Ben and Barry, The Politically Incorrect Version
by Stephen Foster, November 4, 2015: The amazingly under-told story in this Carson saga and how Adventists and Adventism are now being discussed and perceived, particularly by one of Carson’s competitors for the GOP (Republican) nomination, is that Retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Barry Black, PhD. has been serving with distinction as the chaplain of the United States Senate for a number of years, without fanfare regarding his denomination.
It is certain that Dr. Black is as close to being universally admired and respected among his fellow Adventists and on Capitol Hill as anyone; and that unlike Dr. Carson, he has not said or done anything of a particularly controversial nature during his public service.
I would submit that Dr. Black is more representative of the ethos of Seventh-day Adventists in the United States than is Dr. Carson—and that it is not even close.
The reason for this is as politically incorrect as can be. Despite the headlines and findings of the recent Pew Research Study on religious diversity, the reality is that from a demographic perspective, in North America, as elsewhere, Seventh-day Adventism is now largely a black and brown denomination.
The simple math: as of 2013, fully 25% of the 1.167 million Adventists in the North American Division, or 293,350 Adventists, were in the nine Regional Conferences. This does not include any of the black or brown members in the entire Pacific Union Conference; nor does it include any of the black or brown members in Canada, Bermuda, or the Greater New York Conference; nor does it include any of the literally countless black or brown members who attend churches that are not in Regional Conferences in metropolitan areas across the United States, including the Potomac Conference and the Florida Conference.
In other words, the fact is that there is absolutely no mathematical way, given these realities, that the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America is not majority black and brown, as it is in the aggregate in the rest of the world. And while Seventh-day Adventists of African and Hispanic descent are arguably as culturally conservative as any groups of Americans, I would say that—at least for American Adventists of African descent—their outlook on the temporal, political and ideological issues upon which Carson, in his current occupation as a full-fledged politician, has now commented is by-and-large quite different from Carson’s.
This is frustrating to many of us, and admittedly to me personally, because Dr. Black is a product of the African American Seventh-day Adventist educational system and culture, having attended Adventist elementary school, and having graduated from Pine Forge Academy and Oakwood University (then-College), and is therefore an advertisement for those institutions and what they represent.
It therefore would’ve been preferable, from my perspective, had much of the public been introduced to Seventh-day Adventism by way of the public service of Barry Black, rather than by Ben Carson’s statements on the constitutional propriety, or more accurately, the constitutional impropriety, of hypothetically having a Muslim President of the United States, for example, or from Carson writing on Facebook that “…I never saw a body with bullet holes more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away,” or by Carson’s statement that the Affordable Care Act is the worst thing that has happened in America since slavery.
But to be fair, Dr. Carson has not, to my knowledge, to this point thrown Adventism or Adventist beliefs “under the bus,” and has conducted himself with a decorum and a demeanor that have reflected well on his faith and his faith community…no matter what he has said. So far so good on that score; so good, in fact, that the best case scenario at this point, at least from this black Adventist’s perspective, is that Dr. Carson continues to run a relatively dignified campaign, and refrains from saying anything (else) that, upon (any) further reflection, might sound naïve or astonishingly unenlightened or misinformed; and that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination takes advantage of the goodwill and good publicity that Ben Carson’s notoriety and demeanor—and Barry Black’s career of exemplary public service—will have provided it.
We have this hope.
The “reality is that from a demographic perspective, in North America, as elsewhere, Seventh-day Adventism is now largely a black and brown denomination.” This is an important sociological fact that will greatly influence the future of Adventism in the region of its origins. What is happening to our little Protestant Christian denomination is already a familiar pattern in the history of religions. Buddhism had its origins in India, but the current percentage of Buddhists in its home territory is very small. Christianity was born in Palestine, but the current number of Christians there is small and declining. Going back for more than a 1000 years, Christianity was dominant in Europe. The majority of active Christians in that part of the world is declining at a fast pace. This observation of the declining viability of both Chrisitanity and Anglo-Adventism is even more valid for England, where church attendance in general is below 10% which is also about the membership of Anglo-Adventists in that country. It would be helpful if someone in Australia and New Zealand could report the demographics of Adventism in those areas as well.
Christainity and Adventism in terms of active membership is largely now centered in Africa and South America. This fact largely explains the unfortunate vote against women’s ordination and the change in Fundamental Belief (sic) No. 6 to validate a fundamentalist position at the last GC session. Those votes had little to do with supporting…
“It would be helpful if someone in Australia and New Zealand could report the demographics of Adventism in those areas as well.”
I don’t have the exact figures but anectodal evidence shows Adventism is increasingly non-white here in Australia and NZ as well. I have friends from Shouth Africa (“Coloured” not “white”) who recently came to my local church and said, ‘Wow, look at how black your church is now’. They meant that statement as one of pure observation, not a derogatory statement.
The demographics are increasingly becoming both African and Polynesian. I believe at Avondale (our SDA seminary) the majority of pastoral candidates are from a Polynesian background.
I believe Danny Bell (who contributes to AToday) even wrote an article about it here on AToday once? He might have the statitics.
I am pleased to report (drum roll) that as of 2006 61.5 percent of SDA’s in the census identified as Maori or Pacific Island. 50 percent identified as european. People could identify as more than one ethnicity.
. . .theological orthodoxy and more to do with the cultural and educational status of the majority of Adventists now coming from the Third World.
What would happen if the black/brown membership and leadership within Adventism come to see the flaws in doctrine, hermeneutics, and church structures that liberal Adventists now see? Is such insight not inevitable? And given the rapid communication of information in our day and age, is sooner not more likely than later? Is this the future crisis of the church?
Dr. van Rooyen,
You pose some very cogent and relevant questions; although in my view your initial questions would have been more accurately worded, “What would happen if the black/brown membership and leadership within Adventism come to PERCEIVE flaws in doctrine, hermeneutics, and church structures that liberal Adventists now PERCEIVE? Is such PERCEPTION inevitable?”
I believe that as black/brown membership becomes more affluent, this perception is not only inevitable; but that it is indeed in growth process, and accelerating in its pace of growth. As I see it, it has more to do with affluence and so-called ‘education’—the Revelation 3:17 effect—than it does with “seeing flaws;” and yes, it is the future internal crisis of the church.
Haven’t any number of officials in the SDA church lionized Barry Black? I have seen him being cited time after time.
I see no Biblical basis for lionizing anyone at all regardless of ethnicity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We need to shun everything that would encourage pride and self-sufficiency; therefore we should beware of giving or receiving flattery or praise. It is Satan’s work to flatter. He deals in flattery as well as in accusing and condemnation. Thus he seeks to work the ruin of the soul. Those who give praise to men are used by Satan as his agents. Let the workers for Christ direct every word of praise away from themselves. Let self be put out of sight. Christ alone is to be exalted. “Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood,” let every eye be directed, and praise from every heart ascend.” (Rev. 1:5.) {COL 161.2}
True but I think you are being harsh on Stephen Foster and kind of missing the point of his article. I think Stephen makes a number of very true and fair points.
Role models can be different as this article points out. Dr. Carson and Chaplain Black, have notable ones. One of these has served his country with extraordinary distinction as an interfaith leader, pastor, and to the best of my knowledge has nothing in his past to deny, explain, or apologize for.
The other has academic and professional accomplishments that are notable and also make him a role model for success. Yet, Dr. Carson has written and spoken about a past that is violent and he has even used the word “pathological” to describe hid teen age years. There are no witnesses to this conduct or tendency among his neighbors, friends, fellow students, or his local fellow church members. CNN and several other news sources have yet to find evidence of this violent past. So far anyone who has ever known Ben Carson finds him to have been a tranquil and peaceful person. Why this need to claim a violent past that no one can recall, except Dr. Carson?
Being seen as a ‘role model’ is not a universally appealing prospect. For some it suggests an expectation of perfection, the risk of being put on a precarious pedestal or the possibility of being seen as arrogant.
To an extent we are all role models, irrespective of intent, on the basis that we exercise influence over others through our behavior.
Becoming aware of, and accepting, this reality presents an opportunity to become more intentional with the effect we have on others.
Steven Foster writes: “…and that unlike Dr. Carson, he has not said or done anything of a particularly controversial nature during his public service.”
Dr. Carson, to date, has always been a private citizen. He was invited as a private citizen to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast and he surprised everyone by advocating for what he thinks would be a more just system of paying for healthcare and government. He explicitly derived those ideas from scripture, and he said so. It was controversial. The National Prayer Breakfast is always about platitudes, not policy. Especially biblically based policy ideas.
If we go back to that speech, we find out just the sort of political activist Dr. Carson thinks the United States needs: “We need doctors, we needs scientists, engineers. We need all those people involved in government, not just lawyers…I don’t have anything against lawyers, but you know, here’s the thing about lawyers…I’m sorry, but I got to be truthful…got to be truthful – what do lawyers learn in law school? To win, by hook or by crook. You gotta win, so you got all these Democrat lawyers, and you got all these Republican lawyers and their sides want to win. We need to get rid of that. What we need to start thinking about is, how do we solve problems?” Dr. Carson is echoing George Washington; we must avoid and mitigate ‘party’ in Government. We need a different sort of political leadership. A different enterprise spirit.
Adventist is becoming militant, not to extols Jesus, but to extol
Right wing politics. What ever happened to the hero Desmond Doss
Who went into the military without a gun. Now we praise a politician who advocates guns. The USA is more and more violent
With increasing multiple multiple murders. And not just guns.
The idea that all problems will be solved by tax reduction is stupid, pardon my french. We used to have politicians who tried to reach a compromise so everyone benefits. I hear Adventist saying how wonderful Carson is, not stopping to look at the math of his statements.
John,
I’m going to disagree with you on all points.
I do not see Adventism in North America as becoming militant, but going through a struggle to rediscover its’ roots and purpose and to find the promised empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
I think you are utterly confused on the issue of gun ownership.
As for taxes, Carson’s math is correct. All taxes come out of your pocket, whether you see it taken out in a pay stub or if it is hidden in the cost of products that you buy. The more the government takes in taxes, the less prosperous you are. Tax reductions always benefit the people. For example, four years ago in North Carolina the legislature cut state taxes while putting a lid on government spending. As a result the state’s economy began growing and the remaining taxes soon were producing so much revenue that the state is paying-off its’ debt ahead of schedule and has had to cut taxes a second time. The same thing is happening in Kansas and several other states that have cut taxes. One of the big reasons why so many businesses and people are moving to Texas is because of taxes being lower than in other states and not being raised. The states with the greatest debt and slowest economies are the ones with the highest tax rates. So Carson is right: cutting taxes will make America more prosperous.
North Carolina: Lawmakers in North Carolina also finally crossed the budget finish line. While the drawn out budget negotiations resulted in a deal that mostly walked back any significant spending cut threats for the time being (teachers’ assistants and drivers education were spared), the next time lawmakers put together a 2 year spending deal they will have $1 billion less revenue available thanks to delayed tax cuts included in the final package. Most significantly, the budget reduces the state’s personal income tax rate from 5.75 to 5.499% starting in 2017 and loosens the revenue target needed to reduce the rate for profitable corporations to 3%. Regrettably current lawmakers are able to tout that they balanced the state’s budget while also cutting taxes, but these tax cuts aren’t actually being paid for in the current budget. In other words with deficit spending. Tax cuts never pay for themselves and those with the most money benefit most. Give generously to the poor, not grudgingly, for the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do. DEUT. 15:4
John, If I follow your logic – paying taxes, increasing taxes & paying more in taxes is “giving generously to the poor?” Maybe I’m mistaken. Do you want to clarify your remarks. Taxpayer supported Drivers Ed is giving generously to the poor?
John Adams,
I have no doubt that your perception of Adventism where you are (North Carolina I presume) is an accurate one in the precincts with which you are most familiar. And you are right, in practice the principles of trickle down economics and the Laffer Curve never always seem to increase deficits.
In theory of course, more revenue comes into the government treasury when taxes are cut because the economy grows and more taxes revenue ends up being generated, as in less is more.
In practice of course, any increase in economic growth is always more than offset by the increase in demand for government services in a variety of areas throughout the society, thus resulting in a worsening fiscal condition for the government. And the increase in private sector growth is never experienced or enjoyed throughout the various economic strata, because the whole idea of cutting taxes on the investing class is not nearly as stimulative as cutting taxes on the consuming classes would be; which is the flaw fatal flaw in the trickle down model…and why it invariably fails from a fiscal perspective.
The Adventist church in North America, as ethnically diverse as it is, is by no means monolithic in its membership’s views on whose tax burdens should be eased, and whose tax burdens should be increased, that’s for certain.
Carson’s mathematics look good if you believe the government should be smaller at the federal level and that decisions should be made at the local level. We can do that without hurting anybody instead of a dollar going to Washington and only 40 to 60% coming back to actually do what it was sent for, the rest supporting a massive army of bureaucrats creating interminable paperwork for each other.
It’s tempting to give the government responsibilities like charity for the poor and health care to the government instead of taking care of that locally where it can be done efficiently. The problem with gun control is that it never works, except to make innocent people defenseless. Both the UK and Australia did massive gun control and gun murders did decrease. What they don’t tell you is that murders by strangulation, beatings, stabbings, poisoning and other means increased more than enough to compensate. All taking guns away did was level the playing field for criminals – a large male rapist would much rather face a small female victim who he knows isn’t armed with a gun. The gun-free zone is a godsend to the terrorist and criminal. Carson is right on the 2nd amendment.
Carson’s support of the 2nd amendment is part and parcel of his support of the Constitution. You take away guns, you take away our 2nd Amendment rights without a constitutional amendment. What’s next? Freedom of Religion? Not a good principle and Carson is right to support it.
“Christainity and Adventism in terms of active membership is largely now centered in Africa and South America. This fact largely explains the unfortunate vote against women’s ordination and the change in Fundamental Belief (sic) No. 6 to validate a fundamentalist position at the last GC session. Those votes had little to do with supporting theological orthodoxy and more to do with the cultural and educational status of the majority of Adventists now coming from the Third World.”
The above statement brings up a valid question: Whose fault is that?
At the rate the NAD and the European Division continue to hemorrhage when it comes to membership loss, it is clearly no wonder the rest of the world is taking over the forefront of Adventism!
This unwitting, massive turning away from the church is actually strenghtening what many see as fundamental, backwards Adventism!
Why does the churh in the NAD have to be predominantly Black/Brown today? Well, that is because others are willing giving up their spots in the church and, by default, different cultures come in and gladly fill up the empty slots.
This phenomenon will only continue to thrive from here, to the point that, 5 years from now, the church will continue to shift in ideology and we can very well have another Ted Wilson leading the church, albeit one who goes by a different name.
The cultural status is merged right along with the person’s educational status. How very interesting. How very borderline condescending.
Mr. Taylor, here’s a thought:
Stop making it easier for other cultures which you deem/perceive to have a ‘different’ educational status to become the representative majority of Adventism.
You CANNOT have this issue both ways!!
By virture of your intelligence/culture/educational status/other knowledge/experience, you have come to poke many holes in Adventist theolgy and now have, as you stated previously, serious doubts about many aspects of classical Adventist theology. Well, you’ve seen the light, you now know otherwise, and you choose to not agree with major tenants of Adventism. And that is truly just fine! That is your prerogative and your God-given right, to choose to believe as you will.
You cannot, however, continue to harp on the educational level of those who now represent the majority of Adventism. You, and others who share your views, have been somewhat responsible for minorities overtaking the church. You start to publish websites and to speak openly about the major flaws of Adventism, and guess what? Many are bound to follow your foot steps!
So now, when those who posses a different educational level than yours beging to take over the church, when they beging to influence the church to make decisions you deem unfortunate, you have no one else to blame other than yourself!
May I say that Yudelis make some very valid points that need to be seriously considered by anyone interested in better understanding the evolutionary trajectory of contemporary Adventism. Her comments are well taken. The non-immigrant population of Adventism in the First World is aging rapidly and as they die off they are not being replaced since the conventional evangelistic methods are not as effective as they once were in attracting this population. In addition, we are losing a large segment of our educated younger cohort “out the back door.” There are several other developments that need to be factored in and these and Yudelis perspective merit an extended discussion in a future opinion piece.
Mr. Taylor, I am relieved to see you took my opinion in stride, as my comments were truly not meant as an attack.
I recognize that I can come across as harsh due to my strongly worded and passionate opinions. But in this instance I am glad I did not offend you.
I take this oportunity to sincerely apologize for all the harsh comments I have directed at you, heretofore. I pray the Lord continues to work in my character and that He may mold me further so that I may not cause offense with my words.
I’ve been meaning to apologize to you for quite sometime, (and to Mr. Bugs, and to Elaine), but Indidn’t know how to get around to it without coming across as insencere.
Perhaps you (and Mr. Bugs and Elaine) may not feel slighted/offended by my past comments, as they may not have been impactful to you in any way. Nontheless, I fell the sincere need to apologize.
Although we all may not agree in one, there are more loving ways to express our differences.
Thank you for your response.
Yudelis, no apology necessary. I never mistake passionate defense of ideas, or an idea, as an attack and I never assume there isn’t a kind person behind the fervor. You are a fine affirmation of my understanding. Thank you!
[“Bugs” Larry Boshell.]
Perhaps Dr. Carson is naive. Party spirit seems to always dominate representative governments. But his ideas resonate with voters. Those voters are disgusted with politics. They too see party spirit as an impediment to government solving its problems. And another thing Carson is saying that resonates with voters is: Personal responsibility is the vital ingredient to self-government. We have to take care of ourselves and our families and not expect government to solve every problem and right every wrong.
Barry Black is employed as a Chaplin, an officer of Congress. Ben Carson is a private citizen seeking an office of trust, the presidency, highest office of trust the American Republic can bestow. There is a huge difference in these two pursuits. The latter is intrinsically controversial.
The Seventh-day Adventist proposition has always been controversial also. It has always rubbed the cat’s fur the wrong way. Even within itself, as atoday.org attests. Dr. Carson will rub many cats the wrong way. It can’t be helped.
I’m very proud of Ben Carson. His sincerity and his Christian faith and his honesty make me proud to belong to the same church. I have no regrets that Ben Carson is running for president.
Carson and SdA’s do have much in common.
An uneducated flock is their best sheep to be fleeced.
Spoken by a true ignorant liberal!
I had the pleasure of hearing Barry Black speak in person at the US Capitol to a group of SDA elementary school kids making a field trip to see the wheels of government in action. He was gracious and kind and showed a true ecumenical spirit. Most of the parents of the kids on the trip who were in attendance were deeply conservative politically and it was fascinating to see how he took the wind right out of their sails with his message of kindness and inclusion and with his disarming way of condemning the demonization of those we disagree with. It was quite impressive actually. If only he could be the Adventist in the news instead of the retired surgeon who seems to put foot in mouth about once a week these days, and who runs on fearmongering.
Mark, I need clarification. The parents who were deeply conservative,they had the wind taken out of their sails, correct? Can you explain about that wind? What was it exactly? I didn’t quite follow your logic. Were they demonizers?
I assume you think Dr. Carson is ungracious, unkind and shows a sectarian spirit. You are the Mark Bauer from Union College, long ago, right?
The wind I referred to above was the general attitude expressed frequently as we toured the halls of Washington, that democrats in general and Obama in particular are just about synonymous with the devil. The gracious attitude of Mr Black came through loud and clear: we AND our elected leaders are all human beings, all with human faults and all with individual strengths. There is nothing to be gained by demonizing anyone. Ben Carson became nationally politically famous (at a prayer breakfast of all places) by essentially demonizing Obama to his face in a disrespectful way. As they say there is a time and a place for everything including legitimate disagreements with policy. That was neither the time nor the place and it seems so interesting now that the heat is focused on Carson that he starts whining about how unfair it is that he is getting picked on. Can we expect a little more from an aspiring president than that? It would seem so. His latest gaffe about the pyramids is just plain embarrassing. Frankly the entire field of candidates on both sides is less than inspiring.
mark,
I can not speak for the parents on the Washington tour. Expressing dislike for the persons and policies of the opposition party is not exactly unusual – Popes, Protestants and Catholics, Pharisees and Sadducees, Whigs and Tories, have all had their differences.
What is certain is there is nothing in Ben Carson’s remarks at the 2013 prayer breakfast remotely disrespectful. http://lybio.net/tag/benjamin-carson-national-prayer-breakfast-transcription/
“…demonizing Obama to his face.”??? Your statement is not only demonstrably false, it is libelous. Using the bible as a primary resource for tax and health policy may strike you as naive or unrealistic. It is hardly disrespectful at a prayer breakfast. It’s an appropriate topic. What did you want him to speak about?
Are you embarrassed that Ben Carson is talking about Joseph and the storage of grain? It is true, no ordinary presidential candidate goes there. But its refreshing to see a candidate do a little harmless speculating about the Bible as history; when pushed – he didn’t bring it up. Somebody was questioning some remarks Carson made in a commencement speech twenty years ago.
If someone accuses me of lying, of making things up, I defend my remarks. As to a double standard – Obama, made up his girlfriend, in his memoir. After the fact, he admitted she was a ‘comopsite’. You wouldn’t know it to read his book. No big deal. Obama’s sealed college transcripts, no problem…
I have to disagree with your comment about putting his foot in his mouth weekly. What is happening is that the liberal media is trying to construct a foot to put in Carson’s mouth and they have been caught trying to make up stuff to make him look bad and Carson has called them on it every time and showed them up as dishonest.
Carson isn’t fear-mongering. He hasn’t warned of anything that Adventist evangelists have been warning congregations about for the past 150 some odd years. The devil our adversary walks among us seeking whom he may devour. Carson says he prayed about whether to pursue the presidency and received a positive answer. He was dragged into it unwillingly – drafted by people who responded to his message. The idea that God would call a servant to stand in the breach in the closing days of the Earth is not terribly hard to understand. He did that all through the Old Testament. I think Carson is God’s man in the kingdom of America. Even if he doesn’t win, think about the affect on Adventism to have to speak the uncomfortable truth for itself and reveal God’s character. Wait till we have to explain the state of the dead and what it says about a God of Love. Wait till we have to explain about the danger of joining the papal call to reunite with the Catholic church – which is busily building ties with socialists, trade unionists, Muslims and charismatic Protestants and more – brands bundled for the burning. It’s going to force a lot of folk to make a…
Ben has been making some “interesting” pronouncements lately. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning I learned that that the pyramids were built to store grain during Josephs administration.
It’s interesting how conservatives are repeatedly raked over the coals, made to appear stupid whenever they misspeak. The demo-libs do it all the time and their co-conspirators in the drive-by media don’t make a peep. For being a political rookie, Dr Carson has done very well in the debates and on the road. His quiet, reasoned responses resonate with many people versus Donald Trump’s bombastic style.
The truth is, anyone on that (debate) stage would make a better president than the moron in the WH, and for that matter, that liar Hillary Clinton.
Interesting observations, Stephen, and I think you are completely correct in many of your assessments. Sadly, this morning Carson revealed himself to have “keener” political instincts than I suspected by succumbing to the temptation, ubiquitous among politicians, to embellish his story with demonstrably untrue information. Also sadly, the media will gnaw on this misstep and others to an extent they never will in the case of Hillary Clinton’s lies.
I have not heard Barry Black speak, but must presume that his affect is more robust and that he demonstrates greater nuance and depth than Dr. Carson. But is it really a fair comparison? Black is a highly trained and experienced thinker and homiletician. Carson is a neurosurgeon at heart, and is ill-equipped in every way to even be a player on the stage he finds himself. As a conservative, I fervently hope Republicans come to their senses and do not try and put him on the ticket as a vice-presidential candidate. That would be very cynical.
Carson is not a religous figure and I very much hope that neither his religious views nor his political views reflect one way or the other on Adventism. Why should they? Which of the very disparate political or religious views of Harry Reid or Mitt Romney should reflect on the Mormon faith? Do the views of Sheila Jackson Lee reflect on Adventism?
Are you sure, Stephen, that you are not simply projecting your own preferences and values to conclude that Black better represents…
Nathan,
Unfortunately, when liberals and the liberal media can’t find anything substantive to talk about, they shout about the inconsequential and irrelevant as if it was important. Stephen Foster’s latest missive is just his latest example of this. That Ben Carson is somehow less representative of Adventism because he didn’t attend church schools or isn’t serving in a similar role to Barry Black is utterly ridiculous and a sign of how desperate he is to find cause to accuse Conservatives when he should be taking the same measure of the candidates in his own political house. But he’s afraid to do that because of how miserably they would fail the examination and how it would expose the true nature of what he advocates.
No William, actually Ben Carson is less representative of Adventism in the United States because the majority of Adventists in the United States do not share his right wing temporal political ideology. We know this is true primarily because the demography of those in the pews of Seventh-day Adventist churches in the United States is mostly of individuals of African or Hispanic decent; and most people of African or Hispanic decent have very different views as regards to temporal political ideology than does Ben Carson.
I would have preferred that Barry Black have been the persona by which the American public was introduced to Seventh-day Adventism, because that would also have been an advertisement for the educational system and institutions which helped produce him.
Of course I did not say or imply that Ben Carson is less representative of Adventism because he did not attend our schools. Unfortunately you misunderstood what I actually wrote and misinterpreted what I intended to convey.
Spelling correction: I apologize. The word with regard to demography is actually spelled “descent.”
What embellishment are you talking about? Do you really believe those out to get carson? They are looking everywhere. Carson did answer their allegations I felt accurately. One wonders how much of the sensational emphasis comes from his campaign people.
It’s interesting to watch when one knows more about the character of the person than the attackers.
What presidential candidate is perfect? Which of them doesn’t have something negative in their past? After all, they’re human. We’ve got a big problem in America with “gotcha” politics where primarily liberals and the media seek to destroy the character of conservative candidates by highlighting any fault they can find and getting the public distracted by the irrelevant instead of the substance of issues that impact the direction of the country. These witch hunts create a smoke screen allowing liberals to continue unhindered in their systematic destruction of the constitution and personal liberty.
Demonstrably untrue? I don’t think so. WestPoint has a reserve of appointments that are not congressionally delegated. I know a graduate of WestPoint who voluntarily wrestled on a scholarship type appointment. What General Westmoreland told Ben Carson is almost certainly true. A sloppy bit of reporting and a sensational headline is the problem. You too quick to lament Ben Carson’s honesty problem.
When conservatives have no real substantive things to say, some of them will start a comment with “when liberals and the liberal media can’t find anything substantive to talk about . . .” Andy Hansen pointed out that our good Dr. Carson somewhere in his education discovered that the Egyptian pyramids were really not built as tombs but were used to store grain. Wow. And he wants to be the President of the United States. One might wonder What other “interesting” things the good Doctor believes.
A parallel Diogenes quest for the honest man, I think, is behind the public fascination for Carson. That is why his church affiliation and his naïve faith ideas are, so far, mostly ignored. The public assumption is, for good reason, that the political class is opportunist, morally rudderless. It is extremely attractive to imagine how it might be if the one guileless soul in the land might be in charge.
Suddenly, character as ultimate value has been elevated to prime importance. As evidence, Carson is experientially the least qualified of all the candidates. But he appears absent of guile. It isn’t clear that he has any talent for running a country.
There’s a bit of Chauncey Gardiner in Carson (Peter Sellers character in the movie Being There) where wisdom and talents are imputed by collective faith based only on the simplicity of the character. Foibles become viewed as evidence of a simple honest man.
Adventism has a public perception as an odd religion but is acceptably ancillary to the rarity and faith of an honest man. So far, at least, it gets a wink and a nod unsullied by revelation or a public analysis.
So the question of best actor, Carson or Black, for Adventism misses the point. There’s a sense of the coming of age of Adventism, a recognition that it can’t and needn’t be “represented,” by anyone. It is just another unimportant faith choice, allowably eccentric, for highly valued persons.
Is there really an “honest” man?
Larry, I almost never agree with you. But I agree 100% with this comment. Your slipping?
Whoa, Nathan,this is very bad (agreement)! I’m pretty sure this isn’t a new normal!
This is why I think Carson must and will be judged by a different standard: All he really has going for him is his integrity as an honest, straight shooting, non-politician. And of course he is a conservative Black, which makes him very popular with lots of Republicans, regardless of his political competence.
Most political candidates aren’t so heavily marketed on character as Carson has been. If he’s just another politician who stretches the truth, he needs a lot more energy, charisma and substance as a national leader. No one is perfect. But those who aren’t – take Rubio for example – compensate with other exceptional qualities, like knowledge, depth, mental agility, political experience, and ability to forcefully articulate opinions with nuanced understanding.
But Stephen, I wonder…Before Carson entered the political fray, was he perceived among Black Adventists as a poor ambassador for Adventism? I doubt it. If I am correct, what it really boils down to is that, for many Adventists, regardless of race, shared political values are more important to communal bonding than shared faith. And that’s pretty sad.
Nathan and Bugs,
Ben Carson as Chauncey Gardiner in Being There is so on point and so therefore hilarious that any other comment would be anticlimactic; but here goes anyway.
It is true Nathan that prior to Carson’s foray into politics and him revealing himself to be a right winger, Ben Carson was viewed by most of us a folk hero; as is Barry Black. Of course, Barry Black is a retired military officer and is now the U.S. Senate Chaplain, and an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister; so he is and must be nonpartisan by trade. As such his folk hero status remains intact; unsullied by political partisanship. It is tragic, yet unsurprising from my perspective that you have yet to hear him speak Nathan. In a way it is classically tragic.
Nevertheless I do fully agree with you that “for many Adventists, regardless of race, shared political values are more important to communal bonding than shared faith.” I’ve said so on these boards previously, political ideology trumps theology every time. It is pretty sad.
Why is it classically tragic that I’ve never heard Barry Black speak. I’ve never heard Ted Wilson or Doug Batchelor “speak” – at least not in the form of a speech. I’ve never heard what I’m sure are many outstanding SDA preachers beyond my immediate faith community. What do you mean by “classically tragic?”
Nathan,
Wouldn’t you consider it tragic if contemporary political conservative had never heard or read anything that William F. Buckley, or Milton Friedman, or Thomas Sowell had written or said?
For a lifelong Seventh-day Adventist to have never heard the most well-known Seventh-day Adventist minister of his time—which is to say a contemporary—is a tragedy. Imagine someone who appreciates professional football and was a contemporary of Joe Montana or Dan Marino, never having seen them play quarterback. Or someone who appreciates (and plays) golf, never having seen Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus play.
What’s classically tragic about it is that for an Adventist wordsmith who appreciates language and elocution to have never heard the chaplain by this point in time ‘speaks’ to lost opportunities…and plenty of them…which is the stuff of classic tragedy. This is merely my opinion.
Sorry, Stephen. I’m just not into hearing or seeing people who are the most well-known in some category or another. Calling that a lost opportunity, much less a classic tragedy seems really weird to me. There are lots of “most well-knowns” that I’ve probably never even heard of. Besides, are you really suggesting that Barry Black is more well-known than Ted Wilson? If Barry Black is a terrific preacher, then I’d make an effort to hear him if he was preaching in my community. If not, I’d have no interest in hearing him.
Nathan, is this really you? I’m surprised because you usually read (or ‘listen’) more carefully than this.
You asked me what is classically tragic about you never having heard Barry Black speak. I first answered you with what in my opinion is tragic about it…and then specifically addressed what I meant by what is “classically tragic” about it.
What is classically tragic about it was that you are a wordsmith who also happens to be an Adventist, or vise versa; and as such would undoubtedly appreciate Chaplain Black’s oratorical and homiletic skills—much as anyone who plays golf would appreciate what they see when watching the best golfers do their things. I have no doubt that Black has spoken in your part of the country on numerous occasions, so you have had opportunities to have heard him by this point. For you to have missed those opportunities is classically tragic in my opinion; NOT because Black is well known, but because he is such an excellent preacher and speaker.
Of course Barry Black, having served for 12 years as chaplain of the United States Senate, is far more well-known than Ted Wilson. Elder Wilson, as president of the General Conference, is well-known only among Seventh-day Adventists. (Just how many Adventists do you think there are my man?)
Thank you, Steven Foster, for your article. Until now, I knew almost nothing about Dr. Black except that he is chaplain of the U.S. Senate and an SdA.
We need more people (SdAs and others) who focus on how to treat those with whom we disagree.
I sometimes wonder whether some Adventists think “the great controversy theme” is about being as obnoxious as possible.
For some of us, Dr. Carson is a bit too far too the right with regard domestic policies but he seems to have the ability to represent his religious beliefs as NOT making him antagonistic against those with whom he disagrees. A characteristic surely worthy of emulation!
There have been a few pejorative comments about Ben Carson’s “interesting” beliefs. I’m not sure how those reflect on his intelligence, values, or capacity for political leadership. They are qualitatively distinct only for the fact that they are not in the intellectual mainstream. No less nutty ideas about Christianity being responsible for the so-called Dark Ages, Galileo as a victim of a mythical war by Christianity against reason and science, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, have been, and continue to be, canon truth for the Left. I could go on and on. Many of the heroes of the secular Enlightenment were big supporters of literal witch hunting in the 16th and 17th century.
I don’t know if Carson still believes that Israelite slaves built the pyramids or that they were used to store grain. But I’m pretty sure that his kooky ideas about history won’t result in hostility to Christianity or pagan worship of an idealized climate that humans presume to be able to control.
“pagan worship of an idealized climate that humans presume to be able to control.” Wow Nate I thought you were smarter than that. Fox and friends have clearly infected your brain. What about climate change is “pagan” exactly? One can argue for or against the validity of human caused climate change but assigning one view of it as “pagan” seems a big stoop for someone of your intelligence. Are you really saying that if someone views climate change as real based on reproducible scientific validation that you are somehow worshiping paganism? Really that sounds more like something Ben Carson might say.
Mark,
Recent and ongoing attempts to silence the climate skeptics, via RICO statutes and advocating terminating employment of academic skeptics, criminally pursuing Exxon, etc. Even a few have argued logically for the imprisonment and execution of leading skeptics; those who advocate policies destroying the earth must be destroyed. Not to mention the President of the United States referring to skeptics as “Deniers” implicitly connecting them to Holocaust Deniers. Religious zeal is exactly the right analogy to describe their fear of climate skeptics and their certain belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change. Anything is justified to save us from the Apocalypse.
“Are you really saying that if someone views climate change as real based on reproducible scientific validation that you are somehow worshiping paganism?” Ha ha. No, that was not Nathan Schilt’s intent or argument. Did you really not know that?
Mark, all you have to do is read “Earth in the Balance” and innumerable other environmentalist works to see that han control over the environment par takes of all the elements of pagan religions. The fact that it does not personify its absolutist faith in the form of named dieties makes it no less pagan, and no less immune to falsifying evidence, which has been accumulating for nearly two decades, as the Warmists double down on their willingness to gamble with other people’s money to plan for an imagined future about which they can only speculate.
That should be “human” control of the environment, and “partakes.”
I find it amusing, Mark, that you routinely preface expostulations, responding to my comments, with surprise that I do not demonstrate the intelligence that you have come to expect of me. I appreciate your desire to believe in my intellectual prowess, but I seem to disappoint you so regularly. Don’t you think it’s about time to give up on that preamble, and resign yourself to the reality that, since most everything I say is really stupid, I may just be dumb? I won’t be offended, though I am slightly miffed that you feel I am dependent on FNC for my dumb ideas. You believe that because…? I do not profess to have any original ideas, but I do occasionally spend my time absorbing ideas from sources other than evening news commentary.
I suppose if I was inclined to validate the dim view you have regarding the provenance of my ideas and opinions, I would suggest that MSNBC has infected your brain, even though I have no reason to believe that a person of your intelligence would waste time hearing from Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow how to think about reality.
Speaking of another quasi-kooky idea: That humans burning a lot of fossil fuels are not responsible for a significant part of global warming.
Now, I admit that this is not up to the level of strangeness with that the pyramids were built as very, very large grain storage silos, but it is certainly on the list.
Erv,
That’s not such a kooky idea and the EPA’s own data collection shows that there is no statistical relationship between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels because the predicted results just aren’t happening. Let’s see, three years ago the arctic ice cap was supposed to have shrunk to where there would be an open shipping channel around Canada in the summer. It didn’t happen and early the next year the sea ice reached so far south in the Bering Sea that half the crab fishing grounds were inaccessible for the first time in more than 70 years. The oceans globally were supposed to have risen by at least half an inch. It hasn’t happened and what gets pointed to as “proof” actually is land sinking instead of water rising. Polar bears were supposed to be nearing extinction, but their population is the highest ever observed and growing. Massive icebergs breaking-off from Antarctica were supposed to be proof of warming, but NASA’s most recent study of sea ice shows those break-offs are so large because the ice cap there is the largest on record and still growing.
No, that “kooky” idea has a growing body of evidence to support it.
Is the climate by the Denial River getting warmer or colder? The Pacific ocean is getting warmer, but maybe since there are no carbon emissions there to pollute the atmosphere it’s most pleasant.
Elaine,
One of the fundamental problems with the theory of man-caused global warming is the concept that “normal” is a consistent baseline that does not vary when nature is showing us that the weather is highly variable and cyclical over time and area. For example, the weather systems that were burying Europe under record snowfalls two years ago are today dumping record snowfalls on Sibera. The earth’s rotation and the gravitational pull of the moon combine to create cycles in ocean currents and winds that for the past several years have left much of California suffering severe drought, but already this year have dumped the earliest and heaviest snowfalls in the Sierras in 70+ years along with heavy rains causing flash floods.
Another major problem is limited observation, both in area and over time. Pick a spot and you can document changes in the weather from one year to the next. But if you check the weather records, you’ll find what you’re seeing has happened many times before. More than that, if you want to see what the weather will be like next year, look to the west (or, to the east if you’re in the southern hemisphere) because that’s the weather pattern coming your direction.
The theory of global warming is built on a foundation of lies and sheltered in a wall of fanatical dogma that just looks increasingly suspect each time somebody looks closer.
I understand that this is not the first time the planet has experienced such severe climatic shifts. I also understand that we’ve been traking weather/climate changes for a little over a century. This is a relatively short amount of data in comparison to what’s unknown.
However, these generations are experiencing some truly messed up, scary, drastic changes, changes which are breaking records.
California’s plight has been touted by many scientists as the worst drought in its history.
Hurricane Patricia intended to wipe Mexico off the map. That hurricane looked monstrous from space!
Hotter summers and increasingly erratic wheather patterns more frequently besiege the world.
Argentina is worried about its Carbon Dioxide footprint, so much so that is has vowed to reduce such emissions by up to 15% and by the year 2030. One of the steps they are taking is instituting a yearly workers’ holiday, where workers remain home, on holiday, and consumerism almost halts. Many voices in that country are rising to suggest a weekly day of rest that would discourage the use of motor vehicles, thus reducing emissions even further.
Rev. Says “It is time to destroy all who have caused destruction on the earth, both small and great, and the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth that dwell on the earth…” GW is a man-made tragedy, indeed.
Also, Rev. 16 says that the sun will scorch. It will gradually get worse from here.
“Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) wants thousands of e-mails among scientists and NOAA’s staff of political appointees that he thinks will show that the researchers had something to hide when they refuted claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the past decade.
[Congress demands climate change documents as scientists warn of ‘chilling effect’ on research ]
On Friday, Smith appealed to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker to force NOAA to comply with his subpoena, telling her that its top officials have “obstructed” the committee’s oversight role.”
Erv, I did not say suggest that burning of fossil fuels has not contributed to global warming – at least in the recent past. It is the non- science of politicized climate change alarmism, funded by politicians and enabled by scientists that feels pagan. Even the most credulous promoters of CAGW have been forced to admit that the GCMs have wildly overestimated climate sensitivity and vastly underestimated variables which are both unknown and poorly understood.
Did VW wildly overestimate its reduction of harmful diesel emissions? Trust, but verify.
Ben Carson is a bit of a maverick,
“Carson, a Seventh-day Adventist, recently described himself in an interview with CNN as “not a real religious person.”
“I’m a person who has a deep and abiding faith and relationship with God,” Carson told CNN. “But I’m not really into a lot of religious dogma and rituals — ‘You can’t do that, and you can’t do this.’ I don’t believe in that. I believe you have to have a deep and abiding faith in God.”
In the same article he is quoted as believing in creationism, suggesting that despite those who believe he can’t be a creationist and as successful scientist.
“They say, ‘Carson, ya know, how can you be a surgeon, a neurosurgeon, and believe that God created the Earth, and not believe in evolution, which is the basis of all knowledge and all science?’,” Carson said during his second speech, referencing “progressives.”
“Well, you know, it’s kind of funny. But I do believe God created us, and I did just fine. So I don’t know where they get that stuff from, ya know? It’s not true. And in fact, the more you know about God, and the deeper your relationship with God, I think the more intricate becomes your knowledge of the way things work, including the human body.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/11/01/ben-carson-touts-creationism-during-nashville-speech/75019604/
Ben Carson embracing faith rather than dogma is refreshing in the same way the 3 Angels Message promises…
Face the facts. A real Adventist cannot be president of the US. Sabbath cannot be kept in the pursuit or function of the office.
Real Jews are out too, I suppose?
Ya, the Orthodox, for sure.
The Jews have always had a tough time squaring the demands of statecraft with their status as God’s chosen people. Still, you can’t give up and not try. Do your best. Fear God, honor the king.
The demands of office prevent observing the Sabbath? Only if you have a very legalistic view of the Sabbath. Consider all the things Isaiah 58 talks about being done on the Sabbath. Look at all the things Jesus did on the Sabbath for which He was criticized. Yes, there will be impositions on it, but who with a house on fire would hesitate to call the fire department because it would mean requiring the firefighters to work? I think we need an expanded and less legalistic view of what it means to keep the Sabbath holy.
How do you suppose that David managed the office of King or Joseph the #2 slot in Egypt or Daniel the #2 slot in Babylon AND Medo-Persia? How did Desmond Doss win the Congressional Medal of Honor ON THE SABBATH and still maintain his faith. That’s not a very good argument against being president. Actually, the only issue with that is, is it going to put heat on the Adventist Church to explain out weird practice of worshiping on Saturday? Well isn’t that sort of the point of being a witness to the 3 angels message in the last day.
Jesus never said the last days would be comfortable. Hey, maybe if we have to stand up and explain ourselves as a result of Carson’s candidacy, perhaps we can quite squabbling and nit-picking gnats and driving camels through each others’ tents.
Remember Christ’s 2nd Coming is not an occupation. It’s a rescue mission. When Adventism comes out of the closet and onto the world stage, things are going to get interesting. Ready or not my brothers and sisters, here Jesus comes!
Before I know whether if I slightly disagree with Bugs, might he define what he means by “a real Adventist.” What type of Adventist–and there are now many types–is a “real” Adventist?
Real Adventists are those who have refrained from professions where work and occupational requirements demand ignoring the day of the week. The simple way to identify them is to review the professions where there are virtually no Adventists employed because of Sabbath work requirements. Airline pilots, military officers, professional athletes, CEO’s, and hundreds of other professions and occupations where Saturday work is required, where there is no possible viable timeout from function. Yes, there are anecdotal exceptions in every case, but they may prove my thesis.
Sabbath requirements, as generally understood in Adventism, is the singular iron curtain that divides the membership between Seventh-day Adventists and the “world.” But there is an internal schism in progress, apparently, between Adventists and Seventh-day Adventists that appears to allow a breach in the barrier for a growing number of adherents who are willing to rationalize Sabbath as a good idea, not a ritual. Carson may be an example. Perhaps Dr. Taylor?
Can one be an Adventist but not a literal Seventh-day observer? So, who, then, is the “real” Adventist?
I prefer to use what I call, “the principle of prior reference”. Abe Lincoln is said to have won a court case because the jury agreed with him that even if you call a cow’s tail a leg, the cow still has only four legs. (Stark contrast with the president who didn’t know what “is” is!)
It is a fact of life, however, that, even in the U.S, there are now many people (including some active Baptists) who are saying that Christianity is not a religion–it is a relationship.
I prefer to use the word, religion, the way I believe it was understood and used for hundreds of years before people tried to redefine it. My working definition is: The sum of those beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to a person’s concept of the highest powers of the universe.
But… when Dr. Carson said he wasn’t a very religious person did he mean that his religion is personal–not institutional?
So is mine.
Dr. Carson may be doing the best thing for our denomination in a long time–explaining that it is possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist without subscribing to an institutional “religion”.
Yes, Roger,
A simple reading of Revelation 14 confirms that the Three Angels’ Message is not about a better religion, but about the Gospel of Jesus being personally embraced. The result of people individually understanding the First Angel’s clarification of the Gospel of Jesus is the religious collapse of Babylon having been disclosed as guilty of spiritual fornication.
To the degree that the Seventh-day Adventist church proclaims the Three Angels’ Message, the outcome will not be church acknowledgement, but church irrelevance. However, to the degree that the Gospel of Jesus is experienced in the context of a Seventh-day Adventist member, rather than an evangelist, church membership can be expected to mushroom.
Or so it seems.
And Bugs, I’m thinking that Ben Carson would enrich our understanding of Sabbath, and Sabbath would surely enrich his life were he to be President of the U.S. As he noted, “I’m not really into a lot of religious dogma and rituals — ‘You can’t do that, and you can’t do this.’ I don’t believe in that. I believe you have to have a deep and abiding faith in God.” We all do well to embrace our faith, itself God’s gift to us, and follow where it takes us. It is most interesting where it seems to be taking Ben Carson.
That’s a novel idea, Bill. “I’m thinking that Ben Carson would enrich our understanding of Sabbath, and Sabbath would surely enrich his life were he to be President of the U.S.” How so? Especially on the first part.
He’d help clarify the bible doesn’t teach Sabbath is changed to Sunday. Jesus said when accused of healing on the Sabbath, “my Father works and I work” Carson remembered those words frequently, I’m sure, being a Doctor. He would remember them I’m sure, being a president. But I’ll bet he still more or less takes off the Sabbath. Just like Joe Lieberman or even Bernie Saunders would. Just like many presidents in the past took off Sundays. He’d help us all to ‘remember’ the Sabbath day.
Carson and his fans have much more to worry about than Sabbath observance. All the things the reporters say he has written in his book are coming back to haunt him. If there’s a few bones rattling in his closet or the inability to talk with family or friends about his youthful “escapades”, he has much to be concerned about. Any time someone blames others for criticizing, check further. He has already said he would not make his brother “available” for questioning about the attempt to kill his mother with a hammer.
Elaine,
He didn’t write about youthful ‘escapades’. He wrote about anger. Anger when he was very young, twelve years old. He wrote about how he changed. In the context that Jesus Christ and religion and the church and his mother’s steadfast love and faith changed him from an angry young man into a believer in Jesus Christ. A follower of Jesus. I’ll bet you think the portrait of Ben Carson with Jesus is totally creepy. Elaine, its exactly the type of thing a certain type Adventist would do. It is an expression of the man’s faith. Just like his answer to the question; “who’d you like to have a drink with?” “Jesus Christ”
These are skeletons in the closet? All the lies Carson told are haunting him? You want verified witnesses to what the twelve year old boy said he did fifty years ago? I don’t think these issues bother Carson’s supporters in the least.
Bugs wrote: “It is extremely attractive to imagine how it might be if the one guileless soul in the land might be in charge.” People pour a lot of themselves into the candidate they support. Carson is the type of person a lot of people might imagine they would like to be. Elaine, I knew Dr. Carson would never be your cup of tea. You are too busy imagining you are not an Adventist to every imagine you’d like to be like Dr. Ben Carson.
TWT: Time will tell.
i think not that Carson will be POTUS OR VICEPOTUS. There is definitely a groundswell of appreciation by the Conservative element of an intellectual honest guileless person, even yet, here in the 21st century. i agree with Larry and Nathan. He would be eaten alive by the corruptible “old boys club” of Demos & Repubs, with their former bench sitters, now retired, but LOBBYING their former partners in robbing the U.S. citizens of their last dollar, if possible. The “old boys” aint gonna give up their millions, because of an honest guileless usurper in the White House. No Sir, No Sir!!!!
Re: Global Warming. The world’s volcanos spew into the ionosphere daily, more carbon dioxide(which our greenery uses to give us oxygen)
and pollutants than mankind have contributed in a thousand years. The
fossil fuels, mostly Coal, in the 1800’s until 1970’s was much worse than the current coal plants w/scrubbers, hydro power plants, nuclear power plants, solar power generation wind power generation, etc, in use today in Western Europe, USA, Japan, S. Korea etc. The worst performers, China and India. The current global warming is near the same as in 1922, with the same disasterous predictions as today. The global weather operates on predictable cycles, and can be plotted on known formulas, with repetitive duplications,(scored per
the Kondretief cycle type scale). Yeah, its been hot, but note the winter ahead. Of course Congress will get fat, and AL GORE has made 500 million Dollars,…
To all those claiming that Carson would popularize the Sabbath if he becomes President, think again. As long ago as 1999 he admitted that he attends Sunday-keeping churches as often as the SDA church; and he regularly conducts book sales/signings and campaign speeches and other political campaign events on Friday nights and Sabbaths. Healing through medical treatment on Sabbath is one thing; conducting secular sales and campaigning on Sabbath is another. Plus, even if he were to decide to keep the Sabbath holy, it is debatable how many people would find his views influential, as his reputation has been tarnished by several recent statements that do not make much sense.
See, he is probably Adventist but not a Seventh-day one. Anyway,”keeping the Sabbath holy” is nothing more than mental flimfam without reward or punishment other than neurotic pleasure or guilt, a reality Carson has obviously determined. So, is he or not a real Adventist? And what could he ever do as president to advance the Holy concept of it to pleasure Real Adventism?
It is doubtful that there are more than a few Adventists who keep that day holy a it was originally given at Sinai when any deviance meant stoning. Since no Adventists believe in stoning, although instruction for its observance is found in the OT, Adventists have made up their own version of “proper” observance which is all man made, based partially on the OT with updated concepts.
It is impossible to find anything about Sabbath sacredness for Christians in the OT, so people have made their own decisions about how they will observe it. Just as former Christians observing Sunday and calling it Sabbath and had similar strict rules, early Adventists adopted those same ones for the seventh day.
Jesus Christ kept the Sabbath and he is our Sabbath. Bugs, that is the defining fact for all Seventh-day Adventists; Real, real, or otherwise. We are letting Jesus interpret Moses. Now Jesus Christ and the rulers of the Jews had quite a bit of conflict about Sabbath. Often about healing on Sabbath, sometimes about the the Son of Man being the Lord of the Sabbath: “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.”
The Jews say the Sabbath is God’s invitation to imitate Him; to rest as He rested. It is in imitating Jesus Christ that we enter into real rest: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The whole point of the Sabbath is Messiah. The whole point of Passover is Messiah. The Temple, the daily sacrifices, the Day of Atonement, the Law and the Prophets, they have no meaning or purpose apart from the Messiah and His work.
Elaine and Bugs, you two have some really confused ideas about Christians & Sabbath-keeping. We keep the Sabbath the same way we live our whole lives: in the imitation of Christ. I’d like to think Ben Carson thinks about Sabbath-keeping in the way I’ve described. But as I said: We pour a lot of ourselves into the candidates we support.
Isn’t it correct, William, to speculate that as a good Jew Christ also celebrated the rites and rituals of Judaism? It would seem to follow, using your argument, perfectly applied, you should, too. You would then have to admit that Adventism is a neo-version of Judaism, wouldn’t you? Remember, Christianity formed after the “resurrection.” Christ’s last meal celebrated the Passover, a core of Jewish tradition. Christ wasn’t a “Christian” nor were his followers through that point, and even the days that followed.
Your use of the term “Messiah” is reckless since in Christ’s time it meant the one to return Judaism to theocracy. His public persona and his words fit that Jewish hope. His killing disappointing all who believed in him. (I understand the proclivity of reverse searchers finding it useful to reinterpret words of intended ancient purpose to reapply to a new argument).
I’m amused at the degree to which Adventism seeks validation by finding one of its own (Ben) as a national news item with potential long term notoriety. But Carson isn’t a good role model. Up to now members who publically disregarded Sabbath as he does merited dis-fellowship, disavowal, or minimally, no recognition at all.
Like it or not, Adventism must now face the fact that adoption of the legal dogma of Sabbath was a blunder now creating schism and therefore its identity. Outside of imagination, there is no reason to “keep” it because it cannot actually be “kept.”
Bugs: Christianity isn’t so much Neo-Judaism as it is Judaism for Gentiles. Roman Catholics once declared themselves the new Israel; Israel’s replacement – but even they have tempered that claim since Vatican II. Lets call Christianity, Messianic Judaism for Gentiles. Christians do believe in a Messianic Theocracy. Jesus Christ rules in the hearts of his followers. His sheep know Him.
Christianity is familially bound to Israel. The natural son and the adopted son, brothers, with God’s Anointed One ruling over us all. Abraham is the father of us all. Isn’t it a wonder that “Torah” is read in all the churches? – That Judaism’s Messianic hope is also Christianity’s Messianic hope? We are all hoping for the King of Israel to appear.
Your problem Bugs is you put the Resurrection in quotation marks. It is not the “resurrection”. It is: I believe in the resurrection of the dead. I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son… …who on the third day rose from the dead. Bugs if you won’t believe, in whom will you hope?
Do you believe Jesus kept the Sabbath? Believe that He kept it for you. Legal Dogma? Yes, the Law of God is legal dogma. It is the foundation and source of all law. Unbelief is lawlessness.
Even Buzzfeed was easily able to debunk the Wall Street Journal’s flawed, deficient reporting about Dr. Carson. The liberal media is a vast left-wing conspiracy. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ben-carsons-yale-classmate-we-did-the-prank-test-that-carson The vast liberal left-wing media conspiracy owes an apology to Dr. Carson.
Speaking as a former newspaper reporter and editor, I don’t buy the “left wing conspiracy” theories. As the criticism of Carson illustrates, the mainstream media is slavishly devoted to doing whatever is required to destroy the character of any conservative who has a chance of beating a liberal, so it is not conspiracy, but part of their DNA. They have long-since abandoned fairness and factuality because their concept of “truth” is whatever they say today, which is subject to change five minutes from now, probably by tomorrow and definitely by next week.
Well said, William. Fox News is more balanced; their DNA is more attuned to pointing out the flaws in the left-wing candidates.
Everyone should sign the petition to force the media to stop scrutinizing Ben Carsinogen. No other candidate has been scrutinized so closely. It’s unfair. http://www.TellTheTruth2016.org
It is interesting, though, that he has also changed positions on some political proposals and then seemed to deny that he ever held the former position. It’s a bit confusing. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123403/why-ben-carsons-problem-truth-really-matters
Tonight is his chance to fight back in the debate, but experts suggest that he should maintain a calm demeanor. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/10/after-scrappy-week-carson-in-debate/?intcmp=hpbt2
The challenge will be to focus on the issues that he is familiar with (e.g. ObamaCare) and not get sidetracked into defending himself from false accusations. He needs to present himself as “presidential” and business-like, not a scared novice.
I would give Ben some friendly (?) advice: stick to nice little soundbites that will sound good in the liberal media. Memorize your lines and repeat them resolutely. Don’t try to ad-lib anything.
Presbyterians are “middle of the road.” But Adventists, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about them.
If only more of the candidates were dignified like Jeb Butch. He is almost the only one who has focused on the issues instead of attacking his fellow candidates. After all, his brother gave Ben Carson the presidential award. As Kris Kristy said, it’s funny to see the candidates attack each other like crabs in a barrel.
General epistle to everyone on this thread:
I wonder how much of what has appeared on this thread so far is people “talking past each other”. Maybe some definitions would help.
adventist (lowercase): a person who expects an heavenly kingdom–not an earthly one; expects the second advent of Jesus to be supernatural, cataclysmic and visible to everyone on Earth; believes the purpose of the second advent is to resurrect the sleeping saints and take them with us (the finally penitent) to be with Jesus where he is.
Seventh-day Adventist (capitalized): a member of the Seventh-day Adventist organization. (Note: There have been adventists for millennia. The advent movement of the nineteenth century developed for several years before there were Seventh-day Adventists.)
seventh-day adventist (lowercase): seventh-day sabbath keeping adventist. (Note: Not recommended for fear of being confused with Seventh-day Adventist.)
Adventist (capitalized): Synonymous with Seventh-day Adventist.
Is Dr. Carson an adventist? Is he a Seventh-day Adventist?
Speculation on these questions is welcome but please avoid speculating without qualifying your statements. If you are giving us “facts” about whether Dr. Carson is an adventist or a Seventh-day Adventist, please include references.
Ben is a Seventh-day Adventist member. According to Gifted Hands, he was baptized into the SDA church twice. About two years ago the Adventist Review used to run full-page ads promoting itself as a great publication “because Ben Carson is reads it.” I don’t think they will run those ads anymore. . . . In fact, BarelyAdventist recently joked that the GC is begging Ben to say he is a Baptist. The GC actually did set up a new web site to try to help field the unwanted attention that Ben’s off-the-wall comments have generated for the church: WhoAreAdventists.org (which redirects to a special page on the GC web site (“press resources re Who Are Seventh-day Adventists”).
Roger, the real issue (not the one I previously raised, mostly for amusement) isn’t Carson or his membership, but the validity of Adventist dogmas. Of course, a religious system has every right to promote its theology and dogmas as it wishes. But validity is another way of saying “useful” or “functional.” At its gestation Adventism was very useful. But there is an natural evolution of time and society that advances it past whatever is fastened down, including religious discourse. And that is the dilemma of Adventism.
Interestingly, early Adventism acknowledged the moving targets involved, with the concept of “present truth.” However, there was an unaffected core, the Sabbath and the second coming that crystalized in that metaphor and wasn’t subject to adjustment. But Jesus never showed up, scuttling the scheme and leaving behind its ossified foundation. Adventism pretends that isn’t so. So it is presently marginally useful and functional, an uncomfortable “present truth.”
God’s word and his authority as present truth has today been refined, correctly, as metaphor. Do your thing, call yourself what you want, even Seventh-day Adventist.
The Carson phenomenon confronts Adventism with the fact that for a person to be wholly functional In society adherence to its ancient dogmas isn’t useful or functional. How it adjusts to this “present truth” is the spectacle now on display for all to see. Hear the traditionalists screaming in pain?
I am a regular-attending SDA church member Bugs, and I don’t yet hear any “traditionalists screaming in pain” from any Adventist dogma that has been publicized. What I hear from you and some ex-Adventists bashers is a desire for that to have happened by now, or for it to happen soon.
Correct me if you think that I am mistaken, but doesn’t the reality that Dr. Black served as the highest ranking naval chaplain and now serves as the chaplain of the United States Senate, or that (fellow Pine Forge Academy alumnus) John Street served as mayor of Philadelphia, PA—or even that Ben Carson has remained in contention for so long for a major party presidential nomination, at least insofar as pre-primary polls are concerned—disprove your theory that adherence to SDA dogmas aren’t “useful or functional” in terms of being “wholly functional in society”?
Do you consider that being an admiral in the United States Navy, or the chaplain of the United State Senate, or the mayor of the fifth largest city in the United States, or being a renowned pediatric brain surgeon, and/or running for President of the United States to be less than “wholly functional in society”?
It seems to me that we Adventists are often held to an unreasonably high standard by ex-Adventist ‘haters’ and bashers. (I use the term ‘haters’ as is commonly used in the urban vernacular; as in being resentful of the achievements or favor of others.)
Stephen, your examples are a drop in the bucket compared to all the Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic and all the other achievers.
Your reply ignores my central points, Stephen. 1. There are a handful of achievers who are SDA. 2. They didn’t keep Sabbath in the traditional Adventist sense. 3.Sabbath keeping is and has blocked the achievement door for countless others who might shine as bright or brighter than your examples. 4. There is an internal schism growing over Sabbath as required ritual or metaphor. 5. Creative people exit Adventism to avoid the Sabbath blockade (this is added). 6. Adventism has only a smidgen of influence in the world compared to what it would have without Sabbath restrictions holding back countless fine people from participating as leaders.
I was born and raised SDA, attended church schools through college and a year at Andrews. I left it decades ago when I discerned the falsity of its eschatology demonstrated by the utter failure of the predictions. That is the scenario of end time events with Adventism and its heralding of Sabbath as a central “truth” in the struggle between Adventism and the “Papacy,” a time of horrible persecution on the former by the latter and the appearance of Christ as rescuer.
I was taught a very “high standard,” by my parents and the church, which included calling falsehood for what it is, a lie. How is that “bashing” Adventism when applied to its errors?
Your undeniable—and unenviable—traumatized youth has manifesting itself again in spades; and to be frank, I am ill-equipped to handle it Bugs.
You say “[my] examples [of Seventh-day Adventists who are “wholly functional”] are a drop in the bucket compared to all the Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic and all the other achievers.” But of course it is Bugs; there aren’t very many Seventh-day Adventists as compared to all the Methodist, Lutheran, Catholics,” and others. Besides that, I didn’t see where your enumerated “central points” had been articulated as such, so I ignored that which wasn’t apparent.
It seems that your current criticisms of Seventh-day Adventism have to do with the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, as a day of rest and memorial of Creation; and with the fact that we anticipate a literal return of Jesus Christ, preceded by what the Revelation of Jesus Christ identifies as things that must happen.
Is it your opinion that anything that hasn’t happened, cannot and/or will not happen? Do you have any issues with the way the Chick Filet ownership observes Sunday; or with the eschatology of other evangelical Protestants who believe that Jesus will return, and that the papacy is identified in prophetic scripture—or is it just Adventists who, to your way of thinking, are precluded from being “wholly functional in society” as a result of adherence to, or interpretations of, “ancient dogmas”?
Correction: …traumatized youth has manifested itself again…
First, Stephen, no trauma, I had a mostly trouble free child and youth-hood, loving Adventist mother and loving, spiritual but non-Adventist dad, married for 50 years. Rage wasn’t my motive for leaving the church. I value my stay there for 34 years (or I wouldn’t be on this site now). Not anger, but brain is what moved me on in my life. I simply evaluated Adventism over a long period and concluded it was faulty in its claims and theology. I haven’t, nor will I, join any church including the Adventist church.
As to the number of Adventist achievers against the others, it isn’t the total but the proportion that is grandly skewed. And yes, the issue is the Sabbath. And your reinterpreted belief in Sabbath as more than law is fine with me. But it’s a choice you make and your way of expressing devotion and worship. It isn’t a mandate for anyone else.
What hasn’t happened can, of course. But not likely the Adventist scenario, eschatology. It became a lie at its birth when the “prophetical” base for it was demonstrably wrong and the proponents built a new imaginary structure as a face saving device instead of confession, abandonment and moving on. A structure emanating from falsehood is false. The eureka discovery of the papacy in Scripture a convenience, without merit, is an opinion convenience to establish a desired, post Millerite imaginary eschatology.
Yes, only Adventists are precluded form full function in society by the Sabbath.
First, Stephen, no trauma, I had a mostly trouble free child and youth-hood, loving Adventist mother and loving, spiritual but non-Adventist dad, married for 50 years. Rage wasn’t my motive for leaving the church. I value my stay there for 34 years (or I wouldn’t be on this site now). Not anger, but brain is what moved me on in my life. I simply evaluated Adventism over a long period and concluded it was faulty in its claims and theology. I haven’t, nor will I, join any church including the Adventist church.
As to the number of Adventist achievers against the others, it isn’t the total but the proportion that is grandly skewed. And yes, the issue is the Sabbath. And your reinterpreted belief in Sabbath as more than law is fine with me. But it’s a choice you make and your way of expressing devotion and worship. It isn’t a mandate for anyone else.
What hasn’t happened can, of course. But not likely the Adventist scenario, eschatology. It became a lie at its birth when the “prophetical” base for it was demonstrably wrong and the proponents built a new imaginary structure as a face saving device instead of confession, abandonment and moving on. A structure emanating from falsehood is false. The eureka discovery of the papacy in Scripture a convenience, without merit, is an opinion convenience to establish a desired, post Millerite imaginary eschatology.
Yes, only Adventists are precluded from full function in society by the Sabbath.
Larry, perhaps you have forgotten that you had long ago given up the farcical claim that you had not been traumatized. You once said that you were frightened by the description or the thought of the cloud about the size of a man’s hand, etc. Like others, you therefore had to be frightened by some of the other more scary Adventist depictions of the time of the end; not to mention by those from whom you heard some of those things.
I’m sorry to be questioning the credulity of your claim (that you weren’t traumatized); but as you well know (since we’ve previously been around this barn) I’m not buying it.
I note that you failed to acknowledge or address the question relating to the Chick Filet chain restaurant ownership and its observance of Sunday. Do you consider that enterprise to be a wholly functional part of society?
You do realize of course that the Protestant Reformers originated an interpretation of the papacy being indentified in scripture; and prophetic scripture at that. Were you actually operating under the mistaken impression that Adventists or the Millerites made that up themselves?
How do you figure I “reinterpreted” the Sabbath? You might want to read that again. (Here’s a clue: from where does anyone get the idea that the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath?)
Stephen, it is curious, a contradiction, that you can heartily believe the foolishness of Adventist eschatology, but not the statement of an honest man, me. Why?
A teen concern the second coming would limit a full earthly life isn’t “trauma.” Is the Chick Filet owner Seventh-day Adventist? There are extremely anecdotal examples of everything. Minutia. It’s all flotsam hopefully grabbed by sinking souls.
Genius Isaac Newton studied the second coming at length, and there is a centuries long tradition of the general interpretation of D&R, accepted and expanded by the Millerites. That establishes nothing but collective opinion that is divorced from verification because that is all it can be. And the Millerite errors proved how misleading it was.
“. . .memorial of Creation.” is a Sabbath reinterpretation of the law, a convenience to avoid the charge of legalism.
I accept that you are so committed to your faith that is unimaginable and unthinkable for someone to actually opt out for intellectual considerations, and that the only possible operative has to be some mystical, psychological, or pathological condition.
I have several friends who exited Adventism, still actually “traumatized” who are filled with rage, neither will ever admit to strangers the embarrassment they were ever associated with the church. That’s not me.
I don’t enjoy being called a liar, but being primarily of German decent, I wear my scars proudly! Dis herts, but I lik it!
Bugs,
I apologize for having offended you, but I’m not calling you a liar just because I happen not to believe what you believe—or don’t believe—about yourself. Someone who can’t sing, but think that they can, is not lying if they tell me that they can sing.
Someone who claims that they can’t do something that perhaps they have not yet had the courage or willingness to learn or try to do it, isn’t lying when they say that they can’t do whatever; they are merely mistaken. And if someone believes something contrary to what another individual thinks of him/her self, is not tantamount to calling that individual a liar.
The so-called (by conservatives) “left wing” media is doing what good journalism requires: determine the facts and get behind the “right wing” bias and propaganda supported by the likes of Fox news. Dr. Carson has some strange beliefs and these need to be unpacked and discussed about someone who thinks he should become the U.S. President
His social claims are artifact. But Carson’s intellectual miscues aren’t. They are verifiable. I can’t imagine educated people voting for a good man whose ideas of pyramids and creation (et.al.) are, at best, childish. Worse, he has to ignore plain facts to adhere to these anti-intellectual, uninformed concepts. It is naïve to think this level of analysis and fact checking wouldn’t affect his decisions as president and result in negative unintended, as well as predictive, consequences. It seems to me there is a sort of dishonesty Carson displays on this level that shadows the artifacts. That may yet be the Achilles heel of his undoing as a viable candidate.
By your standards, Larry, should anyone who believes in something so preposterous as the Resurrection ever be entrusted with any responsibility that calls for objectivity, intellectual acumen, and the ability to distinguish fact from fiction? How could Carson have been a competent neurosurgeon with such mental deficits?
isn’t the job of POTUS to faithfully follow the Constitition, uphold the laws of the Land, and protect the citizens? How do vestigial religious beliefs, which may not have been critically examined, adversely impact one’s capacity to fulfill the duties and expectations of the presidency?
Of course, Nathan, since all is possible, Carson’s religious beliefs may have no impact on any of his functions as president. I am suggesting there is a naiveté in his thinking that is of concern. Believing the resurrection is one thing, that pyramids were granaries quite another. The first is a belief, the second is a place with established scientific facts with minimal granary possibilities. Blindness in the case of the second item in the face of all evidence is a red flag of willing ignorance that might adversely affect the important function of a decision maker. Supposing he vetoes an action based on a conviction the Second Advent is just around the corner?
The “resurrection” is preposterous. Isn’t that why it is so attractive as a faith tenant for millions of fine people? Faith, belief in the resurrection, isn’t a disqualifier for any person, including Carson. But adherence to a failed eschatological proposition might well be.
There is speculation the theologicrats in Iran are willing to destroy the tent poles of civilization as a necessary introduction to the end time and the world wide conversion to Islam. No, Carson doesn’t approach this grandiose nightmare vision. But many Adventist look daily in the sky for the half hand sized cloud with Jesus as driver. And they make decisions based on that belief. Affairs of state need to be free of possible theoretical affectations which might steer the country to meaningless or dangerous directions.
Fair points, Larry. I tend to agree with the distinctions you make. I think the public is entitled to know how a candidate”s religious views might impact their ability/will to do their job. Where the line is drawn between reasonable scrutiny and discrimination based on faith will very much depend on the public’s faith in the ability of public servants to separate religious beliefs from policy judgments. In general, I think it’s unfair and a cop out to use “nutty” religious folklore as a surrogate for intelligence, thereby indirectly making religious beliefs a litmus test for public office.
We seem to find that candidates for political office who possess a deep understanding and exceptional competence in a fairly narrow arena tend to make excellent cabinet secretaries, etc., and less-capable general administrators, case in point a recent physician-governor of the state of Oregon who resigned under fire for his failure to intuitively sense the deep conflicts of interest between himself and one of his contract employees, with whom he lived in common-law matrimony. As time passed it became obvious that the woman and her small business were receiving preferential treatment that sent red flags all up and down the Willamette Valley and into Eastern Oregon, but to which the good doctor seemed absolutely oblivious. Point here is that history is full of examples of highly competent geniuses (musicians, engineers, inventors, healers, educators, etc.) who possess all the talent in the world but who in practice show themselves to be resoundingly out of touch on matters outside their areas of special expertise.
I have to say, Erv, that I am surprised by your mindless ad hominem. Your comments generally exhibit more intellectual substance. The notion that conservative news wants to bury Carson’s “strange beliefs” is fatuous. Fox News covers them as well as any outlet. Fox pundits (not really journalists) may weigh them differently than the Left wing pundits whom you seem to confuse for journalists.
Erv,
There is a difference between using documented evidence to test and prove or disprove something and doing a “hit piece” like CNN did and claiming that the incidents Carson described in his books about his youth were false when all they could find was people didn’t remember because the events happened so long ago. The producers at CNN assumed were looking for something to discredit Carson so they assumed his story was false because they couldn’t find corroboration, while forgetting that their story was the false because they couldn’t find anyone disputing Carson’s story. I used to be a newspaper reporter/editor and if that story package had landed on my desk, I would have killed it for lack of evidence.
It is not in our best interests as Seventh-day Adventists to dabble in politics and engage in political affiliations, let alone vying for potus, as Dr Carson has done.
Most people, when they think they are thinking, are really only rearranging their prejudices.
At least I have the advantage of knowing that’s what I’m doing.
Whether my previous comment has actually resulted in thinking may be debatable but I think maybe it has.
Once upon a time, there was a couple who were very pushy about trying to impose their dietary preferences on all of the members of an SdA congregation. So much so that the pastor asked them to attend elsewhere or/and request that there membership be transferred.
They did both.
That there are dogmatists in our denomination is irrefutable but that there are people working to minimize the ill effects of dogmatism is also true.
Mr. Boshell,
If there are doctrines with which you disagree, that’s OK with me. It would be helpful, however, if you could give us–or at least me–some idea of what your belief system is. Can you make a list of doctrines with which you disagree? Do you disagree with the doctrine of innate or “natural” immortality? Do you disagree with the doctrine that the sanctity of the sabbath has been “transferred” to Sunday? Do you disagree with the doctrine that God will arbitrarily close human probation? Do you disagree with the doctrine that no one’s sins are forgiven until his name “comes up” in the investigative judgement? Do you disagree with the doctrine that Satan will be our sin-bearer?
Roger, I’d like to address your question re ‘innate or “natural” immortality.’
It would be good to know what are your own assumptions regarding this, but maybe you will reveal this in due course. I had the standard SDA view that human nature is 100% material. As per OT Judaism. Body ceases to be viable, dust returns to dust. Immortality, in this context, refers to physical bodies which cannot lose viability. Obviously, God has to do something special.
But the NT introduces, indeed seems dependent on, the view that the physical body, with all its emotional, moral, intellectual and a host of other powers, is not the only reality. It suggests, quite strongly for mine, that all of those non-material aspects of human nature, are not simply ’emergent properties’ of matter, be it neuronal, cardiac or gut tissue.
Rather, the NT teaches a dichotomy of flesh and spirit. Dualism, in other words. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Is ‘spirit’ a word for some of the qualities of matter, or is it a teaching of a greater reality, independent of the body, which appears to give it a medium of expression?
If ‘the spirit bears witness with our spirit,’ does that make ‘our spirit’ a mere adjunct of our true ‘self,’ or is our non-material aspect in fact the totality of our true self?
If our true self is of spirit nature, then how can it be subject to the laws of decay of physical flesh? SDAs have not…
Faith functions best as the mental accommodation in words and concepts that eases the trip through life providing hope and a way of expressing an ethic of being that transcends ordinary life. Adventism functioning on that level gets no criticism from me.
Roger, I look through a different window than you. So my short answer is that those doctrines don’t matter to me. At the end of religious discourse there is no reward or punishment. As opinions, they are personal, need no defense, are ego satisfactions, aren’t subject to verification or fact checking, and are nothing but mental creations. Doctrines are neither validated nor invalidated by allies in opinion.
I will note that the doctrines you cite (except the immortality one) are rooted in Adventist eschatology, which in a every sense died with the failure and demise of the end time scenario. So since they developed as a part of that eschatology, or as a face saving device when it failed, they would also be moot. In fact, they were doomed from the get-go since God-talk is fallacious and predictions even more so. But that is just opinion about opinion.
My faith is based on the simple concept of Love. I experience it daily in my life and consider it a sort of entanglement with “God.” There are no possible dogmas or theology in that experience, so nothing to talk about except what joy happens in love encounters.
Faith functions best as the mental accommodation in words and concepts that eases the trip through life providing hope and a way of expressing an ethic of being that transcends ordinary life. Adventism functioning on that level gets no criticism from me.
Roger, I look through a different window than you. So my short answer is that those doctrines don’t matter to me. At the end of religious discourse there is no reward or punishment. As opinions, they are personal, need no defense, are ego satisfactions, aren’t subject to verification or fact checking, and are nothing but mental creations. Doctrines are neither validated nor invalidated by allies in opinion.
I will note that the doctrines you cite (except the immortality one) are rooted in Adventist eschatology, which in a every sense died with the failure and demise of the end time scenario. So since they developed as a part of that eschatology, or as a face saving device when it failed, they would also be moot. In fact, they were doomed from the get-go since God-talk is fallacious and predictions even more so. But that is just opinion about opinion.
My faith is based on the simple concept of Love. I experience it daily in my life and consider it a sort of entanglement with “God.” There are no possible dogmas or theology in that experience, so nothing to talk about except what joy happens in love encounters.
Roger, yes Larry (Bugs), would disagree with each of your queries.
Larry, an intellectual thought meister, a former SDA pastor of approx. 11 years, is a lovable scamp, who enthusiastically pokes fun at SDA doctrines. However, the perfect love displayed by Christ Jesus, floods his soul. i believe this is a “fruit of the Spirit of Christ”, the God of LOVE.
Roger, those questions to Bugs are similar to “when did you stop beating your wife.”
He is certainly more than well qualified to answer for himself, but since I am also a former Adventist let me give you my answers which may, or may not agree with his.
Asking about “natural or innate immortality implies that those are the only two possibilities. What if some believe that we live, we die just like plants and animals and give life for succeeding generations as we become “dust and ashes”?
I do not believe that Sabbath sacredness was transferred from Judaism to Christianity, nor that Sunday became sacred. There are no NT texts giving Christians any day specifically for worship. Sunday gradually became the day of rest by common practice, nothing else.
Probation closes for all when we take our last breath, no sooner, no later.
God is the final Investigative Judge and there is salvation available for all until the moment of our death. There is no biblical text referring to our “name coming up” in an investigative judgment at some unknown time for us.
Satan has been accused of so many things (“The devil made me do it”) but if there is a future heaven, whether a place or idea, Satan’s demise it will make no difference if we are in perfect bliss
Faith functions best as the mental accommodation in words and concepts that eases the trip through life providing hope and a way of expressing an ethic of being that transcends ordinary life. Adventism functioning on that level gets no criticism from me.
Roger, I look through a different window than you. So my short answer is that those doctrines don’t matter to me. At the end of religious discourse there is no reward or punishment. As opinions, they are personal, need no defense, are ego satisfactions, aren’t subject to verification or fact checking, and are nothing but mental creations. Doctrines are neither validated nor invalidated by allies in opinion.
I will note that the doctrines you cite (except the immortality one) are rooted in Adventist eschatology, which in a every sense died with the failure and demise of the end time scenario. So since they developed as a part of that eschatology, or as a face saving device when it failed, they would also be moot. In fact, they were doomed from the get-go since God-talk is fallacious and predictions even more so. But that is just opinion about opinion.
My faith is based on the simple concept of Love. I experience it daily in my life and consider it a sort of entanglement with “God.” There are no possible dogmas or theology in that experience, so nothing to talk about except what joy happens in love encounters.
Earl,
I disagree with a number of doctrines of people in other denominations. I think, however, that it has been more than a half a century since I have been tempted to poke fun at doctrines with which I disagree. There is too much danger that what may be intended as good-natured “ribbing” might be taken as disrespect either for the doctrine itself or disrespect of someone who subscribes to the doctrine.
I accept such “poking fun” when it is “in house”, i.e. among members of an organization or a faith community.
Example: The man who is described as going to heaven and realizing that there is a high wall with people on the other side of it. He inquires as to who it might be and is told there are Adventists on the other side of the wall, “Be careful to not make too much noise. The Adventists think they are the only ones here.”
Regarding the Ben Carson/West Point full scholarship question, please read this for yourself:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/08/ben-carson/carson-defends-west-point-scholarship-story/ This proves that Ben Carson’s story is completely believable. If any mistake was made, it was that of the PR department of West Point.
Regarding the stabbing incident:
In an interview with Ben Carson’s mother, Sonya, which appeared in Parade Magazine on May 11, 1997, she was asked if the stabbing attempt really happened. She said, “Oh, that really happened. I sat him down and told him that you don’t accomplish much by being a bully. You accomplish more with kindness than you ever do by being harsh.”
It amazes me that some otherwise apparently very intelligent people still haven’t caught on to the fact that the media in general have no conscience regarding their attempts to demean the character of people they wish to portray as being dishonest. Be assured that this will continue well into the future for Dr. Ben Carson. He has many enemies who are lying right and left all over the Internet. I know this to be true because I have personally witnessed it; I’ve visited scores of different websites and read these things for myself.
Please don’t take for granted that the people in the media are telling the truth! They are the ones who are lying in their attempts to show that others are lying. And, when confronted with this fact, they almost never…
If Barry Block ever preaches at my church, I’ll be sure to attend, Stephen. I’m impressed with your praise for him, but hearing him preach is still not on my bucket list. Maybe I can find one of his messages on YouTube. I can’t remember ever having gone to a church other than my home church just to hear a great preacher. BTW, Barry Block may be more well known outside Adventism than Ted Wilson. But I would wager that, in terms of total numbers, far more people have heard of Wilson. Sad, but true.
I strongly suspect that if Block had attended the same educational institutions that Carson attended, and had Carson attended the same educational institutions that Block did, their lives and values would have followed a very similar trajectory to what they now are on.
I don’t think my values or character particularly reflect on Mile High Academy, Union College, or UCLA Law School. Anyone who says so is telling you far more about themselves than about me or the schools I attended. And that’s really what you have done in your very politically correct juxtaposition of Black and Carson – telling us about yourself. Erv Taylor could probably name a dozen very liberal Adventist theologians, who are products of multiple fine Adventist educational institutions. If he told you these folks are fine advertisements for the institutions from which they matriculated, would that tell you more about Erv, the theologians, or the SDA schools attended by the theologians?
Nathan wrote: I don’t think my values or character particularly reflect on Mile High Academy, Union College, or UCLA Law School.
I agree. But I do think they reflect on your Mother and Father; vice versa too. Black and Carson are both honorable and successful men. Education and church membership did not make them fine men. Both Black and Carson would recoil in horror if you described them as, “self-made men” or men who rose above their upbringing.
Both men go about their day quietly honoring their mother and father as they live out their values and character. ‘Both men’ I believe also refers to Nathan and Stephen.
Stephen you wrote: “I’ve said so on these boards previously, political ideology trumps theology every time.” Perhaps not. Perhaps familial bonds trump both. That’s how I see the cards being played.
Precisely, William. Couldn’t agree more.
Nathan, we are talking about two entirely different things in terms of the advertisement value of Barry Black to the educational system and institutions from which he comes. I am not saying that Carson is Carson because he did NOT attend those schools; but that Black is Black in large measure because he DID attend those schools. As such, had the public at large been introduced to Adventism by Black, it would have been an advertisement for the system and institutions that produced a Barry Black; that’s all.
Of course it doesn’t exactly shock me that you don’t think your not having heard Black is any big deal; but it is a shame for yet another reason: You are interested in politics and public affairs; and as the U.S. Senate chaplain—and even in his previous role as chief of naval chaplains—the admiral often shares some of the many experiences he has had that you would undoubtedly find to be somewhat fascinating. In this particular instance you remind me of a young man with great potential and great opportunities, but does not recognize or appreciate the blessings he has been given, the potential he has, or the opportunities and advantages at his disposal. Thus to my way of thinking, it is classically tragic.
But you’ll live; and besides, you’ve certainly done very well for yourself without benefit of advice or recommendations from the likes of me, right?
Do you know how many wise, wonderful speakers there are whom neither of us have heard or heard of? Do you know how many fantastic books neither of us has read? I’m sure Black is a terrific speaker, and based on your recommendation, I will certainly make sure to hear him. I’m sure I can find something on YouTube. I appreciate fine preaching, but by and large, I avoid speeches because they are too time-consuming. I can read many times faster than I can hear. You’re attaching way too much significance to my lack of curiosity about Barry Black. If I recommended what I think is a terrific book, would you feel your education is deficient until you read that book?
I just disagree with you that Barry Black is who he is LARGELY because he attended Adventist schools. I very much believe in Christian education. But I firmly believe that strong Christian families are vastly more important to the trajectory of a student’s life.
As with many things, this is not an either/or proposition—Christian family values vs. Christian education—but rather a both/and deal. Black’s mother was clearly a godly woman who was determined by God’s grace to have her son “taught of the Lord,” as the saying goes.
Given where he grew up and the circumstance therein, there is ample evidence that things may not have transpired as they did in his life had he not been educated—outside of his home—how and where he was. (I personally know, am personal friends with, and/or am closely related to many individuals who were raised with Christian values but who have nonetheless for much of their lives been ‘lost to the streets.’) However the point I was making is simply that Black is a walking advertisement for the value and quality of the educational foundation that he received, and for the institutions through which he received it.
Since you like to read so much, you might want to check out Black’s autobiography, ‘From the Hood to the Hill.’
Thanks for the reference. For the record, I haven’t read Ben Carson’s autobiography either. I completely agree with your statement that things MAY not have transpired as they did for Barry Black without his educational experiences. Who could argue with that? But because individuals attending the same educational institutions can have radically different values and characters, I take a dim view of attempting to give much credit or blame to those institutions. My suspicion is that if Dr. Carson had gone to a less prestigious medical school than Yale – Loma Linda? – he would not have ended up at Johns Hopkins, and would not be running for their Republican nomination for POTUS. But the likelihood that the pieces of his life would look different had he attended Adventist schools doesn’t mean that he would have been a person of better character or more of a credit to his educational background.
To Roger Metzger
Faith functions best as the mental accommodation in words and concepts that eases the trip through life providing hope and a way of expressing an ethic of being that transcends ordinary life. Adventism functioning on that level gets no criticism from me.
Roger, I look through a different window than you. So my short answer is that those doctrines don’t matter to me. At the end of religious discourse there is no reward or punishment. As opinions, they are personal, need no defense, are ego satisfactions, aren’t subject to verification or fact checking, and are nothing but mental creations. Doctrines are neither validated nor invalidated by allies in opinion.
I will note that the doctrines you cite (except the immortality one) are rooted in Adventist eschatology, which in a every sense died with the failure and demise of the end time scenario. So since they developed as a part of that eschatology, or as a face saving device when it failed, they would also be moot. In fact, they were doomed from the get-go since God-talk is fallacious and predictions even more so. But that is just opinion about opinion.
My faith is based on the simple concept of Love. I experience it daily in my life and consider it a sort of entanglement with “God.” There are no possible dogmas or theology in that experience, so nothing to talk about except what joy happens in love encounters.
CONTINUED
That is because the concept of “entanglement” (conscripted, redefined and applied from quantum theory) applies to probabilities, precision not possible. That means that when you speak of “God” in the milieu of love the certainty is in the experience, but “God” is undefined and undefinable. Traditional God-language isn’t applicable, a useless attempt to say what cannot be said. It at best is misleading
So, when you develop doctrines, theology and dogmas, as Christianity has for several thousand years, you have inadvertently dreamed up metaphors only, wrongly assumed to be actual definitions of deity and its functions. But since God isn’t definable or knowable the metaphors (mistakenly assumed to be reality) range across every human conception, versions, of propositions, hence different denominations, religions and theological possibilities.
Roger, that’s why it doesn’t matter which version of your theological propositions are selected. Any are correct and incorrect depending on your choice. Not only are there are no correct answers (do you still beat your wife?) the very premise that one can define “God” in any discourse is faulty.
In the end, metaphors as fact, practiced by millions, is the only option. My view is mine only and is probably a metaphor of my concoction. “God” is most notable by his absence so humans create versions of “Him” to satisfy yearning. So we all flail in the wind of speculation. Hope is the motivation.
oops…
CONTINUED
That is because the concept of “entanglement” (conscripted, redefined and applied from quantum theory) applies to probabilities, precision not possible. That means that when you speak of “God” in the milieu of love the certainty is in the experience, but “God” is undefined and undefinable. Traditional God-language isn’t applicable, a useless attempt to say what cannot be said. It at best is misleading
So, when you develop doctrines, theology and dogmas, as Christianity has for several thousand years, you have inadvertently dreamed up metaphors only, wrongly assumed to be actual definitions of deity and its functions. But since God isn’t definable or knowable the metaphors (mistakenly assumed to be reality) range across every human conception, versions, of propositions, hence different denominations, religions and theological possibilities.
Roger, that’s why it doesn’t matter which version of your theological propositions are selected. Any are correct and incorrect depending on your choice. Not only are there are no correct answers (do you still beat your wife?) the very premise that one can define “God” in any discourse is faulty.
In the end, metaphors as fact, practiced by millions, is the only option. My view is mine only and is probably a metaphor of my concoction. “God” is most notable by his absence so humans create versions of “Him” to satisfy yearning. So we all flail in the wind of speculation. Hope is the motivation.
CONTINUED
That is because the concept of “entanglement” (conscripted, redefined and applied from quantum theory) applies to probabilities, precision not possible. That means that when you speak of “God” in the milieu of love the certainty is in the experience, but “God” is undefined and undefinable. Traditional God-language isn’t applicable, a useless attempt to say what cannot be said. It at best is misleading.
So, when you develop doctrines, theology and dogmas, as Christianity has for several thousand years, you have inadvertently dreamed up metaphors only, wrongly assumed to be actual definitions of deity and its functions. But since God isn’t definable or knowable the metaphors (mistakenly assumed to be reality) range across every human conception, versions, propositions, hence different denominations, religions and theological possibilities.
Roger, that’s why it doesn’t matter which version of your theological propositions are selected. Any are correct and incorrect depending on your choice. Not only are there are no correct answers (do you still beat your wife?) the very premise that one can define “God” in any discourse is faulty.
In the end, metaphors as fact, practiced by millions, is the only option. My view is mine only and is probably a metaphor of my concoction. “God” is most notable by his absence so humans create versions of “Him” to satisfy yearning. So we all flail in the wind of speculation. Hope is the motivation.
Roger, faith functions best as the mental accommodation in words and concepts that eases the trip through life providing hope and a way of expressing an ethic of being that transcends ordinary life. Adventism functioning on that level gets no criticism from me.
Roger, I look through a different window than you. So my short answer is that those doctrines don’t matter to me. At the end of religious discourse there is no reward or punishment. As opinions, they are personal, need no defense, are ego satisfactions, aren’t subject to verification or fact checking, and are nothing but mental creations. Doctrines are neither validated nor invalidated by allies in opinion.
I will note that the doctrines you cite (except the immortality one) are rooted in Adventist eschatology, which in a every sense died with the failure and demise of the end time scenario. So since they developed as a part of that eschatology, or as a face saving device when it failed, they would also be moot. In fact, they were doomed from the get-go since God-talk is fallacious and predictions even more so. But that is just opinion about opinion.
My faith is based on the simple concept of Love. I experience it daily in my life and consider it a sort of entanglement with “God.” There are no possible dogmas or theology in that experience, so nothing to talk about except what joy happens in love encounters.
To Roger:
Faith functions best as the mental accommodation in words and concepts that eases the trip through life providing hope and a way of expressing an ethic of being that transcends ordinary life. Adventism functioning on that level gets no criticism from me.
Roger, I look through a different window than you. So my short answer is that those doctrines don’t matter to me. At the end of religious discourse there is no reward or punishment. As opinions, they are personal, need no defense, are ego satisfactions, aren’t subject to verification or fact checking, and are nothing but mental creations. Doctrines are neither validated nor invalidated by allies in opinion.
I will note that the doctrines you cite (except the immortality one) are rooted in Adventist eschatology, which in a every sense died with the failure and demise of the end time scenario. So since they developed as a part of that eschatology, or as a face saving device when it failed, they would also be moot. In fact, they were doomed from the get-go since God-talk is fallacious and predictions even more so. But that is just opinion about opinion.
My faith is based on the simple concept of Love. I experience it daily in my life and consider it a sort of entanglement with “God.” There are no possible dogmas or theology in that experience, so nothing to talk about except what joy happens in love encounters.
Whew, sorry for the multiple reply postings. Delays in the system led me to believe I needed to repost. Perhaps the editors can purge the repeats.
Bugs,
The offering up of Isaac was not a metaphor. Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was not a metaphor. Abraham believed God. God’s promise that Isaac would be the father of multitudes sustained Abraham’s obedience. He believed in the resurrection of the body. The Rabbis teach Abraham actually sacrificed Isaac; because faithfulness is not a metaphor.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. Adventists are the most miserable of men if they don’t believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The Messiah delivers the whole world from metaphor. Death is a metaphor for saying “no” to what God has said “yes” to.
Jesus Christ has entangled Himself with Israel. God is existentially entangled with that Man of His own choosing. There is nothing else worth talking about.
William I honor your commitment to your faith.
I daresay there are millions more dedicated to their belief in Allah, God, than are Christians. Many faithful Muslims are wiling to die and also to kill for their faith. Few Christians believe as simply as do the followers of Islam.
This is why individual faithfulness means nothing except to each individual. It cannot be taught, it cannot be caught and in trying to convince others it often results in antagonism.
Bugs is right: If we don’t have love, we have nothing worthy of emulation.
Elaine, check this out, about Dr. Carson: http://BarelyAdventist.com/adventist-church-exempts-sleepy-ben-carson-from-caffeine-ban/ It’s hilarious. The comments under it are funny, too.
That’s too funny!
Elaine, Believing a lie doesn’t make it true. Misplaced faith and misbegotten belief are not virtues.
We Christians are most miserable indeed, if we hope in a false hope.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It’s History; it’s bigger than belief and opinion. Do you believe the testimony of His disciples? Do you instead believe the lie; – His disciples stole the body? Which story is true? If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead; then He is still dead and He led a deluded, pathetic, life.
Jesus Christ did rise from the dead. “Bugs is right: If we don’t have love, we have nothing worthy of emulation.”. Let’s emulate Jesus Christ. I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Elaine, Believing a lie is not a virtue. Misplaced faith leads to despair. Our faithfulness is not meritorious.
But Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. It’s a history lesson. Do you believe the testimony of His disciples? Or do you believe the lie that those disciples stole and hid the body?
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”
“Bugs is right: If we don’t have love, we have nothing worthy of emulation.” Jesus Christ is worthy of emulation.
I was born and raised in the SDA Church and attended its schools through college. In the past couple of years, I have to come to understand that there is no “one true church.” Any church claiming to be the “one true church,” and focusing on a list of doctrines (more than a love relationship with Christ) and seeking to micromanage its members’ lives, is a cult.
Now I understand that the SDA church, and others like it, are business enterprises similar to multi-level marketing companies, where the real goal is to increase membership in order to bring in more tithe money. In order to inspire other Christians to join this tithe-generating system, the SDA church tries to convince them that they will be lost if they don’t join this “one true church.” Then it tries to scare them from leaving, by fostering an “us vs. them” attitude where the world is divided into SDA and “non-SDA”–and everything “non-SDA” is bad. This is a cultic strategy.
I am glad to be in a non-denominational fellowship now, where the focus is on falling in love with Jesus, loving God with all my heart, and loving my neighbor as myself. I have found the freedom of grace and Christ’s promise: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”
Morris,
When you read the first sentence in the next paragraph in this post, you will probably think you know what I will write next. It probably won’t be what you think.
There IS one true church. It consists of all true believers, regardless of our denominational affiliation.
My parents were Seventh-day Adventists before I was born but, when I was a boy and they or their friends spoke about “the church”, I thought they were talking about believers. I was fifteen before it even occurred to me that there might be Adventists who thought an ORGANIZATION was “the church”.
The pioneers of the advent movement were afraid of organization because they were afraid such an organization was likely to become hierarchical and creedal. They were careful to not include the word, “Church”, in the names of the Review & Harold Publishing Association (the first Seventh-day Adventist organization) the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. They were careful to specify that lists of doctrines were not intended as creeds,
In my not-so-humble-opinion, the precautions were inadequate.
If my mother were still alive, I think she would refer to some of the developments of the last three decades by saying that if the pioneers of the movement knew about them, they (the pioneers) would “roll over in their graves.
Mr. Boshell,
It is true that WHOM you believe is more important than WHAT you believe. Knowing the Lord is more important than knowing about him.
That leaves the question, Does what we believe affect whom we believe?
An LDS friend of ours told me an LDS friend of his had told him (my friend) that each of this children had been born after “God” told him to have more children. My friend’s friend couldn’t afford even two children, let alone the half dozen of so he had.
I suggested that my friend consider the possibility that his friend was, indeed, “inspired” but by “the wrong god.”
You may not think it worth your time to explain your concept of the highest powers of the universe but everyone has one and what you do–how you treat your fellow men–is influenced by that concept.
Sorry, Roger, belief, of itself, of any kind, has nothing to do with God as love. “What” or “who” doesn’t matter, a distinction without a difference. Both are moot.
God as love has been forever, is a permanent feature of the universe. If belief in “whom” was operative and that was true, in Christian terms, that would make God the devil for withholding himself from humans from the beginning of time (until, now, lucky us, of course). Billions of people have surely experienced love, didn’t need to know my theory of “entanglement,” but benefited anyway with that connection to the “God” who doesn’t herald it, but enacts it through human experience.
The Judeo-Christian paradigm of perfect creation, perfect people at the start, fouled by the devil and a couple of stupid people has a very weak “God” at its core. First he couldn’t deal with sin, overpowered by it at the outset, not able of spare the world of suffering. Second, he requires the practice of idolatry styled propitiation/expiation which is anti-love, and third, as an act of the number two above, he gets his “son” tortured to get things restored (eventually). A god who can create the universe surely is stronger than this.
There is no theology or dogma in the love Christ revealed. That is why he didn’t try to explain it, created no theology, just lived it, and exposited it in a few simple words. How to “treat your fellow man” requires no guide book. Simply love. That creates a Christian.
Bugs you write: ‘Sorry, Roger, belief, of itself, of any kind, has nothing to do with God as love.’ and you also write ‘There is no theology or dogma in the love Christ revealed.’
Jesus Christ Crucified and risen from the dead is the totality of Christian theology and dogma. What did Jesus believe? Up on that lonely wooden tower, what did He believe? Who did He believe He was?
What we believe has everything to do with how we love and who we love.
Love isn’t dependent on belief. Your infant doesn’t need to “believe in” your love to experience it and benefit from it. He can’t.
We don’t know what Christ “believed” as he hung on the cross. All assignment of meanings to his event is added on by mankind after his death. His contemporary followers were expecting the reestablishment of the theocracy, freedom from Rome, a new day for Israel. Everything he said and did contributed to that expectation, thus the monstrous disappoint at his death.
William, I understand and accept your profession of your faith. It, however, is based in hope, not discernible, verifiable, historically provable facts.
“Love isn’t dependent on belief.” ???
Really a nonsense assertion, Larry. I know you don’t believe that. Without values/beliefs, “love” means whatever you want it to mean, including murdering innocents – and therefore it means nothing. Saying love isn’t dependent on belief is like saying “freedom” isn’t dependent on belief.
For the second time in the last few days I have been called a liar, Nathan! I doubt if you meant it but you said I wrote something “you don’t believe.” I know my effort to simply Christianity by bypassing the millions of theological and dogmatic barnacles plastered on it by twenty centuries of theologicrats. This is particularly galling to Adventist theologicrats who thrive on the effluvia of every spewed dissection of the endless jots and tittles of Adventist dogma, tradition and theology.
And no, “love” doesn’t mean “whatever you want it to mean.” It isn’t a version of what is is. You certainly have to be ignorant of, or purposely ignore, the very words of Christ about his new commandment. He didn’t suggest you must believe in love or “here is a new meaning of it.” Just do it as it is a universal understanding without need for any definition.
I don’t write what I don’t believe.
It is a fact that Jesus Christ was crucified. It is a fact His body is not in the tomb. It is a fact that the Crucified One believed something as He suffered on the cross. He willingly went to the Cross, at least He believed He willingly went to the cross.
So His death had meaning for Him. All the assignment of meaning that ‘mankind’ assigns to that death and resurrection is apart from the meaning Jesus Christ assigns to it. Jesus Christ is crucified and His tomb is empty – that is a provable, verifiable fact.
William A: ‘Who did He believe He was?’
I would suggest that He didn’t ‘believe’ anything about Himself. Didn’t have to. He KNEW who he was. ‘Before Abraham was, I AM.’
Larry is totally correct. 1Jo 4:8 He that loves not, does not KNOW God; for God is love.
Serge, Seeing how you bring up Jesus Christ’s comments about Abraham (one of them, anyway). Let me ask you a question: Did Abraham know that God would resurrect Isaac, or did he believe God would resurrect Isaac?
Jesus didn’t know everything, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” Jesus, if He is/were wholly man, had to believe. He had to obey or disobey, like Abraham, based on His faith and belief. He was tempted, but He overcame temptation through faith and belief.
As to Bugs being totally correct. Even Bugs doesn’t make that claim.
And using the word KNOW in capital letters juxtaposed to KNEW when the usage of the two words in context renders slightly different definitions does not make your argument stronger.
William I’d suggest that Abraham had no expectation of Isaac’s physical resurrection. The Sadducee view that there is no resurrection was the dominant view for most of OT history. And your view, stated earlier, that Abraham actually did ‘sacrifice’ Isaac, based on Rabbinic teaching is news to me. Do you have a reference? I’ve not found any. So to debate Abraham’s ‘belief’ in this matter is rather a moot point.
‘This is life eternal, that they might KNOW Thee, and Jesus Christ, whom Thous hast sent.’ ‘Gnosis’ trumps ‘pistis’ every time.
Hi Mr. Boshell,
I would like to understand more about where you’re comming from. I am studying the Bible with a person that has a perception of God (love?) much similar to yours, and it’d be helpful if I could understand this mindset/belief much better.
BTW, I am not “evangelizing/converting/proselitizing” this person. She came up to me and initiated the God conversation, and she herself requested to know, from the Bible, what I believe. I have no goal of baptism with this particular study (nor with any Bible Study, for that matter). I am only planting seeds. God knows what He’ll see fit to do with her (and with us all).
From your responses above I gather that you believe in an aspect of Christ. Christ spoke frequently while here on earth. I’d like to request something of you: If you ever have some time to spare and if you feel like it, would you mind sharing which portion of all the red words in the four Gospels do you identify with/believe in? It’d be quite helpful if you could make an exhaustive and comprehensive list of all the words of Christ you agree with.
I know, I know, I am asking a lot of you. Any help you can spare will be greatly appreciated and I’d totally understand if you’re not up for it.
Thanks.
Yudelis, no one knows exactly what Christ said. His life recounted in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and not by them) where written somewhere around forty to seventy years after his death. Nothing he said was recorded and preserved as history as words are today. Memory and word of mouth were the sources (there may have been interim collections of his words).
People of faith accept the Scripture as totally accurate. In that mindset I could list the words I like best. But it seems more valuable to me to see his life as a collective “word.” He played the role of a potential messiah and was apparently viewed by his contemporaries as such. It appears to me his message and life was about how to get along with each other. He spent time with outcasts, appeared not to be concerned about “salvation” in the sense we understand it (the messiah was to bring a version of it in his time). His view of God didn’t reflect the Jewish version.
So I see his life and words revealing God as love. That love is magnetic and is reflected to others by human participation in it. Salvation from sin doesn’t seem to emit from his being. That was added by others later.
All is well with us as we experience the love of others, experience it ourselves, as it is the only human experience we have of God that who is otherwise absent. We will all die, love doesn’t and the God portion of that is to be trusted as hope.
I know this view isn’t “orthodox.”
Thank you for sharing your views. Though a bit unorthodox, I can understand why someone would choose to identify with your beliefs/experiences of God. That side of the coin does not allow our minds to dwell on suffering.
For me, although I am happy to be alive and enjoy my life and the blessings I’ve been given, that does not justify the existence of this world and all of its history. Just because life is worth living does not mean we should be living it, especially with all the evil in the world.
In other words, the suffering in the world makes it hard for me to identify with your belief system. God can be experienced as love, but then all this suffering surrounds us, so it’s kind of piontless, to me, for a love/god to exists but for that entity to be a god who does not intervene/deliver us from all this suffering (a suffering, which, arguably, is caused by sin).
It’s as if all this life, intelligently designed and schock full of potential, is meaningless. God or no God, humanity is well on its way to self destruction. So, this planet existed and imploded, all for what purpose? I liken this to the pain of still born babies. The miracle, the awe that surrounds the creation of a life in the womb, the formation of that beautiful baby! For what? Only to die at birth and be burried? That’s sure is a waste of matter, and of everything else I can think of.
Nontheless, thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view to me. I appreciate it.
Suffering and “sin” cannot be explained so I don’t try. Even religious explanations fall infinitely sort. There is no obvious reason we live. We can posit death as necessary to avoid overloading the planet. Painful pills.
Living life seems to be its meaning. In my thinking the experience of “love” is the only experienced connection to the “other,” commonly called God. Since I cannot conceive of God outside of love I can only trust, hope, that that entanglement has ramifications I cannot know. So that is where my faith lives.
You have referred to a sense of awe, enjoyment of “life and blessings” and opined that one of those joys, that of a womb encased baby, is dashed by still birth. Remember that all of Christs miracles eventually ended in death of the effect, including the resurrections. He never healed grief nor provided the answer to why. But his life was a hope mission in the face of human despair. Our example.
What he did was identify God as love as sufficient for the meaning of life when accepted and reflected. Christ didn’t and I don’t attempt to enumerate an explanation of meaning. I’m going to die, so while I live I can exuberantly enjoy the awe at every turn via the attachment of love provides.
Years ago I despaired by asking infinite questions for which there are no answers. Then I realized enjoyment of love and its attachment to God is not an answer at the end of a question, but a living connection experienced to the answer-er.
@
Meanwhile, back to how Dr Ben came to be a candidate….
“Far from being inexplicable, the candidacy of Dr. Carson almost perfectly encapsulates this deep suspicion and estrangement. His support is strongest among evangelicals who resent secular society — in particular homeschoolers, among whom his books are frequent staples — and extreme opponents of any measure to limit gun violence. However quietly delivered, his rhetoric seethes with anger and defensiveness toward a list of enemies who, in his telling, beleaguer America and its most righteous citizens: liberals, the media, the federal government — and, of course, any purveyor of “political correctness” who notes his tenuous relationship to rationality, biographical accuracy or even, at times, to linear thought. He is, in sum, the perfect avatar for those who feel outrage against a society which, as they perceive it, is dominated by their version of “the other.”
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/why-are-republicans-like_b_8474026.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003&ir=Australia
Serge,
That perfectly encapsulates Carson’s philosophy. Eventually, he has no chance at the nomination for president.
Dr. Carson is estranged from the Muslim Zealots that murdered all those innocent people in Paris Friday. (In spite of all those sensible French controls on Gun Violence). He is very much concerned about a government that can not or will not protect the governed. Government that won’t protect the innocent isn’t worthy of the name. I’m sure Carson is capable of having a rational conversation with you about all the policy options we might implement.
He is against ‘political correctness’ (PC) because PC is nothing more than a muzzle on the truth. PC means; “You will not speak these hurtful things – even if they are true.” Because PC means the truth doesn’t matter, truth is merely relative. Carson constantly tells people he is not ‘politically correct’ That is bound to be offensive and threatening to political correctness.
It is outrageous that your post states Ben Carson is only tenuously related to rational, linear thought. Those are pretty basic human traits, necessary for even a simple conversation to take place. You would think it outrageous if someone said those same things about you.
Obviously we aren’t. Otherwise we wouldn’t try and reason with you. Why don’t you extend the same courtesy to Dr. Carson and speak directly to his policy positions rather than posting a copy of somebody’s ad hominem attack on Carson and his supporters?
Serge,
A perfect description of Carson’s philosophy: not a presidential candidate.
Elaine – Serge’s quoted characterization wasn’t a description of Carson’s philosophy at all. It was demonizing psychopunditry by projection. I’m no fan of Carson the political candidate – except as a candidate against any Democrat. I’m not sure he has coherently articulated a philosophy so much as a populist set of conservative political and social values to which I, as a non- home-schooler, generally subscribe.
But to speculate that he “seethes with anger…” Please! If any rhetoric betrays seething anger, it that of the HuffPo writer, whose screed seethes with anger that an intelligent Black man, with a compelling counter-narrative, would dare to escape the liberal “plantation” and achieve national prominence by exposing the lies and empty promises of the Left.
The HuffPo piece is classic Alinsky – isolate, freeze, demonize. A virtually identical piece could be written about any conservative candidate. That Richard North-Patterson happened to pick the Black guy says more about Patterson than about Carson. Were Carson leading the “Black Lives Matter” movement instead of being a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for POTUS, I’m sure Patterson would be unable to detect any seething anger at all.
The love of Christ is the greatest and strongest human trait, because it is the force that holds back the forces of destruction of all people, which are always threatening to all, yet at times annihilation of innocents. Christians believe that love is of God, as the Earthlings have been barbarians from yore, exhibiting bloodletting of all outside of the clan, tribe, or nation., The nations continue to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Every weapons system ever produced has been utilized. The distrust is prevalent even among allies.
Larry, and all, I recommend a video of a gifted mathematician,”Spiritual
Realms Beyond Space and Time by Chuck Missler (you tube).
Earl, I don’t think Christ revealed anything new in regard to Love. He simply lived as an example, emphasized and renewed the presence of the universal God of Love that has always been present on the earth. And, in a mystical sense, I accept your posit that that love is what holds back total destruction by man of himself. So far! I will pursue the video you recommend.
I didn’t call you a liar, Larry. I just know you didn’t mean what you said. We all sometimes overgeneralize or exaggerate. When someone calls you on it, they’re not accusing you of lying.
It’ is self-evident that professed principles, like love, look and feel very differently depending on what the holder of those values believes and how he prioritizes his beliefs.
That doesn’t mean one has to be a Christian to love. It simply means that if a belief in God incarnate, as the ultimate expression and demonstration of love, underlies one’s love, it (love) is likely to look and feel very differently than it will if, say The Q’uran, or reason, underlies one’s experience/concept of the ultimate manifestation of love.
Wow, Nathan, how do you know so much more about me than I do myself? I did mean what I said, no exaggerating or overgeneralizing. I swear on a stack of Bibles, I did.
Love isn’t a “principle,” a proposition. It’s an experience. It is not dissectible. Can’t be analyzed. Why do you wish to make it so difficult? Being fully human is the process of experiencing love, ergo, God. Wow, you don’t have to be SDA to do that. Is that your problem with my understanding?
The theologicrat mentality requires analysis, endless verbal expansionism, and precise definitions of dogmatic minutia to build a mighty structure of ego, a satisfaction of correctness at the exclusion of all others. I call that a barnacle plastered ship of faith sinking the Christian message evidenced by the current lemming style departure of Christian adherents. They are sick of the nightmare of confusing religious claims. Many retreat to a life vest of being “spiritual.”
The God one knows through love attracts, doesn’t chase people away. Christ’s teachings are very simple. The expositors and interpreters following Him are the barnacle plasterers.
Joel Osteen comes as close as any preacher today for representing the God of love. Yes, that Joel. There’s a reason his church is bulging. Jealous preachers accuse him of a cheap fix. Is that what hope is as an element of love, frivolous balm? No, It’s the good news about God put in everyday terms, free of mindless dogma.
Wow, Nathan, how do you know so much more about me than I do myself? I did mean what I said, no exaggerating or overgeneralizing. I swear on a stack of Bibles, I did.
Love isn’t a “principle,” a proposition. It’s an experience. It is not dissectible. Can’t be analyzed. Why do you wish to make it so difficult? Being fully human is the process of experiencing love, ergo, God. Wow, you don’t have to be SDA to do that. Is that your problem with my understanding?
The theologicrat mentality requires analysis, endless verbal expansionism, and precise definitions of dogmatic minutia to build a mighty structure of ego, a satisfaction of correctness at the exclusion of all others. I call that a barnacle plastered ship of faith sinking the Christian message evidenced by the current lemming style departure of Christian adherents. They are sick of the nightmare of confusing religious claims. Many retreat to a life vest of being “spiritual.”
The God one knows through love attracts, doesn’t chase people away. Christ’s teachings are very simple. The expositors and interpreters following Him are the barnacle plasterers.
Joel Osteen comes as close as any preacher today for representing the God of love. Yes, that Joel. There’s a reason his church is bulging. Jealous preachers accuse him of a cheap fix. Is that what hope is as an element of love, frivolous balm? No, It’s the good news about God put in everyday terms, free of mindless dogma.
Joel Osteen comes as…
My apologies for the multiple posts, again, I surely need more patience and will practice it in the future. Usually replies pop right up, but not now. I assume others are having the same issue. My bad!
Rich irony Bugs. You reject the notion that “love” can be analyzed, subjected to categories like principles or propositions. And then you proceed to do just that – “Being human is the process of experiencing love, ergo, God.” Does that mean the Muslim God, the Christian God, the Jewish God, the Adventist God…? Oh, it’s a God who attracts through love – doesn’t chase people away, right? Does love ontologically precede God? If your way of loving doesn’t attract me, does that mean it’s not really love? Muslims find Christ’s teaching – that He is God and God is love – repulsive and blasphemous.
The minute you make a statement about what love is, you subject love to your beliefs or world view. If you don’t want to get bogged down in definitional minutae, you better not suggest that a meaningless abstraction is ultimate reality. Christians who believe, as you profess to, that God is love, also believe that, when God becomes incarnate, His love takes on recognizable, definable shape and form that will not only attract, but will repel. Christ’s love led to a cross. It makes a claim on lives. If you are not interested in knowing how God’s love seeks to constrain and compel your life within a community of faith, love will most likely morph into whatever you want it to mean. If you want to insist that love does not depend on beliefs or world views, you better stop trying to define it.
Well said Nathan! That logic is impeccable.
I’m ‘afraid’ that Bugs is afraid to conceptually accept that God—the love God—actually became flesh and dwelt among us (even though I’m relatively certain that Joel Osteen indeed believes it to be true).
Nathan, I’m the first to admit there is no perfect, without possible contradiction, completely flawless expression of a point of view. So there is a sense in which I view your critique as valid. But not entirely.
You have rattled off your preferred faith terms couched in traditional language. You arrived there by the same methodology as me. Pick and choose. You may be convinced it is based on undeniable facts. But that is false. All religious discourse is manufactured in the mind with nothing but opinions as support. Collective opinions accrued over centuries of time are still opinion. That is the status of Christian theology. You can argue there where witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, for example. But there aren’t any contemporary written witness accounts, only reports handed down decades as true, later in the uncertain manner of its time, with motive for convenient adjustments.
The text quoted from Paul (if not true we are miserable) indicates his awareness of the lurking doubt. He was aware, even remotely, it might not be true, otherwise he wouldn’t have said that. An astronomer doesn’t look at the sun and say, “If that isn’t a star, we are most miserably misled.” There is no doubt that it is.
So you and I are free to create and select opinions we “like.”. Your expository version of my view, correcting me from your position, is you opinion. “Truth” is an opinion. You pick and choose your opinions, I, mine. I admit it, can you?
How come?? The mighty most powerful nations on Earth are unable to overcome the radical Islamic ragtag groups, utilizing Toyota pickup trucks for transport?? No massive sophisticated Aircraft; No missile weapon systems from off shore ships; No missile carrying Drones. Just gunnery weapons and striking fear in the hearts of common folk with their barbarian beheadings and torture. These are brainwashed idiot godless scum of the Earth from birth, demon possessed creatures, which must be eliminated from the Earth. The mighty armies involved must resort to the weaponry which won WWII, the modern TANKS utilizing modern ammo, used by the allies in crushing Nazi Germany, followed up by ground troops, with take no prisoners as the order of the day. There will be much collateral death of innocents, the price of wiping from the Earth the godless scourge of the Middle East. If this doesn’t happen, the infiltration of the masses of Islam will gain supremacy in the West within the next 50 years. The hearts of love, through which liberal thinking, that you can negotiate with godless forces, will doom the West to occupation
of Evil, in all its fury and beheadings in your neighborhood. The
average birthrate in the West is approx. 1 1/2, the Islamic birthrate, with average of 4 wives is 8. Think about it, you bleeding hearts.
Mr. Calahan, I would dare add that, at this point in time, they are actually demons personified. I cannot conceive the thought that humanity can be that evil, I just can’t deal with that.
And no, I have no proof for my theory.
The “ragtag” elements you mentioned are now viewed quite differently when a small group of dedicated suicide killers can bring the city of New York or Paris to its knees. They now have all the benefit of millions of dollars of equipment left behind by the U.S. forces which they have at their disposal. It is also now believed that they have powerful missiles able to target a passenger jet and hit it and kill hundreds.
They also are the “enemy within” many countries: recruiting young, unemployed males who are ready and eager to be martyrs for their cause. Strong military might is useless against such methods. The U.S. and other governments should focus on counterintelligence and less on strengthening conventional warfare.
Can’t accept your concept of counterintelligence as the answer to IS, ISS,ISL
ETC ETC. Intelligence in warfare is mandatory, as I have some experience, however, unless good, and used expeditiously, it doesn’t kill one enemy. In the case of the Middle East, the snakes head must be removed. i believe my quoted strategy is prime. Perhaps poison gas, or germ attacks will be used for those positioned underground. They must be totally eradicated, with any weapon that will destroy them.
Earl, we all share your outrage at the crimes of this large criminal gang, inspired as they are by an abusive literalist reading of their sacred text. And now the West, and many in the Middle East also, Shiahs being foremost, are seeing Daesh for what they are. I see Putin and Obama have had a nice little tete a tete at the G20 yesterday. Daesh will not go unpunished.
But the point I wish to make is that Daesh are acting out the great vision they have for bringing about Armageddon and the end of the world. Theirs is an apocalyptic vision in its true sense (the concept, not the fact). In some ways, SDAs should ‘understand’ them a little better, if only as competitors in the market of ideas for just how the end-time events should come to pass. Thankfully, SDAs have no such aspirations to weild political power and then bring about the ‘final battle’ in the literal valley of Megiddo. (But maybe Dr Ben actually has the support of GC to aid in such a scenario???….. warning….. satire alert).
Serge,
Most have no idea that ISIS is inspired by Islam’s apocalyptic prophecies. You are exactly right, they are trying to bring about the end of the world, to hasten the coming of the Lord. They are fulfilling prophecy.
Your sarcasm didn’t work. It wasn’t funny.
Earl,
When such methods are used, many innocent women and children are inevitably killed, giving the terrorists more ammunition to recruit. “Collateral damage” is a smooth sounding term for killing the unintended more often than the targets. This is what happened with the hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders.
When has poison gas ever been used that did not harm civilians? The U.S. has signed agreement never to use such methods. Are you willing for them to do so now?
Military warfare is useless against such terrorists who work in coordination with small numbers and often over many different geographical areas. If the U.S. and French had known where they were, it might have been stopped. But there is no end to determining who will be one in the future without counter intelligence. “Boots on the Ground” was used in both Iraq and Afghanistan. See how effective they were years later. This enemy is not easily identified, which makes it the most difficult to engage.
Serge,
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Hebrews 11:17-19
What do you mean Avraham had no expectation of Isaac’s physical resurrection? God had promised Isaac would be the seed of promise and Abraham believed God. It is a moot point only if you refuse to discuss it. The passage in Hebrews makes it difficult for you to be persuasive. I didn’t expect to be having this discussion.
There are midrashic stories about Isaac being sacrificed. (harder to reference than scripture) The Angel tells Abraham …for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
God ‘knows’ Abraham fears Him because Abraham does not withhold Isaac. Abraham does not withhold Isaac because he believes. The test is not a test of blind obedience; but a test of faith and belief in God and His promises.
I didn’t expect a discussion to evolve from this either William. Your reference to ‘midrashic stories’ describes it well. ‘Stories.’ And the Hebrews reference reinforces that. “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”
Two things- Abraham ‘accounted’ that since there was a promise that Abraham would have many descendents, then he reckoned that God was able to solve that potential dilemma. Sure, he had ‘faith.’ He may also have not forgotten that he already had a son, called Ishmael. But then, that doesn’t suit anybody’s narrative here, does it?
The other, far more significant point imho, is how Hebrews describes this episode. It was a ‘figure,’ or ‘parabole’ in the Greek. As with all parables, Not to be taken literally.
Now here is a curious thing. This conversation started when I queried your reason for asking, ‘who did Jesus believe he was’ while hanging on the cross. I said He knew who he was, so no need for belief. You responded with Abraham as somehow analogous to Christ in the way he faced his personal self-sacrifice. Ok, Abraham had faith in the potential resurrection of Isaac. But does not Ellen tell us that (and I quote loosely from memory only) ‘Jesus could not see beyond the portals of the tomb.?’ So if your take is to somehow compare Jesus’ faith with that of Abraham, it would appear, if EGW is correctly quoted, that Abraham had ‘more faith than…
….Jesus. Somehow, I don’t think any bible writer would claim such a thing.
Bugs,
Since the AToday.org re-work – Sometimes the posts don’t appear for a while. You can even log out of the browser and come back in ten minutes and it still isn’t posted. You just have to hope it shows up later. (so far it always has) I suspect it is second and third posts in a session. I think others maybe can see them before you can.
I wish we could edit our comments.
Thanks for the heads up. Again, apologies for the mess i created!
Abraham’s faith was not based on what the NT writer of Hebrews wrote some 2,000 years later. Belief in a physical resurrection was not part of Jewish belief until influenced by the Babylonians during their captivity.
God blessed them by promising many descendants and a long life. The Resurrection became Christian belief not until Jesus’resurrection. Abraham trusted God, but he could not see the future. It would not have been a terrible trial if he had believed all along that Isaac would not really die. Read Kirkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling” for a glimpse into Abraham’s mind as he imagined. If one knows the pleasant outcome there is no trial.
Elaine,
Thanks for dismissing the writer of Hebrews and substituting Kirkegaard as an authority into Abraham’s imagination. You are very innovative with that.
We do agree it was “by faith” that Abraham pleased God and was reckoned righteous, don’t we? Abraham didn’t ‘know’ the outcome, but he had faith that God would keep His promise.
Just a note: Jesus was emphatically associated with the party of the Resurrection. He prophetically alluded to His own resurrection several times. He spoke plainly about it to His disciples. The resurrection wasn’t an ad hoc idea the disciples made up to solve a problem.
Perhaps Jesus alluded to the sacrifice of Isaac when he said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw and was glad.
William,
I did not say that Jesus was resurrected. My statements were that there was no belief in resurrection until much later in Jewish history. Jesus’ Resurrection established that it was available to all who believed. But Jesus did not promise Abraham that Isaac would be resurrected or saved from death at his hands.
Many firefighters have entered burning buildings and a few died in the inferno. But neither those that came out safely or died there, had no promise of avoiding death. That is where faith comes in.
Elaine,
The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body. So did Jesus Christ. They questioned him and he answered their questions in the affirmative. He spoke plainly to his disciples about rising again. It was a major point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees before, during, and after the His Life.
Abraham imagined that God would keep his promise; that Isaac would be the father of nations. That is promise Abraham believed. The author of Hebrews imagines that Abraham believed God could raise Isaac from the dead.
A trial is not a test of faith if the one tested knows it will all end well. Abraham trusted God, but he could not see the future and to him it was certain death to Isaac by his own hand. Soren Kirkegaard conveys this deep torment of Abraham in “Fear and Trembling”.
Elaine and William, Here is a rather interesting Jewish perspective on the ‘Akedah,’ which is how the ‘binding’ of Isaac is headlined in Jewish thinking. A Jewish friend suggested it might be of interest.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00627.html
The various Jewish treatments are mentioned, including the view that Isaac was ‘sacrificed.’ Kierkegaard gets a mention also, but not totally supportively. The various aspects of ‘trial’ are central to the discussion and the various Christian uses of the story are also mentioned.
Above all, there are no definitive ways that the story must be interpreted. True to its parabolic nature.
Serge,
Jesus read the parabolic stories of the Bible and believed them. So should His disciples. You dismiss Hebrews’ interpretation and you yourself become the autonomous interpreter of scripture. We want to relate to the Scripture the same way Jesus Christ did.
Our original point of contention was Jesus had perfect faith and belief, not knowledge. He knew God because He had faith; not because He was supernaturally endowed with certain knowledge of all things regarding Himself.
God revealed Himself to His only Begotten Son through His word. Jesus Christ believed God. He had faith. He spoke to us so many times that we should have faith also. Faith in Him as the Savior, the Son of Man, the Son of God.
Bugs,
Jesus Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection are not divisible from Love. Christ is nothing without the awful sacrifice and the glorious resurrection of His body. You present your ideas about God and Jesus and Love outside the Messianic context.
The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is literally the food and drink of the church. We have no life (let alone love or hope) apart from this historical fact.
William,I would be extremely disappointed if you didn’t profess your faith in this manner.So l respect your viewpoint. And you may attach the concept of love to Christ however you wish without resistance from me.
I would only add that the explanation for the empty tomb is conjecture, a statement of hope and faith, not historically verifiable. But, of course,religious belief thrives best in unverifible propositions of a mystical nature. I know you can’T begin to entertain my statement, but in fact, the resurrection is more meaningful because of it’s mystery.
Bugs,
The Jews had a very plausible explanation for the empty tomb. If fact that was the same explanation Mary Magdalene initially reached for to explain the empty tomb. Historically something happened; the empty tomb is not conjecture.
Of course I agree with your statement that mystery can add meaning to belief. Why would I not believe that?
The empty tomb is not a mystery – it is a fact. Which explanation do you choose? I don’t think there is a third option.
In the Quran, “THE BIBLE”, for Muslins, is the sentence of death, for all infidels, that is, all who do not accept the Muslin religion of Muhamadd. These infidels are to be treated as dogs, with no mercies. This fact of the religion is drummed into the psyche of all Muslins. The Imams and the militants enforce this decree, and it is continual in the studies, from birth
onward, in their Mosques, and home studies, much as the male Jewish boys are taught to memorize the Torah. All Muslins are duty bound to observe every demand of the QURAN. And in societies where Muslins are supreme, these edicts
are enforced.
The Euro Union providing sanctuary to all Muslins, who apply, as well as those who enter unobserved, are inviting disaster to their future generations, as citizens, they vote for Sharia Law, which insists on death for all infidels. There are currently large Ghettos of Paris where the Sharia Law politicians, are in control. They have their own policing and fire depts., as Frenchmen venturing into these ghettos are harassed and beaten. They also have these Muslin ghettos in all large cities in France. The Muslins have been infiltrating France for many years. Also with the current hordes of so called refugees entering every city in Europe, they are establishing the nucleus for the future domination of all of Europe. Europe is foolishly permitting the “TROJAN HORSE” in the gates, and the Muslin man sires approx. eight (8) progeny with multiple wives.
(CONTINUED)
Our President Obama is a Muslin. He has admitted this to Stepanopolis on a nation wide TV interview. He is unable to admit Muslins are a threat to mankind. He has stated how the Islamic religion is good and honorable. He occasionally voiced regret for the terrorism of Muslins, but his heart isn’t in it. The American people must rise up and refuse the influx of hundreds of thousands, even millions of so called Muslin refugees into the USA. The cost in transporting them here, housing and feeding them for many tears, free medical and everything they demand will cost upwards of a trillion dollars
over ten years of harboring, and then in 50 years Sharia Law is enacted for all the United Sharia States. They are long I’m planning, have waited since the 7th century to realize their dream of a world united under ALLAH AKBAR, BLESS HIS NAME.
Earl, you honestly believe that Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian which he has confirmed? Please give the program and time (I watch Stephanopolous regularly and have never heard Obama state that). He attends Christian churches and has met several recently that suffered terrorism and sang the wonderful Christian hymn “Amazing Grace” on that occasion.
If you believe that, you should be willing to supply valid documentation; else you are spreading false rumors.
Elaine,
Here’s a link that may be informative in relation to Earl’s assertion. You must remember that our dear Brother Calahan is somewhat of a conspiracy maven. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/?page=all
The world must make the decision “NOW”. Tomorrow will be too late.
Would suggest the United Nations place all Muslin refugees in a protected
refuge of a large island in the Mediterranean Sea, or return them to Muslin countries in a protectorate supplying them food, shelter, and an independent government. You will note that these recent terror acts were committed by some native born European Muslins, whom have tasted life in a free society, but their religious brainwash from birth, demands they commit suicide to enter instantly a paradise with fabulose perks. This demands a intelligent study to determine how to integrate native borns into each country’s Culture,
or the occasional terrorist acts will continue forever. Or a new view of deportation of all Muslins under a determined age. They are a threat to the rest of the global society and must be contained. Every person should consider the legacy they are leaving their children and grandchildren, and would suggest they stand strong to disallow any Muslins into the United States.
Earl, fear not those that can destroy the body. That is all they are able to do, unless one allows their barbarity to distort one’s rationality by an emotional reaction to their terrorism.
Time was, about a hundred years ago, that SDA preachers would likely have responded with barely-concealed calls of ‘see… I told you so!.’ I refer to the view that Mohammadans attacking Europe were the king of the north… or was it south… maybe east?
So just as Daesh (we are asked in our country not to refer to them as IS as they are not Islamic and definitely not a State) think of themselves as harbingers of the Apocalypse, SDA teaching once did also. Was it Uriah Smith’s teaching? No matter……… this is not the beginning of the end of the world as we know it. Daesh is doomed. Mother Russia will see to that.
Earl, your statement that Obama is a Muslim was taken from many edited videos, which “Fact Check” documents here:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/
It was FALSE, but many, apparently chose to believe it despite the many time he has said he was a Christian.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/
This site reveals that Obama is NOT a Muslim!
Attention:
Cows jump over moons that are composed of green cheese. (The moon, not cows) I said it.You must believe it. That’s all there is to it. This is an internet post. It has to be 100% valid…..NO?
If God wants Dr. Carson to be president then he will be. Otherwise, the powers that run this system will, as usual, choose their man.
This suggests that if Carson becomes president he is God’s choice. Anyone else depends on people’s choice, not God’s.
How often in the past has God chosen the U.S. president?