the kind of babies we are discussing. Assuming that it does, the rights of the parents take precedence. If they want to "murder" their own child, they have that right, according to the laws of the U.S.A." My answer is: We are not discussing legality, but rather morality. If you believe that the Bible grants parents the moral right to kill their own innocent children, please give me the biblical reference! This is what pagans did, and God gave this as a reason for dispossessing them from Palestine.

You further state the following: "Many of the questions that you pose are best answered by the parents of the child in question. Parents who do not want a child and are uncomfortable giving it up for adoption are assured by the laws of the land that they will have that right. Apparently, Adventist hospitals also respect that choice. "

Yes, the law of the land grants parents the legal right to kill their own unborn children, but they do not have said moral right. Sooner or later they will have to answer to God for their actions, unles they repent. But how can they repent if we, the "Remnant of God on earth" who "keep [?] God's Commandments" tell them that there is nothing wrong with the shedding of innocent blood.

How can a mother choose to give her baby for adoption, if the church tells her that "Christ died to restore our right to "choose." If this is correct, then I could also argue tnat Jesus also died to restore my right choose to steal, rape, and abuse little children. I am certaily free to commit those crimes, but there are serious consequences if I choose to do that. I may end in jail or the electric chair!

Then you argue as follows: "While the church is free to impose its values on its adherents, when it imposes its values on those who do not subscribe to that belief system, the foundation of bigotry and ultimately persecution is laid down." My answer is: The church has no legal power to impose its values on others.

Nevertheless, church members have the moral duty to exercise their citizens right to vote. This is why Ellen White and the Adventist pioneers sided with the slaves' rights to freedom. For the same reason, we as citizens vote in support of the punishment of criminals. Please, do not confuse our rights to preach with our right to use the voting booth! And by the way, bigotry is defined as a blind and obstinate insistence on holding to one's opinion. Please, do not forget that such an accusation cuts both ways!

Your final statement was: "The preaching of the cross is the best remedy for a host of social issues including the ones mentioned above." My response is: The Decalogue works in tandem with the preaching of the cross. God's law is a mirror designed to make us aware of our shortcoming, which impels us towards the cross in search of mercy.

Do not forget that God did not start the plan of salvation with the cross, but rather with the giving of the Law. The law points to our sinfulness, and the cross grants us the mercy we need. Do not make the mistake of ignoring half of the plan of redemption. Half saved means totally lost!

Nic, Rather than likening me to the Taliban, a more favorable comparison would be to ancient Israel. It's obvious, from the amount of slaughter and killing either instigated by God or performed by him, that "Thou shalt not kill," did not prohibit a variety of killings. Public executions were required in numerous cases. Adultery and fornication were punishable by death. Of course, in cases like this, pregnancy may have been what revealed the sin. Both the mother and her unborn infant would be killed; consequently, one might say that the OT required the killing of a fetus conceived under circumstances other than marriage. Children born under these circumstances rarely existed. A child born of a suspicious union was banned from the congregation of the Lord for ten generations. They were in no way "sanctified."

"Abortion" would have been a corollary of executing immoral women.

Sinners sinning and bringing forth more sinners. This would not have happened in ancient Israel

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com

Hansen: Have you ever considered the fact that the difference between the morality of the Taliban and the morality of the Old Testament is easily explained by Mohammed's rejection of Jesus as the Savior of the world? When confronted with the morality based on the teachings of Moses, Jesus responded: "Moses said, but I say unto you ... ."

Evidently our Lord rejected what Moses taught as the final word on morality. I believe that Jesus' teachings and example is what eventually led the West to reject slavery, genocide, and easy divorce. Now, Western society is attempting to undo all this moral progress experienced by Christianity. Do you really want to go back to the Old Testament's view of what is right and what is wrong?

By the way, even in the Old Testament, there seems to have been a concern for the value of the unborn. Have you read the manner in which the NIV translators rendered what we find in Exodus 22: 22-24?

"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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, would for wound, bruise for bruise."

With this translation of said passage, there seems to be a clear evidence that the "Talionis Lex" concept was applied to the loss of life in the case of the unborn. How can you explain this if we accept your suggestion that the unborn had no moral value in O.T. times?

Nic, the passage in Exodus 21 is referring to the baby of a couple who want the child. That is not who is being affected by "right to lifers" in current society. It is irrelevant to most cases of abortion in modern society. The couple in question in Exodus want the child. People utilizing abortion in today's society do not. People in consecrated relationships who want a family are unlikely to utilize abortion. Why would they? And if a responsible couple choose to do so, that is their affair, not yours, or mine.

The passage in Exodus has a wide range of translations, which are interesting. Here are some examples:
Ex 21:22 ¶ When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.
Ex 21:23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, (NRSV)

Ex 21:22 ¶ "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
Ex 21:23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, (NASB)

22 ¶ And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.
23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, (LXX, EV)

22 ¶ And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, (ASV)

Cases of accidental pregnancy in the OT, outside the marital relationship, usually ended in the death of the child and the mother.

Nic Samojluk, Editor
www.sdaforum.com
Hansen:

Since we are discussing this issue as it relates to the violation of the sixth Commandment, then I would suggest that whether the unborn child is wanted by the parents or not is irrelevant. Taking the life of an innocent human being offends God, regardless of whether said human being is wanted or not. Otherwise, we would be free to kill unwanted people.

The versions of the Bible you cite were heavily relying on the King James version of the text, I believe. The translators of the NIV were relying on the best scholarship availabe today, and they decided that the correct rendering of the text is "premature birth" instead of "miscarriage." The Hebrew original allows for both options, premature birth harmonizes with the rest of Scripture which forbids the shedding of the blood of the innocents.

Nic,
I do not agree that the killing of an individual and abortion are the same thing.

The versions of the Bible I quoted depnding heavily on the KJV? I think not. The LXX is a far cry from the KJV. The NIV is a dynamic translation and has a certain subjectivism lacking in the NASB. You have one text that may inform the discussion, and it depends on a certain translation for you to get the "proof" that you need. Does that tell you anything? People who had relations outside of marriage were killed in the OT, pregnant or not. If pregnant, the "product of conception" was also killed. Until you can deal with that fact, you have no Biblical position to support your anti abortion views.

There is little difference between your position and that of those who oppose criminal execution, calling it murder. It is not. Neither is abortion.

It is an utter falsehood to call a baby conceived through fornication or adultery an "innocent." They were killed by directive from God in the OT. Those rare babies who did survive, for instance, the child of a woman who was raped, were banned from the congregation for ten generations. And it is entirely possible that those babies were quietly aborted through the use of herbal remedies. We really don't know, in practice, how individuals handled those rare situations.

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Hansen: Your first statement implies that the unborn is bereft of individuality. Please, consult the dictionary about the meaning of the term "individual." Denying individuality to the unborn defies common sense. You would have to redefine the proper meaning of the term. I just checked my dictionary, and I do not see how you can justify the assertion you have made!

The NIV version of the Bible was the result of the scholarly work of over one hundred experts who used the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The following comment was made about this modern and up-to-date version of the Bible: "No other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one." Please, read the Preface to this translation of the Bible before you attampt to criticize it.

Experts have stated that the original Hebrew can be rendered either as "premature birth" or else as "miscarriage." I think that common sense should dictate that we choose the alternative which harmonizes better with the rest of Scripture. The Bible emphasizes from Genesis through Revelation God's concern for the weak, the indefense, the vulnerable, and the unprotected. It also condemns from beginning to end the shedding of innocent blood. I do not see how you can opt for a translation which ignores these plain and crystal clear facts.

You feel inclined to bring up again and again all the killings that took place in Old Testament times, and you insist that those killings were done under God's orders. I have two alternative answers for you:

1. The killings took place under strict orders from God. Fine, if you can duplicate such orders from God for the killing of the unborn today, then go ahead and slaughter the innocents!

2. The Israelites believed that each particular killing they were engaged in were ordered by God. How did they determine in most cases the will of God? By casting lots. Would you suggest that we use such method today when deciding who should live and who should die?

You claim that there is hardly any difference between my position "and that of those who oppose criminal execution." I am apalled at this statment of yours! Can't you tell the difference between taking the life of an innocent human being and executing a criminal? Common sense and justice demands that we punish the criminal and let the innocent live; yet society executes the innocent and lets the rapist live. This represents a travesty of justice!

Jesus stated that anyone offending "these little ones" would be better off tying a rock to his neck and jumping into the ocean. He also affirmed that our final destiny will be determined by the way we treat "the least." Can you name any other group of human beings more qualified to be considered "the least" than the unborn?

Individual: of or relating to a single human; Existing singly, separate; A human or organism considered by itself. American Heritage Dictionary, fourth edition.

The use of the term "individual'" is appropriate in this discussion. It clearly delineates between those who are independent of , for instance, their mother, and those who are not. A fetus can not be described as an individual due to its relationship to its mother.

It is incorrect to suggest that lots were always required for determining death sentences in OT times. Trial by ordeal for suspected adultery, specifically dealing with cases of adultery, where a woman might be carrying the child of another man, required no "lots."

The consequence of the curse would be abortion and future inability to give birth. Read it for yourself in the fifth chapter of Numbers. Notice verse 27: her thigh shall rot and her belly swell. If innocent, she shall conceive seed (verse 28) Now here is a case where a woman is not killed for adultery, but the child is aborted and she is unable to bear children, as a result of her sin.

The NIV marginal reading for verses 21 and 22 and 27 describe the curse as a "miscarrying womb." A miscarrying womb is one that aborts the fetus. And in this case, the abortion, if she was pregnant, was specifically caused by the bitter water mixture provided by the priest.

Gentlemen,

I'm sure you've noted our new comment-posting guidelines by now. I trust you'll agree that your off-topic debate would be more appropriate over email exchange.

Enjoy the blogs.

Marcel Schwantes

Online Editor, Adventist Today

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Hansen,

We have been advised to continue this dialogue offline by personal email. I do not have your emal, but you do have mine. It is available through my web site, which is posted.

I think that you have picked the wrong dictionary. My dictionary defines the term "Individual" as: "Inseparable. Existing as a distinct entity." My question to you: Can anybody divide the unborn baby into parts without killing it? Does the unborn exist? Is it a distinct entity? Notice that the correct answers for the above questions are "No," "Yes," and "Yes." This means that the unborn qualifies as an individual.

You cannot make the unborn as a member of the mother's body, because it has its unique identity through its DNA. No other human being in the universe has the same DNA as that unborn! It possesses said DNA identity from the moment of conception.

You claim that the unborn is not an individual because it is dependent on its mother for existence. My question. At what point in its development does the baby become independent? Can the baby live without life support after birth? How long will the baby live if life support is withdrawn? At what age does a baby become independent without life support?

Regarding Numbers 5, my answer is: Miscarriage is either caused by nature or by the direct intervention of God. Does this mean that I am free to cause miscarriage with impunity? If God is the one responsible for miscarriage, does this mean that I can do the same? God caused the death of Achan, Ananias and Saphira, and many others. Should I feel free to do likewise? If the miscarriage is caused by nature, then it is true that nature destroys through hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Should I feel morally free to imitate nature? If I do, don't I run the risk of ending in jail?

If you are interested in continuing the debate, please respond by email, or else provide your email so I can respond by email.

It would be good to move that discussion somehwere else.  My point on here was simply that, given what I know, and given what the other options are out there--I can't be anything other than an SDA. The truth stands out so clear, so distinct, from anything else so what else could I do?

 

Cliff