Mind Control
North Korea is proud of its many virtues. They are a model of uniformity.
By Jack Hoehn
There have been many repressive, oppressive, and idolatrous nations throughout history, but the most repressive, oppressive, and idolatrous nation today is the dishonestly named so-called “Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea” with its unholy trinity of dead Grandfather, dead Father, and living Son of the Kim family as absolute dictators and worshiped megalomaniacs.
Kim Il-sung (the family name comes first in Korean, like Hoehn John Byron “Jack” would be my name Korean style) the present dictator’s grandfather, started the dynasty as a communist general fighting the Japanese and became the Supreme Leader of North Korea in 1948, and by his death in 1994 he had turned the entire nation into a personal cult. He was not even willing to share the glory with Marx and Lenin of his Russian and Chinese partners, so he replaced communism with his own even stricter and personalized totalitarianism called “Juche.”
At his death North Koreans bowed before his ubiquitous statues and wept for their Supreme Leader, who replaced not only all other men, but all other gods with his so called benevolence. Even today young North Korean men stand guard over his Teaching Centers (that are the feature of every village and town in the country as if temples of a passed god), standing guard “in honor” of Kim Il-sung all night long even during the coldest winters.
Suki Kim
The following is from the firsthand reporting of a woman named Suki Kim, who has written a book about living in North Korea as a teacher at a special University reserved for the sons of North Korea’s ruling elite, where she taught them English under very restricted circumstances. Her book is called “Without You, There Is No Us”[i] after one of the many slogans used by North Koreans in their worship of their dictators.
Korean television consists entirely of three channels and those are mostly available in the capital city of Pyongyang. KECN (Korean Educational and Cultural Network) is on just a couple of hours each day. Mansudae TV is on only on weekends and only for residents of Pyongyang. So the only functioning channel for most of the country is Chosun Central TV, on from 5 pm to 11 pm in the evenings. The main event is the 7 pm evening news for 25 minutes. It is almost exclusively about their dictator. When Kim Jong-il was still alive, the news was his visiting factories and the news was whatever he said at that occasion, verbatim. I presume the same is now done for his successor son, Kim Jong-un.
International news is rarely given and only when it is negative for South Korea or the United States of America. All Korean boys are taught these are their enemies and that to kill a South Korean or an American enemy would be their highest honor. From childhood and from morning till night, and then through the night standing at guard duty, they are fed the same lies: North Korea is the most prosperous and happiest nation in the world; all the world longs to have the same Kimchi-soured cabbage that Koreans pickle by the ton to help them survive the cold long winters; all the nations of the earth honor and respect their system of Juche as the wisest political system in the world; the draconian limits on any personal freedoms are “for the good of the motherland.”
After the evening news the next program is 30 minutes of Government-sponsored music programs with lyrics scrolled across the screen karaoke-style. The songs have titles like “Defend the Headquarters of Revolution” which describes the North Korean people as “bombs and bullets.” There are no commercials, of course, but the news is sometimes interrupted by Kim Jong-il quotations.
Then another music program comes on, this time featuring a group of men playing the accordion to a song about Kim Jong-il. Movies or plays that are shown are invariably from Communist China or before Perestroika Soviet Russia. When their North Korean soap opera released in 1972 was shown in China they were told, “The streets of China are empty because every one in China is home watching it.” “The Flower Girl” was, of course, written by their Eternal President Kim Il-sung! It starred a 17-year-old who became one of Great Leader Kim Jong-il’s mistresses. No one anyplace, including China, would be interested in this 45-year-old film, but the North Korean people are fed the same lies over and over and over again.
Difficult to Have to Think
The hardest part of the English lessons taught the bright North Korean college student is to teach the writing of an essay. The concept that you should write to prove an idea to your readers by offering an argument and then giving evidence to prove it is foreign to boys taught from childhood to believe whatever the Great Leader said is true, and to parrot it back, without the benefit of thought or proof being necessary. They of course have no access to the World Wide Web; this is strictly forbidden except to those employed in cyber warfare under complete secrecy that no North Korean knows about.
But Suki Kim writes, “Misinformation and lack of information were not the only problems in teaching them how to write an essay. In their storytelling, a conclusion was always predetermined.” “At the end [of a skit or drama they had produced] the whole cast again burst into a song about their gratitude to the Workers’ Party. The exact reason why they suddenly thanked their Party was unclear, but all of the skits ended, regardless of plot, with a song of gratitude to either their Leader or their Party.”
The students find it hard to think for themselves, because all their lives they have been taught and required on pain of punishment, banishment, or death to blindly repeat their dogmas. “In [t]his country there was no proof, no checks and balances—unless of course, they wanted to prove that the Great Leader had singlehandedly written hundreds of operas and thousands of books and saved the nation and done a miraculous number of things. Their entire system was designed not to be questioned, and to squash critical thinking…The writer of an essay acknowledges the arguments opposing his thesis and refutes them. Here, opposition was not an option.”
Dogma Controlling Education
The teaching at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST) is completely controlled. All teaching plans have to be approved by North Korean “Counterparts,” or minders. All classes have formal monitors in them to report any deviation from protocol. Students themselves have assigned buddies, and they are expected to report any unfaithfulness to their monitors. These partnerships are regularly replaced to prevent true friendships from forming. The phone calls and conversations of the foreign teachers are always monitored. No unsupervised travel is permitted off campus without minders in attendance.
This totalitarian state has 24 million people under complete governmental control. For nearly 70 years they have a uniform united belief that has not been seriously questioned. This is a little larger than the estimates of membership in the SDA church, but there is not a whiff of dissent seen in that congregation.
North Korean Pride
There are no homosexuals in North Korea, there is no formal mechanism for divorce, they have free health care and free education, and pornography is non-existent. Women are said to have equal rights, but fill no leadership positions, and the young elite males at PUST feel that fellow female students are pleased when the male student gives a female student his laundry to be done by her. The government rewards women who contribute to the good of the Party by allowing them access to plastic surgery. There are no high female leaders in the Worker’s Party except wives or concubines of the top male leaders.
All young people do obligatory gardening or other manual labor weekly “for the good of the nation.” The students have daily exercises at 5 am before breakfast and classes, summer or winter. The North Koreans even have their own chronological system. All dates begin for North Korea with the birth of their Great General Kim Il-sung on April 15, which is a national holiday and the starting date for their calendar as year zero. Their other holidays are Great Leader Kim Jong-il’s birthday, February 16. They have a December 24 holiday too, but it is not Christmas Eve; it is the birthday of Great Leader’s wife, and the day he was given the title of Supreme Commander of the Korean’s People’s Army, surely a wonderful day for all believers to celebrate. On January 1, at start of the New Year, everyone gets up early and goes to statues of both Great Leaders to give thanks for all the blessings they receive.
So, by control of access to information for 24 million North Koreans, by constant repetition of the same dogmas week after week after week, by misinterpretation of the world as a dangerous place and each North Korean a soldier ready to die to kill South Korean and American enemies, by demanding belief in dogma without questioning those beliefs, North Koreans have been led to behave, believe, and parrot back their dogmas without questioning them. They believe that their world, as far as anything counts, is 115 years old.
A Nation of Slaves
18 million Seventh-day Adventists have been told by the vote of the General Conference and our Great Leader, that against all the information available the earth was created in six 24-hour days, like our present American week, and this happened recently. Not perhaps exactly 6,000 years ago, but surely not thousands or millions or billions of years ago!
Against all probability or possibility, we are now told that the land of Noah covered by the flood had to include the entire globe, even though the Bible knows nothing of a globe. We are told this and require our teachers to teach this, even though knowledgeable people know it cannot be and is in fact not true.[ii] For the sake of “unity” and for “the good of the church,” we must teach this error to our children, and have them parrot these beliefs back without thinking too much about evidence for them.
Caption: Great Leaders of course have an Executive Committee to keep them in line.
North Korea proves that the same lies and half-truths repeated religiously and drummed into people discouraged from even acknowledging that there are other interpretations available for the same data, by dishonest and one-sided use of data, by putting dogma before facts, and twisting any facts to fit the dogma, have created a nation of slaves.
How Error Becomes Sin
The worship of a cherished interpretation of the Bible stories over the facts available to all who wish to know them is an idolatry that must not stand. The elevation of ignorance to fundamental belief is our shame and our battle cry. When we were ignorant of the age of the earth, it was still an error to believe earth was about six thousand years old. Now that we know the facts, it is no longer an “error” to hold to a recent chronology; it is a “sin.”[iii]
If being true to the Bible requires lies and deception, there is something wrong with our use of the Bible. The following dates are not exact but they are in fact correct in scope, if not in detail.
- The universe is about 13.8 Billion years old, from when God said, “Let there be Light.”
- The physical Earth was created in just the right place at just the right time; about 4.5662 billion years ago it was “formless and void.”
- The moon was created by a cosmic collision 40 million years later, creating the essential conditions for life.
- The creation of an atmosphere that could support carbon-based life started with bacteria about 3.8 billion years ago, the necessary “firmament.”
- The creation of ferns and then sea creatures and then dinosaurs and then birds and then mammals has largely happened over the last 600 million years or so.
- The creation of modern humans in the image of Godlikeness to rule this world happened sometime 60,000 to 200,000 years ago, although these dates are less certain than the other dates listed. Archeology has shown a cultural “big bang” 40,000 to 45,000 years ago, perhaps after Noah’s flood. But there are caves in South Africa with engraved ostrich eggs dating back 60,000 years, and heat-treated microlith blades between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago. DNA mutation rates of the Y-chromosome back to the genetic Adam and of mitochondria back to the genetic Eve are more speculative, but yield estimates of from 50,000 to 300,000 years ago, with a consensus hovering about 100,000 years ago.[iv]
Anyone who tells you creation happened about 6,000 years ago, is someone who lived and wrote more than 50 years ago before this information became available, is ignorant of the recently established facts, blinded to them by their dogma, or ruling North Korea. I regret being so blunt but someone has to tell the emperor he has no clothes.
Your Bible tells this same story (without dates attached) in an outline form as a beautiful poem of creation, more precisely and beautifully than any of the creation stories before or after it.[v]
The first angel’s message in Revelation 14 tells all the world to worship Him WHO made it; not a word, however, is mentioned about worshiping WHEN or HOW God created.[vi]
Scientific and Religious Truth Both Progressive
Let Seventh-day Adventists get on with our job of being truth tellers and truth seekers. All that North Korea needs is full access to the truth, and they could join the civilized world again.
Caption: Women have their place in North Korea, marching in uniformity
to the Great Leader’s command.
All that Adventism needs is full acknowledgment of the truths of science, so we can combat the errors of science. Evolutionists are wrong about mechanisms and purposes of creation. Young Earth Creationists are wrong about the chronology of creation. Until we admit where they are right on the age of the earth, we have no standing to show them where they are wrong crediting materialism with the power of design.
Until we accept the truths God has given us through science, we are in rebellion against truth and the God of truth. Hiding behind the pages of the Bible against solid scientific facts damages both the credibility of the Bible and the credibility of the truth denier. Science is often wrong, but its strength is that it is willing to change based on evidence. Religion must likewise be open to change. Here is how Great Leaders of Adventism have expressed it:
“The great principle … that truth is progressive, that Christians should stand ready to accept all the light which may shine from God’s holy word, was lost sight of by their descendants… Though a few faithful men arose, from time to time, to proclaim new truth and expose long-cherished error, the majority, like the Jews in Christ’s day or the papists in the time of Luther, were content to believe as their fathers had believed and to live as they had lived. Therefore religion again degenerated into formalism; and errors and superstitions which would have been cast aside had the church continued to walk in the light of God’s word, were retained and cherished.” [vii]
“You shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.”[viii]
North Korea and Adventism both need to listen to these truly Great Leaders and return to a platform of Truth.
FOOTNOTES:
[i] Kim, Suki. (2014) Without You, There Is No Us: My Time with the Sons of North Korea’s Elite. New York: Crown Publishers.
[ii] There are Adventist theologians who argue for the sake of their interpretation that it should be true, but there are no Adventist geologists who argue that it is or can be true.
[iii] James 4:17. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
[iv] See Ross, Hugh, (2014). Navigating Genesis. Covina, California: Reasons to Believe. Pages 15, 39, and 72-75 with references for a Christian scientist’s views of a chronology of creation that agrees with the scientific consensus.
[v] Biblical Hebrew has no word for era or age, except yom, which means day, or “back in the day.” The Biblical translation “evening and morning” is not the usual way to describe a 24 hour day (we use “morning and evening”) so in Genesis it can be translated as “darkening” and “lightening” suggesting each Creation Day was imperfect or dark at the start of the age like a night, and was better or light after God’s creative action at the end of the age like daylight. See: Hoehn, Jack. Adventist Today, The Greater Controversy. Winter 2015, pages 14-21.
[vi] Hoehn, Jack. Adventist Today, Summer, 2015 GC Issue. Page 52.
[vii] White, Ellen G. (1911). The Great Controversy. Page 297. Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press.
[viii] John 8:32.
PLEASE “SHARE” this article if you found it helpful or thought provoking.
COMMENTS? Positive useful comments or corrections are welcome. Negative comments should say more than “you are wrong.”
You undermine the premise of your interesting article by your comment at the end:
“COMMENTS? Positive useful comments or corrections are welcome. Comments just repeating “you are wrong” are not useful and may be removed or edited by the author.”
That comment discouraging open dialogue sounds very “North Korean” to me.
The purpose of this article is to create a wicked parallel between Adventism and North Korea. So the author states……
“Against all improbability or impossibility we are now told that the land of Noah covered by the flood, had to include the entire globe, even though the Bible knows nothing of a globe. We are told this and require our teachers to teach this, even though knowledgeable people know it cannot be and is in fact not true.[ii] For the sake of “unity and for “the good of the church” we must teach this error to our children, and have them parrot these beliefs back without thinking too much about them.”
This is a blatant attack on the bible and all of Christanity. It is a disgrace that A-today would even publish such a warped and misleading article. This is really sad.
” Many Bible believers understand that Noah’s flood was all of Noah’s world.”
No “bible believer” believes that, Jack. Only unbelievers and skeptics who doubt and undermine clear bible revelations believe it.
You could have rightly compared North Korea to the Catholic Church that kills and murders people who oppose her authority and teaching. SDA’s simply disfellowship (sometimes) those who are not in agreement with church teaching. And this is light years from a parallel to either Catholicism or North Korea.
I don’t see your observation as objective, but an emotional attempt to discredit Adventism in particular and Christanity in general.
Apparently this was intended to be a parody of the Adventist acculturation and educational system, as it might become if all actions taken by the GC were to be strictly enforced? If so it strains the comparison beyond any reasonable credibility.
The extent to which Dr Hoehn’s outline of historical chronology is more or less credible than that of Archbishop James Ussher, can be and has been debated.
The extent to which one’s personal beliefs should be founded upon empirically observable evidence versus inner faith, can be and has been debted.
The suggestion that the SDA educational system is (or is becoming) a tightly regimented monoculture, is simply not credible. It was far more of a monoculture during my grade school and academy days than it is now. If anything it may have drifted in the direction of excessive diversity, depending on when and where one takes the sample observations.
There may be some church leaders who would be more comfortable with a monocultural educational system, but the Adventist world is simply too large and too diverse and too loosely regulated to see how this could happen on a global scale.
Likewise for attempts to regulate personal beliefs and conduct. The enforcement mechanisms vary from strong to weak to non-existent in different parts of the world.
(to be continued)
But the number-one reason why this scenario is not credible? The Adventist church is largely a church of newcomers. The aggressive promotion of various forms of evangelism produces a steady influx of new adherents. These newcomers bring their existing cultures and knowledge and beliefs with them. So there is a constant mixing of the “world” and the “church”.
For better and for worse, the Adventist world beyond the walls of the conference offices, very much reflects the prevailing culture and knowledge and beliefs of its local surroundings.
Like North Korea, there are numerous Adventists who choose to leave or wish to leave. But I am not aware of millions of newcomers being recruited by North Korea.
Like all analogies, some of Dr. Hoehn’s comparisons of corporate “official” Adventism and the North Korean regime are spot on and others not so much. Be we would expect that. I suggest that the core of his concerns are valid.
On the other hand, I share the concern expressed about not having an open and free exchange of other opinions concerning his posting of his opinion. You either believe in free speech or you don’t–with appropriate ways of dealing with those who would yell “fire” in a crowded theater. This is an example that even within the inner workings of Adventist Today there is a range of views about policy, but we all get along. A model for how the church functions?
The Author wrote “The following dates are not exact but they are in fact correct in scope, if not in detail.
•The creation of an atmosphere that could support carbon-based life started with bacteria about 3.8 billion years ago, the necessary “firmament.”
•The creation of ferns and then sea creatures and then dinosaurs and then birds and then mammals has largely happened over the last 600 million years or so.”
Sir, The Word of God the creator says otherwise Firmament was created on DAY 2. (Like a Literal Sabbath) See Gen. 1:6. Not Billions of years.
According to the Word of God, Sea Creatures were created on DAY 5; See Gen: 1:20-23. Not millions of years
The SEVENTH DAY Adventist Church is not like North Korea because we believe and teach that in six days God created the heavens, the Earth, the seas and that in them is, and that God rested from His work on the Seventh Day which he had made.
My brother the condition of the planet at creation is different than the condition of the earth now, God Himself was here unveiled (can you imagine what impact that would have on creation) (consider the burning bush not burning up). Additionally the creation account describes water being above the earth. I value science and I still believe the word of God over what you have written.
“
If these kind of articles are needed to describe the state of the Adventist Church something certainly must be wrong with our church. Seriously wrong. Some – like Jack Hoehn – are acknowledging it (whether or not overstated isn’t really the point), others would rather go after the messenger than listen to the message.
It is hard to have a meaningful discussion when persons are seriously “overstating” the state of the Adventist Church.
Furthermore, the messenger feel the need to address what is seriously wrong within the Adventist Church, while at the same time stating that if we state that he is wrong he reserve the right to delete or edit such statments.
Some thing is seriously wrong indeed.
” (whether or not overstated isn’t really the point)”
But in fact, it is exactly the point. That people can be deceived is certainly a possibility, even in the SDA church. But people are free to come and go without any threat of bodily harm. Thus, to equate the SDA church with North Korea is absurd and off the wall.
Dr. Hoehn,
This is so completely over the top. Maybe you can get it published in the the Onion. America’s Finest News Source.
The closed, controlled, retributive culture of North Korea described in this editorial reminds me no small bit of the kind of environment I experienced growing up in a small church (but which was not supported by my college-grad parents). In my discussions over time with serious associates of Kingdom Halls, the Jehovah’s Witness organization seems to be a more adept emulator of North Korea than our Church, at least as I experience it here on the US West Coast. I have chatted with non-Adventists who have told me that my views and approach to life are far different than those expressed by door-to-door Adventists with whom they have visited/studied in the Eastern US, and that the close-cultured, close-minded perfectionism expressed by the North Koreans is most appropriate in describing attitudes they have seen. There are elements in Adventism that yearn for our church to emulate the style of the Kingdom Hall system. The JWs can get by with their style primarily because they have no serious institutions of higher learning to call them back to reality on questions (for example) of science and faith, and on the proper admixture of these two sources of Truth. The JW organization, even today (I am told) is extremely beholden to dictates from On High in Brooklyn, and places great emphasis on behaving uniformly “just so” in any serious quest to be among the 144,000. We Adventists are not-so distant cousins of these ideas, and it shows up in a genetic sense among us from time to…
The saddest part Jack is that you actually believe what you wrote, especially the tail end about the SDA church and its beliefs.
(PS – do you REALLY believe that the universe, earth and life just happened? All by itself? Just like that? You really must have been brainwashed, just like the North Koreans.).
The two are very closely related. Progressive Creation takes the secular timeline and places God at difficult points (things that cannot be explained – God did it). It’s not taken seriously by secular scientists. Biblical Creationists simply say God did what He said He did, how and when He said He did it. Progressive Creationists have an impotent god who leaves things to it, and lies about how and what he did.
“Jack Hoehn is a Creationist, and has no questions about who Created heaven and earth. How God created is revealed by science. That God created is revealed by the Bible.”
Would Jack care to explain to me/us why it is that “you [have] no questions about who Created heaven and earth”?
Why would accept the fact God created just because it is revealed by the Bible and not accept how God created as revealed by the Bible?
For what little it is worth, as someone who has written numerous blogs on this site myself; and has someone who has frequently commented on this site; I am bewildered, disappointed, and displeased that comments—the stuff of conversation and dialogue—can now be edited by the author of an opinion piece. That is quite chilling.)
Actually, I had intended to place my comments about the authors of AT blogs editing other peoples’ comments (and the discussion engendered by the blog and the commentary) in parentheses; as it wasn’t necessarily germane. My main comments were in the form of questions to you, Jack; based on what you had said to someone else.
The strength of this site is the freewheeling discussions that are engendered or catalyzed by the blogs. When you edit your comments in the manner that you’re doing on this thread, the people to whom you have responded are never notified that you have responded; and neither is anyone else. Whereas if your responses to commentary are in the form of ‘comments,’ then we are notified on the home page and via e-mail that you have responded.
I didn’t realize that the site or the ‘pages’ on which a blog appears—and the thread of conversation that follows—are owned by the author. Thankfully none of the other contributors, including the esteemed Dr. Taylor, has seen fit to utilize this approach. The Internet is of course much more interactive than are print newspapers; which is among the reasons THAT medium is dying and on life support, Jack.
You’ll undoubtedly notice it is ironic that the control you seek over the discussions catalyzed by your interesting opinions would be defended on a blog entitled ‘Mind Control.’
As with many things, I think, we are in fundamental disagreement about the value and relative merits of edited commentary and discussion vs. freewheeling commentary and subsequent discussion.
Be that as it may, would you care to explain exactly why it is that (in your words) “you [have] no questions about who Created heaven and earth”?
Why would you accept as fact that God created whatever just because it’s revealed by/in the Bible, and not accept how God created as revealed by/in the Bible?
Thank you for answering my question Jack.
There are questions that you have undoubtedly previously thought about as a physician and as one who observes that which is—or at least appears to be—observable.
Do you believe that there was an individual man, referred to as Adam in the English version of the Bible, who lived for 930 years; and a woman (Eve) created by God from the same DNA as Adam, who herself was never born of woman, and who bore children, including sons named Cain, Abel and Seth?
Do you believe that Adam and his listed descendants lived as many (earth) years as the Bible says that they did?
Do you believe the plant-based diet as described in Genesis 1:29-30 was God’s idea?
Do you believe that there have been people resurrected from the dead as described in the Bible; and if so why?
Thanks again for answering my previous question.
“I have no more problem with God resurrecting people than I do with the miracle of making each of us in the first place from a pinhead of DNA”
You realize of course Jack that the Biblical Creationists’ entire argument rests on God’s ability to do precisely what the Bible describes Him as doing in six literal days; which you and a consensus of the scientific community claims to be refuted by the evidence and the conclusions that most of you folks have come to after what you believe or claim to be an impartial analysis of said evidence; doesn’t it?
“I am a life long vegetarian, but I understand that only in Eden like conditions was this diet sustainable as our fish eating Lord proves, for many people on earth. I don’t expect Eskimos to be vegetarians.”
My question about the plant-based diet described in Genesis 1:29-30 actually had reference to it being God’s idea rather than it necessarily being followed by either of us. My point in asking that, and in asking whether or not you believe that the Adam character actually lived for 930 years was to find out if a God-prescribed diet of plant-based foods as well as that type of longevity were in conflict or whether they were in harmony with what a preponderance of the observed and observable scientific evidence would suggest about human beings within the past 10,000 years.
“…So I am comfortable that humans, plants, and animals share similar chemistry, genes, physiology and designs. How is not revealed.”
Since the “how” in a macro sense has been revealed in Scripture via inspiration of the same Spirit that overshadowed Mary and caused her to conceive (according to Scripture), did you mean to say that the “how” is not revealed by science?
“One is not required by the Bible to hold to a kindergarten idea of Adam being made in a sandbox as a mud pie.”
One is also not required by anyone or anything to either perceive or analogize the Biblically described creation of Adam as a “kindergarten idea of Adam being made in sandbox as a mud pie” either. In a sense however one is required by the Bible to have the faith-belief of little children—and the mind of the Creator all at the same time.
You seem to think Jack that those in this particular faith community who insist that childlike faith in the power and ability of the Creator to do that which does not appear to have possibly been done (and/or to possibly do in the first place) is a detriment to something that you feel even more important; which is perhaps reaching those who can’t bring themselves to have such faith. Doesn’t that seem a little backwards to you?
Hoehn John Byron “Jack”,
In 60+ years of either living in or exposed to the SdA bubble, this is the first time I have thought and now stated “Amen”.
Bravo DR. Jack. There is not a fact presented in your essay that can be refuted by other than a different belief. No actual factual substantial evidence has contested your empirical scientific data presented. The opposition you have are those wishing what you are presenting is just godless atheistic intellectual counterfeit dogma. By refusing to acknowledge the truth, by the physical evidence presented by the Earth’s actual truth in the topography, geology, and fossil records, alone, says a lot about peoples manic insistence, to frame a belief system of ignorance,in the face of truth of actual evidence. It’s the proverbial specter of hiding your head in the sand and shouting no. NO, i can’t believe it.
Most of the world have come to grips with the Earth’s evidence, of it’s long, long time of existence, of Earth and also it’s creatures. Many many thousands, yes even millions and billions of years of reality. The problem is that people have studied the Bible, and have taken it’s actual statements,and added “their own estimation and interpretative analysis” as to time and timing, and every time they have been wrong. Our GOD is eternal. His Earthly Creative talents have been in action a long long time. Don’t continue to deny the evidence. It doesn’t change Our GOD’S magnificent creation of Mankind.
Jack hasn’t analogized the SDA Church to North Korea. He wanted something strong to get your attention. we are in the 21ST Century. THE EARTH’S END TIMES.
We each have “a world view”or belief grid formed from our culture,family, education and religion. Jack certainly has his, which he eloqently and frequently flogs here. Moses’ one or two lines of information in Genesis 1:1 leaves much room for speculation and imagination;the flood leaves more.While we cannot be blind or ignorant in our attitudes, and understanding of science,I think I have learned to be more skeptical of secular mankinds thinking, theories,and postulations than has Jack.He seems more willing to believe so called science than the inspired Word of God- brief as it is, in some areas. Perhaps God is just willing to leave it to each of us where we ultimately WANT to put our faith- in man or God. Or maybe he just laughs at some of our foolishness. Jack states as facts that which he has very little evidence for and no one else does either. Saying AS FACT, things which supposedly took place “millions of years ago” is perhaps at best interesting,and maybe a possible theory, but always open to question until provable as fact.
When it comes to comparing Korea to my SDA church,- as others have said also- I think he is just plain over the top, and offensive.My experience with this church is it is pretty tolerant of those who think and talk a bit differently. Perhpas if Jack were in N,Korea talking as he is against many who believe differently than he- they would have his head.But I hope we in the church will just keep on loving him anyway- inspite of his…
None of us were born with a religious belief or a world view. This we learned from our parents, church, school and sometimes, reading.
But most of us who have studied and read widely do not still hold the identical beliefs as we had in childhood, nor should we. Why become educated if it is not to stretch our minds to new ideas and the thoughts of wise men through the ages?
Too many inherited their religious beliefs and thinking and never investigated further. That’s a pity, as the mind atrophies when there are never new thoughts allowed in and it sealed tight to anything that might differ with what was learned years ago.
This is consistently seen on various SdA website and the Review. Sermons and comments that are merely pasted quotations from the Bible or EGW sans all personal opinions; allowing others to do the thinking.
Makes my recent submitted Opinion article that was ‘refused’ by the editors of AT saying the ‘church is feminised’ look tame…..Adventist church like North Korean leadership….really? How did this one get through editors?
Be honest, Danny. Your article was not refused. You were asked to make some revisions. It is one thing to critique the Adventist denomination (even using satire) and another to argue that an entire gender is bad for the church simply because it is a particular gender. And AT is not an open forum where you can go on and argue with the publishers about articles and the request to revise it from an editor. Do you want to be a columnist here or not? — Monte Sahlin, CEO, Adventist Today
I never argued that an entire gender is bad for the church…..thats a misrepresentation of the article.
I reiterate some major differences between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (http://korea-dpr.com):
1) The SDA Church aggressively (and with some success) recruits new participants into its enterprise. The DPR of Korea is primarily focused on controlling the beliefs and behaviors of those already within its ranks. Admittedly there are some SDAs who are more focused on controlling the beliefs and behaviors of those within our ranks, than on recruiting others to join our ranks.
2) The SDA Church does not have a strong centralized enforcement mechanism. Enforcement of conformity is dispersed through layers of constituencies. Admittedly there are some SDAs who advocate for a stronger centralized enforcement mechanism for beliefs and behaviors.
3) The strongest sanction the SDA Church administers is exclusion from its ranks. The strongest sanction the DPR of Korea administers is exclusion from this earth. And for comparison the strongest sanction the RC Church administers is exclusion from the afterlife.
Given a choice, I choose to be a member of the SDA Church. And given a choice, I choose NOT to be a resident of the DPR of Korea.
Fine example of damning with faint praise. Thanks.
Most choices in life are relative. Including our choices in religion and in politics.
“The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a genuine workers’ state in which all the people are completely liberated from exploitation and oppression. The workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals are the true masters of their destiny and are in a unique position to defend their interests.”
Now this is a truly “progressive” manifesto if ever there was one 8-).
They myth of Kim and the myth of Ellen (aka Adventism, not her fault, as I see it), dare not suffer exposure for the same reason. The hearts of the systems are tenuous. (That’s the extent of the analogy, in my estimation).
Sabbath keeping relies on the myth of a literal, factual seven day creation account. Yes, reinterpreters have found new arguments for it, but they represent post facto rationalizations to accommodate their celebration of it in the face of current cosmological thought. The authority (very questionable, at best, as Elaine has documented) for it is negated.
Jack’s excellent wielding of a factual crowbar in a stem glass store craftily misses some ornate fluted glass ware it seems to me with his line: “Evolutionists are wrong about mechanisms and purposes of creation.” But, that, as a profession of personal faith, is an acceptable reservation given the smashing effect of his basic cosmological account.
Adventism has long lost the Second Advent battle. The prophecies were annulled. The other one, its heart, the Sabbath, is still being mythically fought with trebuchets and phalanxes, version of ancient strategies, tools, languages and allegories. For the desperate it can’t be lost at any cost even at the public embarrassment of blind, absolute willing denial of reality.
Actually, creationism and the Sabbath died together a long time ago. RIP. Condolences to the bereaved.
Present truth does have its limits!
By your reasoning, Jack, Sabbath keeping isn’t optional since it is mandated by a command from God, but since it isn’t fastened to a theory of science (Adventism traditionally maintains the opposite via a real creation week) then the rules of observation are also optional. The “morning and evening,” sunset to sunset legal application with published sunset schedules by Adventist journals for household guidance has been vanity for over a hundred years. “Guarding the edges” of the Sabbath has therefor been an absolutely needless burden (along with countless other Jewish traditional transfers) to millions of Adventist for decades.
I think you have verified my statement about reinterpreters having “found new arguments for it, but they represent post facto rationalizations to accommodate their celebration of it in the face of current cosmological thought.”
I do think the groupthink bullies you and your large contingent of thinkers have angered is evidence of your threat to official Adventism. And they are correct. You are a threat and you are also correct when you say: “There is no link between the worship of the Creator and the chronology of creation.” And that is the egress they claim you have taken out the back door of official Adventism. That’s the conflict between the new and the old.
Your interpretation of Sabbath is far more attractive than the legalistic one with which I was raised.
So Larry, a fine kettle of fish you have presented to us to stew in. Mankind are beautiful magnificent creatures. We are all of a bastardly evolution of some sorts of intellectual design, but we must have an origin of some noble and nature of “high calling”. After all, the brain, da brain, the computer, the code, the brand???? What are we, And why??
You can’t just send us your condolence and
tell us truth has its limits. It ain’t enough, not nearly enough. You have left me at the bottom of a yoyo tether string dangling in my inertia with no hope of climbing back up to reality. You must throw me a life ring of rescue. PLEASE.
I heard your cry and called 911. To whom it may concern, I said, “go see Attn: Earl!” I earned a cuss word and a slam down and I was told to never call again!
First you jest! So, time off, go fishing! Second, questioning, speculating about the why, not how, is OK! One doesn’t contradict facts by conjecturing a mental scenario opinion of a God-centric explanation of purpose. That is religion at its best. Obviously our intellectual design, noble nature, high calling, computer brain, code brand are beyond rational explanation. So are the features of quantum theory and most other sciences, mostly undiscovered, probably. Be amazed. Muse on. Dream wildly! Imagine endlessly!
You have an extensive metaphysical construct representing your concept of the spiritual natural of humanity (as I best I understand you). You can use whatever language you favor to make your case (the why). But you can’t legitimately (and I haven’t noticed that you do) distort or ignore scientific facts to buttress your belief. As to evolution, the how of life, the overall facts support the theory. It flogs my religious sensibilities, too, (but not my faith that there is somehow more to the story that I just don’t yet know).
The how and the why aren’t friends. RIP! Condolences to this estranged pair and all uninformed buddies!
So, if this adrenaline isn’t adequate to restring your yoyo, I may have to announce a call, “Is there a doctor in the house.” 911 won’t work! Dr. Jack?
Jack,
I think you’ve gone a step too far this time with your comparison of the indoctrination methods of the Kim regime in North Korea and the defenders of Young Creationism. While you perceive similarities in the methodologies of both, if you’ve ever read a book such as “Escape From Camp 14” you would know that what goes in on North Korea is so horrible that any comparison of the two is also heaping wild falsehoods on the reputation of others who also love God. You could have used any number of less derogatory comparisons so I think you owe Young Creationists an apology. I think you need to let the topic of creation rest for a time and find other topics on which to challenge our thinking.
Where to begin? Let’s face it. We don’t know how God created the universe or this world. I do believe there are two super natural forces at work at on this planet. I chose to believe God was & is very capable of creating this world. I also believe Satan is very creative. I am also looking forward to the end of this great fiasco called sin. Oh, I was a biology major, but that doesn’t make me an authority.
Hi Bugs, you mention that “to evolution, the how of life, the overall facts support the theory,” which theory of evolution do you mean?
There is NO “theory of evolution” in a strictly scientific sense, just as there is no “theory of creation”.
Both of these “theories” are paradigms which may or may not be able to successfully explain observed evidence. But neither is a “theory” because both lack any generally agreed criteria which could be used to falsify them. Rather these explanations can be and often are, readily changed to fit any newly discovered evidence.
I should clarify the foregoing comment.
In this comment I use “evolution” to refer to the belief that new life forms develop spontaneously without any from of intentional design or intervention. This process has not been demonstrated in controlled laboratory experiments. Arguably it cannot be demonstrated in controlled laboratory experiments because the controls constitute a form of intentional external intervention.
Another use of the term “evolution” is to describe the process of incremental change of existing life forms. Various incremental change processes can be and have been observed and demonstrated, in the laboratory and in the field, in response to a variety of natural and artificial stimuli. Credible claims to have “proven” evolution generally offer evidence of this second kind.
Similar comments apply to the more recent use of the term “evolution” to describe the origins and operation of the cosmos. Here also the operation of many but not all physical processes can be repeatably observed in the field and/or reproduced in the laboratory.
Conflating explanations of origins of new life forms or of the entire cosmos, with explanations of incremental development of existing life forms or presently observed physical processes, results in considerable confusion. This confusion tends to emanate from both “creationists” and “evolutionists”.
Also it must be understood that “creation” and “evolution” in the absolute sense, are mutually exclusive paradigms. However they are in reality opposite poles of a continuum of explanations for how things originated and how things continue to develop and change in the present.
The theory of creation posits that all life popped into its present form through an act of God. One day it wasn’t there, the next it was, all of it, teeming life, germs, plants, lichens, octopi, microbes, turtles, sea life in the deepest oceans. And people of every style and color via the genes of two disgusting people. Not one shred of evidence supports this theory.
I used evolution in my illustration over against that concept. The evidence is that living things are formed from the most basic of universal building blocks, atoms, that somehow organized into unimaginably complex forms that we are and which fills the world with an amazing plethora of life. As I understand it, bananas, chimps, humans, and radishes, and virtually all life forms share copious DNA. How that came to be, I don’t know.
These DNA commonalities indicate a link to a process, not a momentary fiat. Life is related. Unless “God” oversaw what was apparently a long process, “evolution,” of some kind, he didn’t do it. The process is circular. Our atoms eventually return to their basic condition and recycle into the infinite universe. Dust to dust.
I welcome correction of my assumptions from Jim and Darrel and any other expert who finds me in error. But don’t raise the spurious argument that the commonality is an argument for the creative voice of God. It isn’t factually supportable in the least. God as evolutionist, or as a life force, is more credible.
Bugs: ‘The evidence is that living things are formed from the most basic of universal building blocks, atoms,…’
Problem with this hypothesis is, what are atoms made of? 100 years of quantum physics suggests the answer is, something other than matter. The more we look, the less we ‘see.’
‘That which is seen is ephemeral, that which is not seen is eternal.’
“God as evolutionist, or as a life force, is more credible.” With you on that.
Yes Serge, string theory, and other speculative thought adventures posit smaller stuff but atoms fit current understanding of the functional basic particles fairly well. Quantum physics and metaphysics march off as uneasy conversants from an intellectual table into a vanishing point of virtual identity where mental images and its language, math, no longer function. The eternal ephemeral?
Perhaps there are five forces in the universe, one is life force. Why?
“Perhaps there are five forces in the universe, one is life force. Why?”
Bugs, re ‘why?-‘ one could suggest that the four acknowledged forces are in fact servants of the original Force, which you nicely term Life Force. The ancients have termed it ‘Eternal Spirit,’ (Heb.9.14) The same One, btw, which/who ‘brooded over the primal waters.’
I like Paul’s summation: Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Is this why so many quantum physicians walk so easily with metaphysicians and mystics? Einstien being prime example.
Thanks Jim, agree completely! One question!
“Another use of the term “evolution” is to describe the process of incremental change of existing life forms.” If incremental change were due to front-loaded epigenetic programming (“preadaptation”) would the word ‘evolution’ still be appropriate in describing said development?
Epigenetics involves changes in the expression of existing genes.
Evolution involves changes in the genes themselves.
Both processes occur and appear to be complementary. Nether has been demonstrated to produce totally different functional proteins.
Evolution means to evolve, or the process of evolving; a change.
The perfect image of is illustrated in the evolution of a blastocyst to a full-grown infant. At each stage it evolves until fully mature just before birth.
Following birth, there is continuing evolution from infancy into fully physical adulthood. Mental evolution should continue throughout our lifetime, though seldom begins to reach the possibility of a human lifetime.
Using the term “evolution” in this manner is not helpful.
Development of an organism throughout its life cycle under the control of existing genes is not evolution.
There is a little, big or infinity difference. To be North Korean is not a choice, to be a SDA is.
Right on, Neo.
Adventism is a piker in the field of mental coercion compared to Mormon Polygamists, Amish, Orthodox Judaism and many others. In my past experience, it was hysterical parents most intent on skewing little brains into proper thinking, who grieved intently when they “failed.”
There was an Adventist version of a post hypnotic suggestion, tinged with guilt, that impeded backsliding thoughts. It was a red flag popping into consciousness that you were really bad for abdicating the “Truth,” by entertaining such evil thoughts.
After I left Adventism I was never treated badly or disrespectfully by any member (nor beforehand, either). I have nothing but wonderful memories of the people that make up the church.
One can join or leave at their pleasure.
Elaine, this is why I ask the question. ‘Evolution,’ is a very slipper word in English. In the Latin you are right; evolution means simply unfolding or development. and so your example is fine: “blastocyst to a full-grown infant. At each stage it evolves . . !” But my question is “evolution” as we use it in the context of science writing.
Here is an accepted definition:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. (Futuyma D.J., “Evolutionary Biology”, [1979], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Second Edition, 1986, p.2)
“blastocyst to a full-grown infant” does not happen by chance and Natural Selection, it is pre-programmed, so not evolution.
‘Evolution’ is also a slippery word in the context of ‘theistic evolution,’ which Jack appears to be promoting.
SDA theology is premised on a ‘perfect creation’ from which, via the influence of ‘sin,’ we are all ‘devolving.’ And we await a ‘re-creation’ of things as they were in the pristine original.
If the ‘evidence’ which Jack demonstrates is to be believed, then the opposite process is still underway, ie, the evolution to improvement of life/human forms, which ever they may be. Could Jack suggest whether the Adam and Eve characters of Genesis represent homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Australopithecus or any of the other proto-human life forms to be found in the archaeological record? I am willing to accept that the Hebrew words for Adam and Eve represent humanity in some kind of metaphorical way, but it is doubtful if SDAs will see it that way.
Anyway, which direction is evolution heading, up or down?
Well stated.
This goes right to the heart of the question.
Do we live in a world that over time has become deranged by sin or in a world that is gradually improving over time?
Maybe neither. Perhaps we, mankind, are now what we have always been, that “better or worse” isn’t applicable, or even relevant (without imposed templates) just as is up or down in space.
The heart of the matter isn’t the issue of better vrs worse, Eden degradation or evolutionary moral advancement. There is no available, decisive or conclusive data to move any discussion past an opinion stage.
The heart of the matter is the issue of coping with what is. And that is where opinion, faith, and personal belief is operative and relevant.
“The heart of the matter is the issue of coping with what is…” I agree, insofar as humanity in general is concerned. In fact, the Genesis account is one such attempt to ‘cope with what is.’ ie, how does one deal with the world as we find it.
BUT, in SDA terms, things are different. Coping mechanisms are quite different also. The ‘givens’ of SDA thinking are 1. Creation. 2. Sin. 3. Redemption. 4. Reward. I’m sure others could be added. Be reminded also that for SDAs, all of these ‘givens’ occur within a material universe, where even the Creator has material form. When viewed from a distance, the SDA ‘understanding’ of reality is, how does one put it gently, not very sophisticated. And by that I mean, does not stand up very well to the deep questions that philosophy, ancient and new, poses.
So for an SDA to confront hard evidence that their ‘givens’ are not so easily held, then the intellectually honest among them, such as Jack, are forced to find ways to cope with their own dilemmas.
One can but wish the true of heart well. I would merely add, step outside of the restrictive, cloying tent that is Adventism and breathe the pure Spirit that is offered to all who will receive it. If you know your Shepherd, you can never be lost.
“One day it wasn’t there, and the next it was”.i think Larry, you favor my “creation theme”, by such a statement. The concept of a slowly evolving creative plan of billions of years, to produce an intelligent “life form” certainly doesn’t adequately occur “one day and then the next”. And “voila”, success, we nothing, have created something, from nothing!! Hurrah!! Even counting one day equals a year. It just ain’t mathematically possible. The odds of a life form being created from the chances of some basic elements (where did the basic elements come into existence?? ) somehow getting together in the proportions required to complete the process, from nothing by nobody, ain’t enough
years in eternity to happen. The Logic of such fails the test of belief. The same idea of the Cosmos heavenly bodies
(reality) of stars, suns, planets, moons, galaxies, black holes, etc. all have structure of many shapes, perhaps no two alike, and most with some “activity” taking place of interactions. It appears we are a one of a kind planet with several one of a kind life forms, as far as we know.
There are billions/trillions of galaxies, millions/trillions of lightyears apart endlessly, infinitely as space has no limits, and the infinite creation continues eternally. As per Lindensmith: Front loaded “epigenics”, by a super guy creationist, is much more plausible, if not instant formation of life. A miracle in either case, much more believable. The dimension of life. To BE…
Earl, I think I turned left at Albukerkee and you didn’t notice! First of all, I’m admitting I don’t have a clue how we all came about. I speculate that God wasn’t a “blow hard” who one day opened his mouth and blew us out of it so that walaaaa, here we are with the universe and all life forms, zippity do da, ready to go. And I’m speculating that the intermingling of similar pieces that we, and all of life are made from, show evidence of piecemeal assemblage. The term “evolution” is applied to that process with all kinds of nuances applied to its meaning. That’s all. And, finally, I am saying the Genesis story is a nice allegory. And that’s all. Again.
So, we meet again in St. Louis, Louis, where we agree on everything else you posit about the awesomeness of life, the universe, etc., etc, (minus “epigenics” of course)! If it all came from nothing that is fine with me.
I’m not so far behind you in years (I’m 74) and I have a preliminary conclusion, too. That is, the purpose of life is simply to be an eyewitness and a participant, to get a glimpse for just a tiny infinitesimal snippet of time, of the fragile, most paradoxical, most unlikely, awesome intervention of life into the mechanical universe. Why? Is this a “God” event? That is the beguiling and vexing part.
Every person has his own version of what this is and what it all means.
Those who claim to have all the answers are afraid to admit that they honestly don’t know; although many are very certain.
As an agnostic I am free to admit there is much more that I do not know; that I will never know in one lifetime. Believers claim to have all the answers to life, which are often wrong.
2 Peter 3:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
We have lost centuries of intellect. The entire basis in the gain of knowledge should have been neutral; yet the derivations prove the intent to disprove religion. The collusion of small bands of persons that think they are smarter than GOD; yet without sufficient wisdom or knowledge to tie their shoe. In many cases claiming the voice of the entire discipline; without the consent of the majority.
Theories are spawned, even within disproof, yet continue to exist. I guess Ecclesiastes 1 and 3 teaches us that nothing is new on earth, nothing is added or taken away and that GOD only requires the past. It is pretty sobering in fear of those concepts within all proofs (and disproofs).
Stop it already, Reality. Why are you rewriting Scripture? We all have Bibles and we know what is in them. Use your words to explain what you think. Please.
I do not rewrite Scripture Bugs. I quote Scripture and then build. Are you contending I rewrite scripture?
Would we not be better if wisdom and the HOLY SPIRIT had been relied on to accumulate knowledge? Do you know of an example of Science that disproves GOD? Do many lesser trained not state that Science is their GOD? Does evil not pool?
But now I see many that derive Scripture and then derive build upon such; completely failing wisdom.
I think you would have a hard time finding any Theoretical Biologist or any Logician in any trained Discipline to contend alternate to GOD.
It never hurt anybody to have a little BIBLE thrown at them now and then.
Just some thoughts.
“Throwing the Bible” at someone is both a copout and insult indicating only that the person has the ability to read but not to discern or interpret in his own words. Your understanding may not at all be that of the person hit with the Bible.
BTW:a where did the idea of “throwing the Bible” at someone originate?
I think throwing the BIBLE came from Lancashire 1822. After Preaching failed, the Parson put a sentinel over each of the wells and made them go to Church to get water.
Good point; we are commanded to Preach the word, but we should always be aware of the audience. We should not allow our liberty to become a stumblingblock to others either though (1 Corinthians 8:9); this goes both ways.
Within this forum; I rely on Bugs and his outside perspective. I will admit that sometimes I rely on it so much; I may push a bit.
Now I am zealous in protection of the Church and those within. There is no copout, insult or interpretation in such.
Reality, since you persist in slinging the Bible, as soon as I see your pseudonym I duck down and I can’t read anything you copy or write. Getting banged in the noodle with a Bible seems sacrilegious to me. Sorry. To get my further attention you need to either change your name or desist with Scripture tossing. You might want to take notice, I suspect there is a whole gaggle of others like me.
I am sorry you feel such. HE said HE could do no more than stand at the door and knock; we have absolute love for you, but likewise can do no more (that whole free will thing). I am sorry the way is straight and narrow, requiring taking up your cross and following HIM; but I cannot change that.
I am sorry the world is so appealing and alluring; but we are in last days and such will only continue to grow. Works within charity are required to create wisdom and knowledge; we have abandoned such. Then we teach individualism to our children; only perpetuating such.
There was a time, not too long ago, that people appreciated those that watched after and helped them; including their Souls. We are capable of much if we ask not what we can do for ourselves, but for others. Those days are long gone; but will be again.
Within our ignorance of worldly wisdom, are we better off? We are unable to focus or achieve; look around you, the enemy is strong and capable. We are now unable to protect or provide for our own; within Love. Are we not our own worst enemy?
HE offers peace, blessings, hope and much more in HIS absolute Love; now and forever. You can see around you what the world offers. Is this such a difficult decision within wisdom? It does require giving up everything that you are though. Should we not then want this in Love for everyone?
The meaning of life seems to be the biggest question; but has such a simple answer.
Hi Serge, You are right; there again is another example of slipperiness of the word “Evolution.”
“Theistic evolution” is an oxymoronic expression. It would mean: a completely natural and random process that God guides.
I will let Jack speak for himself but I am sure he is not thinking in such terms.
Unless “God” is the name of a “life force,” a natural part of the universe that blooms under appropriate “Goldilocks” conditions, a fifth addition to the four “known” natural forces. Wild speculation of course. “Wild” as is all speculation about origins.
Theoretical Physics and Dynamics impose 4 additional forces; temporal, dimensional, creation and of course the opposite inferences.
Every adherence in the gain of knowledge, imposes absolute wisdom in the grounds of singular reckoning. It also shows how many more things we are stupid at and don’t know. Reality.
Reality, your technique of thumb on a holy coke infused with Alka-Seltzer and sprayed willy nilly in every direction does little to inspire confidence of any assertion you make about anything. So it is with your Theoretical Physics and Dynamics claim. Without proper verification, I am accusing you of being a bald faced imginator!
Now’s your chance to get my attention! Teach me a lesson I’ll never forget! I admit in advance to being, stupid at stuff and don’t knowing.
Really, on a serious level, Reality is a very poor pseudonym. Think creative. Mark Twain, for instance. Or maybe William Bates. Are you sure you’re not an undercover agent for the satirical forum Barely Adventist? If not, I think you should be!
In removing Love for you and the positives of outside perspective, what do you have to offer? Do you guarantee absolute charitable return on such investment? Are you going to save Souls and provide for needs; remember of whom much is given, much is expected.
These are the decisions within the HOLY SPIRIT that I have to make every day. Who has the most heartfelt need and plea; balanced within resources. What is the biggest problem (or pools of like problems) that need to be addressed. Are you able to take yourself out of individual concepts and sacrifice self?
I am unable to charge for or take credit for any of the positives; but deal with and listen to the negatives every day. I am unable to sell my services because of critical call; but HE always provides. Few are there to help.
Within Faith and conviction then; are you and your family ready to accept such? I need to be sure you understand what you ask for and are capable of providing.
Follow up…. There aren’t just 3 or 4 different types of life forms on Earth. There are over the course of time, billions of types, after their kind. And the impossible odds occurring just once, is impossible for most peoples logic. And yet, we today, can’t possibly comprehend the vast variety presented to us daily, each one, complete in itself, perhaps with some random mutational changes. i don’t doubt there are other animated life form types in the endless universe, predicated upon perhaps other elemental make up, with specific DNA coding to express the Creators Quest for that particular area of Universal locale. Just as i believe the earlier manlike creatures also satisfied our Creator’s desire for endless variety here on Earth. We haven’t a clue to the potential scope and range of the Creators perfect master intelligence, maybe there are areas of totally incomprehensible Supreme Being activity, not for us to know. We must recognize the
COSMOS is endless. There is intelligent design everywhere we have access to observe. The most “logical possibility”, to me, is a MASTER DESIGNER, with endless potential for design of LIFE FORMS. Perhaps even experimentation is involved. What we know is we are not an illusion. We are
the real thing. We know we live in a world of milk and honey, permitting us to inhabit without a rental payment. That generally we are a loving people, obviously because of our DNA influence. (To be continued)
Time Out to Discuss Dr. Jack Hoehn, Editor!
I just reviewed Jack’s Mind Control article along with replies and his “edits.”
I’m amused at the consternation demonstrated at the outset over Jack’s stated editing intention followed the exercise of it. I have annoyed him more than once (could happen again), been swatted several times (could happen again), but am here to report that his “edits” add a valuable dimension to the discussion on this forum. So, anyone who is favored with an “edit,” enjoy and learn. Your mind isn’t threatened and you can reply to the edit if you wish.
Being a participant is a privilege.
This comment is addressed to “Reality” and his/her fellow travelers:
Did God give us our minds and senses primarily to study Holy Writ?
If your answer is YES them you might want to return to the Dark Ages or make a pilgrimage to the Madrassas.
The notion that ideas that could be corroborated empirically were seriously useful was a major philosophical advance out of darkness and superstition.
Of course the opposite extreme of methodological naturalism is also philosophically flawed.
I try to strengthen my “binocular vision”. I exercise my “eye of faith” by Bible study, prayer, etc. I exercise my “eye of fact” by studying the observable physical world around me.
Sometimes my mind can successfully superimpose the two images and sometimes it cannot. But I still prefer to use both eyes rather than closing one or the other.
If you want to communicate with most of the test of humanity you need to broaden your knowledge base.
Jesus was able to answer scripture for scripture to the Rabbis.
With the common people His parables drew from the common experiences of everyday life.
Quite frankly, while I am well-versed both in the Bible and in the physical sciences, I struggle to see how your comments relate to those who you are engaging in dialogue.
Collaboration is unachievable unless you can build a common knowledge base among the collaborators.
Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge. Where there is no knowledge there can be no wisdom.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. The prophet here tells us that ignorance is destructive.
Jim, to whom is your reply directed?
Having had one of my main comments removed by the the original author, I am regretfully withdrawing from this discussion.
It is misrepresents my opinions and comments to have some (ie things the author apparently agrees with) but not all (ie things the author apparently disagrees with) of what I wrote, presented on this web page.
Jim, I have been gone! What on earth did you say?
My question, Phil, why do you presume you have any more understanding than those to whom Jesus directed the question of his identity? There is plenty of reason to believe the narratives and the mystical interpretation of John are not free of adjustments, with plenty of time and motive due to their late arrival, to fit a narrative that didn’t exist prior to resurrection. It raises the question of his view of himself compared to how he was later seen. Plenty of books explore the evidence, as I’m sure you well know.
Christ’s messiah quest catered to a public desire and expectation that had many eager applicants on missions similar to his. Much of his “ministry” and his pronouncements make sense only understood in his quest to restore theocracy.
You seem to be suggesting he exercised doublespeak that only wise people like yourself are able discern. That smart people then and now didn’t need the parables, allegories, metaphors, the hyperboles, those are for the naturally minded, “Jesus for Dummies.” Your explanations of John 1:9, John 11:27, Matt. 16:15, 16, and the rest tend support your Dummy thesis.
`I don’t buy it. There is no secret knowledge. Even the Catholics got that right re: the Gnostics. I see Christ as simply a revelation and exemplar of God’s love. That’s it. No parsing, no exegesis, no theologizing. No Superguy. Theologicrats not necessary. No need for pharisaical analysis of every jot and tittle. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Well Bugs, I guest there is ‘milk’ and there is ‘meat’ – but although we all start on milk it does not mean that we need to stay there. As to my ‘presuming’ to have superior knowledge, I don’t know how you got that from my simply suggesting that there was a different way to see these passages. The blockages to ‘seeing’ are not intellectual – we ‘see’ what is beautiful to us. If someone else says that they see a different picture that is beautiful to them and satisfied their deepest desire for understanding, then I would have not the slightest desire to offer anything different to them. I understood that this forum was for explorers and searchers and not just for restating tradition. I am certainly not interested in engaging in polemics and I you say that you find nothing of any real value in what I have presented, I fully respect your right to your opinion as much as for anyone else’s including my own. Although valid statements that point to ‘truth’ (which, I understand, can never be directly stated in propositions terms) may be a help to such a gnosis, ultimately it is not a matter or reasoning but a matter of ‘beauty’ – truth is in the ‘I’ of the beholder. We see what we look for and what we look for give us a personal clue to our underlying motive and ‘state of being’. I see You [along with all] are my ‘brother’ because we have the same “Father” and therefore whatever you may say I still regard You as ‘right’ and in Whom the Father is “well…
… pleased”
Bugs – I reread your last comment re my input and I noticed that you wrote “There is no secret knowledge. Even the Catholics got that right re: the Gnostics.” and I was just wondering what you then make of the following text fro 1Cor.2:7 “But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.”
Yes, you are quite correct regarding the horrendous genocide of the Gnostic Cathars in France by the fundamentalist Catholics. But I don’t agree that they “got that right” – are you sure that is what you meant to say!
Yes, that was a mortal sin! Defense of the atrocity perpetrated the Catholic Church against the Cathars or earlier Gnostics certainly wasn’t at all my intent. The attempt to buttress an important point with an alignment of Catholic history is fraught with terrible consequences, obviously. I could have just said this: God’s love revealed by Christ is open to all without need for special knowledge or interpretation.
I don’t have an opinion or an inkling of any exact meaning of the text, I Cor. 2:7. It’s a mystery without a villain or solution, or the presence of an ultimate private eye, but does seem to present a clue for clever amateur sleuths!
To Bugs and Earl
It seems to me we are either all “amateur sleuths” as Bugs put it, or we are all just One Son seeking ‘home’ where all body-based “dividing lines” have been removed. And I agree with Earl when he writes “Think about it. Truth, knowledge, wisdom is available to every soul, “who asks for it”.
When I came onto this forum I had a notion that it was a forum for the presentation of innovative ideas in a genuine spirit of inquiry – a place for exploration of potentially deeper meanings in familiar ground. And in the light of that I took Earl’s questions to be asked in the spirit of genuine inquiry rather than as an inveiglement, as Bugs put it, by that “rascal Earl requested, to show how to wade in his shark infested surf, trick-musings!”
Cont…..
So in my naivety I responded to the best of my ability, thinking that Earl would either find value in what I had written or show me, in the same spirit of inquiry, the error of my thinking or where improvements were needed. I was not sure that Earl was really interested in finding out what I had to offer, however, as I did with my adult Uni students who asked questions that may have been challengers rather than inquiry, I always responded “as if” the question had been genuine as that seemed to allow others to come into the discussion rather than having a private debate.
On reflection, however, and this is only my second foray into putting input into net forums, it seems that the dictionary defining of a forum as “A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged” is less valid in these faceless settings, and are in real danger of acting more like ‘lions dens’ where toothless lions defend ‘old and stale dead men’s bones’ as if they still had life.
The lesson has been learned, I bid you adieu.
Hi Phil,
Yes, you are right, these forums are indeed ‘lions dens’, and I have experienced this through extensive commenting in the past. I have left some time ago, discouraged at some of the godless comments made by some. But there are some here who are genuine believers in Christ Jesus and I have had some very encouraging moments; God Bless them.
So, before you “bid adieu”, please find my response to your comments genuine. I would like to point out some discrepancies in Bible translations for you to examine. You wrote:
“If you compare just three passages of scripture (i) “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was COMING INTO THE WORLD.” [John 1:9]” Compare the following NKJV, which follows the Received Text (Textus Receptus) with your English translation: “9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” It appears the whole message of Who Christ is and when He came into the “world” is distorted and contradicts the rest of Scripture. Note the following verses which confirm and support the Received Text: “10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:6-13)
Continue.
“He was in the world and the world was made through Him”. My understanding of this is as follows: The “Word of God” is spoken into each and every heart, as the fetus is forming in the mother’s womb, to lay the “foundation”, the “Cornerstone”; “framing” the “worlds” (minds) on which every soul builds on— 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Heb. 11:2) The “worlds” (plural, does not mean other “inhabited planets”, as some image), but the minds of every individual who “comes in the world” which was created by God through His Word—“He spoke, and it was done”. And because the same “Word of God”, Who created the physical universe, has also spoken into our hearts, laying the “foundation” upon which we all build on, no one can say: I do not see what you see. For we all have the same “foundation” which the LORD laid by His Word. But man saw fit to “reject” that “Chief Cornerstone”, that “Sure foundation”, which the Lord has laid; by using his own godless wisdom, became vain in his own thoughts—20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts,” (Rom. 1:20-21).
Continue.
I don’t agree with you in relation to Jesus the Christ being “an ordinary man”, but rather He was the Son of God, born of a virgin, come into the world in human flesh—the “Lamb of God”; without spot or blemish and without sin. Taking on Himself the sins of the world, being crucified, died, buried and rose the third day. Romans 6:1-11 clearly tells us that Christ Jesus died and was buried, and was “raised from the dead by the Glory of the Father”; and “knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him” (verses 9)
If Christ [the Spirit] did not die, then how is He the “Lamb of God”? It is not only His body which died, but also His Spirit, His Mind. Otherwise, how can He save, to the utmost, those who are being called?
“The soul that sins shall die”. We have all sinned and are worthy of death. Christ Jesus, the Son of God, the Lamb of God delivers us from that death, the penalty due us.
After we, who are children of men, are born-again, by the Spirit of God, only then are we “children of God” through His Son Jesus Christ; Who dwells in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, and by Who’s attributes are we then “sons of God”. Who has also “made us kings and priests unto His God and Father”. The Glory is all His, and not ours.
Phil, I believe you have gained the wrong lesson! I’m not happy to see you go, either, if you carry out your threat. While my conversation with you may not have satisfied your expectations, I have enjoyed our encounter and would welcome more, should you change your mind.
Phil. Let me assure you, my questions, seeking your answers, were fully serious, and i sincerely appreciate your diligent full understanding of my requests. You piqued my thought pattern by your earlier comments. i knew you had a different take than anyone else commenting on this opportunity presented by atoday, to share your deep study, that is so enlightening, in input, totally unexpected. Your views regarding “the CHRIST”, SEPERATE FROM “JESUS”, AS AN ENTITY, certainly got my attention. CHRIST as wholy Spirit, and Jesus, whom Peter said was “the CHRIST” being wholy earthly flesh. i am going to give this some deep study myself. At the moment it raises additional questions in my mind. 1.Was Jesus resurrected at the time stated in scripture, and was He raised in spirit manifestation, as i believe He was?? 2. Do you consider Jesus as the first fruits of Sonship from Earth?? 3. Was “the CHRIST” the only begotten Son of God?? 4. Do you identify Jesus as the 2nd ADAM?? 5. Do you not accept Jesus as the 3rd person of The GODHEAD?? Or as a part of the heavenly management team??
Phil, i never play games in my pursuit of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, the repartee that Larry and i share,
frequently here, suggested to you some collusion between us at your expense. Never happen. i happen to be totally in love with Jesus Christ, and Him crucified in my place.
Earl, you might have to make do with my take on some of these very good questions.
Jesus v Christ. ‘Christ'(Christos in Gr) is not just a title and certainly not a surname. It is a quality, entirely spiritual (non-material) in nature, and of divine origin. It is an ‘extension’ of God who IS Spirit. Jesus is the first recorded man who understood this to the uttermost. In him, Christ-consciousness reigned supreme.
Was Jesus resurrected in Spirit manifestation? Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, and since he clearly has so inherited, then he can only be SPirit.
The ‘first fruits’ is a metaphorical idea borrowed from the OT system of understanding. Paul calls him the first fruits, but author to Hebrews also lists a lot of enlightened ones who existed in time prior to Jesus. He is the pre-eminent one.
The ‘only begotten Son’ (in the Greek, ‘mono,’ one, ‘genes’ born/originating, ie, born of One.) I don’t think this anthropomorphic idea of a human ‘only-child’ fits. Rather, to be a Son of God does not require the heavenly equivalent of two parents. All sons/daughters of God are ‘of’ Him, who is Spirit.
Jesus is not second Adam. He is last Adam, or second man. (sorry, nit-picking). 1 Cor 15.45ff. In other words, he is head/first of a new race of spirit creatures called Son of God.(Heb 12.23). Believers are ‘partakers of the divine nature.’
Jesus is not God, Christos is. God is Spirit. Christos is Spirit, Holy SPirit is…
Serge, magnificent display of the entertainment value of theological musings! I think you just said Jesus isn’t Superguy. If so I was entertained! It released me momentarily of the shackles of mind control with which Adventism has held me in its cold, legal, mechanical, inescapable grasp (a vexing addiction only you have been able to detect, and thanks)!
Careful Bugs, don’t spend too long looking at those musings. It might release you eternally. You are more than welcome.
The cleverness of the musings doesn’t necessarily equate to advancement of Christianity. That was my challenge to Phil and it is the same to you.
My point is that your created thought stream is drawn on sources (texts) of convenience as if there was originally intended a collective, coded, meaning that your cleverness has after all these centuries divined. My question for you as for Phil, why you, why now?
I’m not disputing the beauty of your posit. But it isn’t an orphan. Daniel has his. And there are countless others, some of which make similar arguments, some contradicting ones. Who’s right, or best? Or dead wrong? Who doesn’t care one way care one way or the other. That would be me.
Exegesis is to Scripture what critics are to movies. Both are explorations for meaning removed from those who created it. So opinions result. But none you can hang your hat on.
I think two thousand years of musings have turned Christianity into a nightmare.
I think that Christ revealed one simple, non-nightmare thing, God is not a thing, a person, or Jehovah. Love. That’s it. Jesus for Dummies.
You will acknowledge then Bugs that your theory—that the Bible’s revelation of God as The self-existent Benevolent Intelligent Omnipotent Spirit Being Who is controlled by His nature (of love) is farcical or fanciful or fantastic or all of the above—is not worth much of anything either; and no more unique or valuable than any other opinion, right? It’s just another eisegetical distillation attempt, right? So why you, why now, why here? I’m just sayin’ bro.’
My late Dad, who was the all around smartest dude I have yet encountered, used to preach a sermon that you might say supports, if not makes, your argument (as I did above), entitled “The Force that Controls God.” The thesis being that love is God because it is the “force” that “controls” the self-existent One.
Can’t say I disagree too much, Bugs. ‘God as Love’ is a good place to start, that is for sure. I think because Christianity is a such a nightmare for so many, and because Love reigns, some of us who have found peace beyond the nightmare can’t help but want to share what we feel. If you like it, great, let’s share. If not, may you find the peace you seek somewhere else. Above all, seek…….. and you will surely find. I think that is promised somewhere. Cheers
Hi Serge,
You wrote: “I don’t see how the ‘awakening’ of God’s Son (we are His Son) fails to do justice to the sacrifice of Christ.” I think I misunderstood Phil. I thought Phil was referring to God’s Son, His first and only begotten Son—Jesus the Christ; Who has suffered and died for our sins; and was raised by the Glory of God the Father. However, using the term “awakening” is fine when speaking of consciousness, if we or Christ were unconscious. But if dead, one is “resurrected”. Our old man has to die and then we are “resurrected”, “born-again”. “26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal.3:26, 27) It is only by His Spirit that we are made “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together”. (Rom. 8:9-17) “10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Heb. 2:10
You wrote: “Christ, being Spirit, cannot die, since Spirit has life in itself and cannot die, not in any physiological sense that we are aware of.” I think one of the biggest problem many have with knowing God and Jesus Christ, His Son, is this: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. (John 1:1)
Cont.
The same Word of God Who spoke through the Angels and through the prophets, Who is the Great “I am”, the “Self existent One”, is He of Whom it is written: “9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” (Heb. 2:9) The Word of God emptied Himself of His awesome power, which He had with God the Father; “5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:5-8). “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth”. (John 1:14).
What did Jesus say about Himself in relation to the “Bread which came down from heaven”? “61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (John 6:61-64).
Cont.
Jesus was the One “slain from the foundation of the world”, the “Word of God”; the One Lucifer wanted to rise above. But now, the Word of God, Who was made flesh, for the purpose of suffering and death, is seated with God the Father, Who said to Him, “Sit at my right hand, till I make Your enemies your footstool”. (Heb.1:13)
What part of Jesus, the Son of God, died? Because He was sinless and was the “Word of God” come in the flesh, and yet He died, means His whole Spiritual being died. How can one comprehend what He went through? “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, and they also who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.”
The main reason I wanted to point this out was to Glorify Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I see many these days concentrating on the welfare of humans, trying to appeal to their senses, but overlook the Love we should have toward God and our Savior Jesus Christ. We cannot Love others without the Love of God in us, through His Holy Spirit.
Hi Serge,
Thank you for your explanation regarding the Christ.
Yes, it is true that salvation (Messiah, Yah) comes from the Eternal God, Who is Spirit. Man, or flesh, cannot save our souls (minds).
Serge, what relevance does the physical body, of Jesus the Christ, have in the plan of salvation for sinners? And, what part of the Man Jesus died, if not the Christ Spirit? Or, did only the Mind of Jesus die, and not the Christ Spirit?
As the comments are being scattered all over this thread, I hope you see my comment.
Wow, thanks, Serge, for this explanation. Now I am terribly sorry about Phil’s departure. His book may target my interest and if his exit accelerates its production, that is good and I hope to somehow be alerted to its publishing. I really can’t imagine a mind of substance being offended by any expositions herein, but with bigger fish to fry, this forum can be properly escaped.
I hasten to add, it is the encounter with creative people and their minds that keeps me here. And I think there is a common quest for enlightenment that Phil stated well with these words that he left behind in a reply written above to Earl and I: “we are all just One Son seeking ‘home’ where all body-based “dividing lines” have been removed.”
I’ll try to make sure AT is warned when he finally publishes, Bugs. AT can be quite distracting, so if one is seriously writing, it is hard to do both. Yes, there are some creative thinkers here, and some desperate to preserve SDA status quo. Which simply isn’t worth preserving, given its philosophical bedrock of naturalism/materialism. Have you read McIlwaines great work, EGW a Phenomenon of Religious Materilaism? THe phil’l kind, not the money sort. THo some think Ellen was fond of the latter also. It explains a huge amount of SDA ‘distinctives’ and their oddity. And error, of course. But what else would have to talk about? Just more goss about why the GC is so awful I suppose.
Hi Daniel. I wouldn’t call it an explanation, but an addition of thoughts which ought be considered in the discussion.
I don’t think the physical body of Jesus can count for anything. It can only mean something to those who thing their loving but uber-stern Father demands blood to flow and pain to be felt. Its a horrid, and schizoid view of such a being. But when one considers the OT milieu for such an idea, then it at least its consistent.
But you will notice that tucked away here and there in the last prophets is the beginning of a new story. They said God hates the rivers of blood flowing form the temple. He’d had enough. he wanted pure hearts, not dead ones. SO their emphasis began to change to new covenant thinking, ie, how does God change hearts/motive/will?
So if even towards the end of OT history there was a change of emphasis from physical sacrifice to deeper aspects of human nature, we have to ask if this emphasis on sacrifice of a physical body is really where its at. Even modern preachers say that one look at Christ on the Cross should affect our hearts by way of response. I think that is not much more than an emotive reaction which in fact doesn’t last. Needs a deeper understanding than superficial emotion.
I think we should be clear about this: Spirit cannot ‘die.’ SDA s have huge problems differentiating because they believe all properties of bodies are material in nature. Body soul and spirit are all just functions of body.
Cont: Hence they have huge problems with deciding if Jesus’ body was Admaic, sinful, sinless, real, ‘fleshy,’ etc etc. It was just a body. But He was born of SPirit, as per 1John 3.18, the seed, ‘sperma’ of God was in him. hence he didnt’, indeed couldn’t sin. Study that text. It is crucial to understanding the rest of John’s words. And this is the way in which he is made like his brethren in every respect. WHo are his brethren? Those who are also born of GOd. If you are born of GOd, are his son, you are brother of Christ. And you share, partake of htat divine nature. Its simple logic, and its scriptural. Does anything change in your body in this new birth? NO. It is a spiritual change, called resurrection, awakening, regeneration, new creation etc etc. No change in body at all. Flesh profits nothing. Matters nothing. Spirit is all that matters. And SPirit cannot die. John 5.24 comes to mind. John 11.26 “… shall never die.” Now that is an idea which SDAs have been ‘mind controlled’ to resist!
Hi Serge,
Thank you for your response.
You mentioned SDA’s (I am not an SDA) have problems differentiating between material and spiritual: that is not my problem. That is the reason why I asked you what part of Jesus died. For us to be born-again we must die to self, spiritually. After dying spiritually we are resurrected, but not of or by our own power, but by Christ, the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”, Who is resurrected in us, raising us together with Him to be seated “in heavenly places”. We have become a new man through Christ our Lord. I believe this is the “first death” which believers experience. The second death is only the bodily death; by which we are not hurt. This is what Jesus meant when He said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25, 26)
My whole point is this: If Christ is resurrected from the dead then He has also died. This emphasises the severity of sin and the destructive path it has left behind.
The “awakening” of the Son of God, as Phil Harker puts it, does not do justice to the Sacrifice the Son of God, Jesus Christ, made for sinners. “The soul that sins shall die”. The Son of God has died first, otherwise He wouldn’t be there to meet us and raise us up with Him. It is Christ, the Sinless Son of God Whom God the Father raises from the dead. And if we believe in Him, we shall live…
Continued.
Serge,
I like Phil Harker’s presentation and am disappointed he has left; would love to have had further discussions with him on this subject.
I hope I explained myself clearly as I have only briefly covered how I understand this subject; but also believe these forums are not the place to have in-depth Biblical studies. Also, as you would have noticed, the comments on this thread are being scattered and do not appear in order of posting nor under the intended recipients. This is very annoying. Therefore I will try to keep it short. I wonder if the “editing” method by the author of this article is affecting the web page? I also found this same problem with the article “Not a Rib”.
Daniel, yes, the posts are all over the place. I hope Jack is not to upset that we’ve moved on from his original agenda.
Jesus’ physical nature/body died. Loss of blood will do this. Christ, being Spirit, cannot die, since SPirit has life in itself and cannot die, not in any physiological sense that we are aware of. That is why the rest of how you describe our new Life in Christ is spot on. ANd utterly Biblical. But it is prone ot being misunderstood by those who only see Jesus’ humanity, and our own, in purely physical/material body terms.
I don’t see how the ‘awakening’ of God’s Son (we are His SOn) fails to do justice to the sacrifice of Christ. You point out, quite correctly, that the wages of sin is death. And we must all die! That spiritual death of the old man, ie, ego death, laying down one’s ego attachment to the body, is the wages of sin. Its not a sacrifice. Its the price of being born human & sinful, as Paul describes it. But the gift of God is eternal life which calls us forth from this bodily tomb into newness of spiritual life. This is the real and only resurrection we ever need or will have. Henceforth, the flesh profits nothing. Or as WIll Shakespeare described it, ‘these muddy vestures of decay’ are no longer required.
One of the most powerful symbols which the dying Jesus teaches us is that of the spilled blood. ‘The Life is in the blood’ is the strongest motif of the OT. THe sacrificial blood was poured onto the earth…
We are the children of Adam, which is also a generic term for ‘red earth people.’ or similar concept. So in the picture of the bleeding, dying Jesus, the Life-blood is similarly poured into the earth. ie, into us. His LIfe is poured into us! Not a legal transaction, a reality of receiving the Spirit-Life of God. Great is the mystery of godliness, which is Christ IN you the hope of glory. Timothy ?
Too often we limit the power of the spilt blood by asking, ‘are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?’ The main idea behind that question being, are you washed clean of your sins by the sacrificial blood which is acceptable to the harsh divine Judge. And just as that idea only involves a superficial washing, to limit the power of the blood to that alone misses the greater Reality…… that is, its not just a washing, its a transfusion of the Gift of the Life of God which He pours into Humanity, making them one with Him. “Justice and Mercy have met, Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other.” And man is a new creation.
My reference to Earl in this fashion was an attempt at affectionate humor. He’s a toothless shark! But also a relentlessness seeker of wisdom.
Seems to me, Bugs, that with your basic outlook being that of standard literalist, rationalist, materialist view of all things that you haven’t actually escaped SDA ‘Mind Control’ at all.
Huh?
Uh-Huh, you better believe it.
The war between GOOD and EVIL has been raging on Earth since Creation. It resumed it’s deadly battles since Noah. It has been in action on every continent, and every living soul in every generation has been touched by it. Having lived and observed the tragic, horrible, slaughter, of human creatures in the massive annihilation of millions through out Russia and Germany in the 20’s & 30’s, then WWII, the Holocaust of millions of Jews and others deemed not worthy of life, the terrible use of atomic bombs against Japan. 5 years later, the war which divided Korea. Then shortly afterwards war thru-out Southeast ASIA, including the long Viet Nam war. And lately war in the Middle East.
The largest most profitable business on Earth is the Armaments Industry. Every weapons system ever developed has been used for mass destruction. The torture and death toll continues to mount. Who will ask if world without wars
and absolute destruction and dehumanizing of the masses will ever stop??? Who will ask “is the world becoming safer??? WE in the United States have until recently not had the slaughter on our USA Territory, although we’ve had many fatalities of our young men and now our women, as casualties in everyone of these wars, generally perpetrated by our Political and Military factions.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
It is interesting to me that the SDA Church’s most influential writer Ellen G White could write “The Old Testament is the gospel in figures and symbols. The New Testament is the substance. One is as essential as the other. The Old Testament presents lessons from the lips of Christ, and these lessons have not lost their force in any particular.” — and yet the SDA people still cling to the notion that the OT is meant to be read a literal history! Figures and symbols are TWICE REMOVED from the ‘Truth’ to which they point. Truth Itself cannot be described in propositional terms “I AM [is] the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” This ‘I AM’ is not Jesus by “the Christ” who is “all and in all” and it was timeless/spaceless Life – speaking through an ordinary man called Jesus Who stated “before Abraham I AM” – not “I was”!! The “mystery of the Gospel” represented in ‘figures and symbols’ is all about the inner ‘resurrection’ of awareness that our Real Life is One Life – “Christ formed within” as our true and Singular ‘Identity’ – God is Love – and ‘love is the dissolution of separation’ at the level of the real. Symbols must first of all be understood at pointers to Truth – but the Truth Itself is God – who is “above all, through all and in all” – how would we ever be ‘outside’ of the One Spirit? We cannot – but we can imagine – in our ‘prodigal journey’ through mortality that we can. Wake Up!
Addendum to my previous comment: “This ‘I AM’ is not Jesus by “the Christ” who is “all and in all”” should have read “This ‘I AM’ is not Jesus but rather “the Christ” who is “all and in all”. Jesus was a man “made like his brethren in EVERY respect” and “born of [the line of] David according to the flesh”. The man Jesus was not special or important other than that the “The true light that enlightens every man [that] was coming into the world” was fully revealed through Jesus. This “Light” is Spirit and the real living “Truth” called “I am” and everything you add after you say “I am” is nothing more that temporary separating ‘flesh’. The Real Life and Identity of ALL is as One with the Christ as manifested in Jesus “even as” that Life was One with the Source of all Life we metaphorically call the “Father” – and according to 1John 3:9 it is this Life that is not “born of the flesh” but “born or God” [i.e., unseparated Spirit] that remains ‘sinless’ [i.e., unseparated from God] “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God”. Salvation is not ‘of the body-based separated little self of which there are “legion” but of the One Offspring – the Christos – who is ‘dreaming the cosmic dream of separation’ – We can dream this space/time dream, but we cannot make it Real! God’s gift of ‘one degree of freedom’ to his One and Only ‘Son’ was to ‘see’ the opposite – the shadow side of…
Salvation if not “of the self” of which there are “legion” but “from the self” for there is truly only one Self – despite the insane delusory and insane thought [demon] to the contrary that keeps us all tied up amongst the ‘dead’. When this awakening is completed and there is only the awareness of one Son the need for the illusory space/time framework that separates will disappear as quickly as it appeared to come. If you reject the insanity of ‘dualism’ you accept that ‘matter is all’ or that ‘Spirit [Infinite Mind] is all’ – no contest! We can argue till the ‘cows come home about the nature of the literality of the OT’ but nothing is resolved until its true purpose and role in revealing the ‘way’ towards unfolding the “mystery of the Gospel” “Christ [just One] formed within” all is understood. Mystics never get involved in conflict because “knowing” [Gnosis] is “beyond belief” – the egoic mind can “believe” but only the Spirit Mind [the Christ Mind] ‘Knows’ beyond description and beyond belief and doubt. QED
AToday, you have gone too far with this ridiculous article. I say ridiculous because that is a proper way to describe Jack Hoehn’s overblown and irresponsible comparison of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the government of North Korea. There are substantive issues here that deserve serious consideration, but Hoehn overshadows them with his asinine analogy. Poorly done, AToday. Poorly done.
Matthew, if you imagine that the SDA Magisterium foster free and open ‘evidence based’ discussion on matters theological or even spiritual, and that they don’t employ “mind guard” methods to actively prevent such discussion within the confines of its halls – then you obviously have not attempted to do so! Organizations are actually incapable of progress but are designed to preserve “tradition” over long periods even when generations come and go. I actually appreciate them for this, otherwise we would not have present acces to material to build on. However, all advancement that involves a paradigm shift in thinking will be viewed as a blasphemy, and those who advance more beautiful concepts will be ‘crucified’ if they don’t fall within the received framework – which of course simply validates the blasphemy, for otherwise it would not be seen as threatening. Why would truth ever have to fear error in open discussion. If truth cannot answer for itself the sooner we realize this the better. You cannot put new wine (ideas that contain Spirit) into old wine skins (old frameworks). Hoehn may have overstated the case to get readers attention, but his central thesis is valid and is even validated by attacks that don’t offer anything as a reasonable alternative. Can U substantiate the case for the opposite to his thesis with real examples?
It seems that you, Mr. Harker, are expressing an appreciation for the open discussion of views that challenge some previous assumptions. I have noticed that some who have views of the Bible that differ from those of more conservative or perhaps even more fundamentalist or perhaps even more dogmatic Seventh-day Adventists, actually don’t really want to engage in open discussion of the logic and implications of the views they promulgate and/or support; but, for whatever reason(s), would prefer to offer a monologue or lecture presentation of the views that they hold. (Or should I say, that is my observation based on my experience and perspective?)
In any case, I do agree with you that (convictions/presumptions of) truth should never fear (convictions/presumptions of) error in open discussion.
Must say, Reality, quoting this particular text doesn’t enlighten me very much at all. Perhaps you could try to say what it is above that bothers you and why you quote this particular text?
Perhaps you could tell us what ‘philosophy and vain deceit’ means in this context, and how it relates to what is being said.
And may I ask, why do you call yourself Reality? When you think of yourself as representing Reality, just what do you intend we should understand by this? We all think we are in touch with Reality. What is different about your version of Reality?
Reality – You seem to be inferring that what the natural mind observes is what is ‘real’. And your statement “You assume in this paradigm shift, GOD’s plan will change? Or do you assume we will change GOD’s plan with this paradigm shift? GOD doesn’t change. Would this not be like assuming Jack could tie his shoe without GOD?” The the current SDA tradition is “GOD’s plan”! The paradigm shift is from fundamentalism to understanding the “mystery of the Gospel” that has always been there but was lost sight of through natural-mind fundamentalism. The “mystery” of the Gospel is “Christ [who IS ALREADY our life] formed within” i.e., within again the awareness of One’s true identity which is “Christ” who IS “all and in all” – this may be a mystery, but it is not vein philosophy. And if you think ‘reality is what you see and read with your natural eyes, how do you understand Paul’s statement that “So we fix our eyes NOT on what is seen [with the natural eye], but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” – and the mystery can only be ‘see’ with the Mind of Christ awakened. So, what specifically do you find objectionable in this?
Sorry, just this morning I stumbled on this most stimulating, thought provoking article, so maybe the topic is now stale. Here’ls my take :
The desperate plight of the North Korean citizenry is for me, mind numbing, stomach churning and too gruesome to contemplate– MISERY personified! How do God’s nostrils tolerate the STENCH?
How long will he allow such atrocities to continue?
EGW proclaims that “the universe” has to “vindicate” God and only then can Christ return. How can the “good Angels” and “unfallen beings” on other planets have endured “live streaming” of genocides, famines, epidemics, natural disasters, atrocities, and calamities for the 60,000 —200,000 years since humans first existed on earth? This is where for me, the whole GREAT CONTROVERSY doctrine IMPLODES.
Yes, I give intellectual assent to the modern scientific dating of life on our planet,
but my heart tells me that even Ted Wilson’s six thousand years, is TOO LONG
for intelligent, compassionate beings, not to have come to some meaningful arbitration in this conflict between good and evil.
The age of the earth then becomes the touchstone on which I judge the love and compassion of God and his” universe”. The accumulation of 60,000 years of so much agony and anguish, without God “cutting it short in righteousness” is for me the ultimate indictment of God as a despot who seemingly delights in long lasting human misery. So the age of the earth has wide ranging connotations and…
If the record of mankind’s cruelty were the only evidence we had by which to form opinion then you are right – it would seem a dark future indeed. But the history of mankind portrayed in the Old Testament is a series of accounts of a God intervening to save man from himself. And then we have the clear and simple New Testament message of charity and goodwill brought by the One who came in human form speaking for God. Interestingly we have no record that He engaged in prolonged scientific discussions .. rather He seemed to always bring the focus of any conversation back to what we would call matters of the heart. That hints strongly of a compassionate God. That points to a better future. That is the Good News.
Ronald: “But the history of mankind portrayed in the Old Testament is a series of accounts of a God intervening to save man from himself…”
Not sure which version of the OT you have Ronald, but the KJV, NASB, RSV etc etc all portray a God who is rather severe. The antedeluvians were simply washed away. The Canaanites were slaughtered with a severity that makes modern ISIS look like wimps. There are numerous other prophetic curses called upon the nations around Israel which indicate a God who is not intent on saving mankind from himself but simply determined to destroy anyone who does not acknowledge the superiority of the ‘chosen people.’
Is it any wonder moderns have asked, ‘how odd, of God, to choose the Jews.’ But the response is true to form: ‘Not odd, of God, the goyim annoy ‘im.’
And for this annoyance they incur eternal wrath.
But the NT does reveal an entirely different God. So different, in fact, that many, in those early days, dared to say that the God revealed by Jesus is not the YHVH of the OT at all. They certainly appear to be quite different. (Personally I like the idea of an ‘evolution’ in spiritual thought to explain these developments). Their solution to the problem which Robin has described was to show a marked difference between those ‘Gods.’ In due course, those people, Marcion being a prime example, were declared to be gnostic heretics, and so orthodoxy was born. And with it arises the schizophrenic view of the God…
Cont…….. And with it arises the schizophrenic view of the God of the Old vs the New Testaments.
The OT is not an unbiased history. The historians were Jews. And the writers always have the first and last word. Later commentaries cannot change the text.
Thank you for your response Dr Hoehn.
I did read the most eloquent article you had written in 2012. In it you state that each individual, whether born yesterday or eons ago, only has to deal with the calamities occurring in his/her current life time, and should not concern him/herself with accumulated historical miseries.
I am sorry, but with many Jewish friends, the Holocaust is burned into my psyche, just as are the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition, Christian families being thrown to the lions in Rome’s Coliseum, ad nauseum.
The problem with a 60,000 earth history is one has to assume that “beings on other planets” are primitive primates like in the movie Planet of the Apes, unable to have compassion for the misery on earth.
Do you also assume that there is such a myriad of angels, that each one only has to do “guardian duty” for thirty minutes per hundred years so as not to bond with their human protégés?
Why are the Angels, higher beings than humans, more sensitive and with more compassion, not CLAMORING for God to end the carnage, proclaiming vehemently and vociferously, that they LONG AGO had vindicated God in the controversy between Good And Evil?
My understanding of the Great Controversy doctrine, is that humanity only exists to persuade the “universe” that God is Good and Satan Evil.
60,000 years or even 6,000 years is TOO LONG, and implies that the universe has zero comprehension and compassion.
What has time got to do with ‘salvation’? From the perspective of the Infinite there is only ‘now’ and the egoic natural mind’s ‘idea’ of past a future are both irrelevant to the ‘awakening’ [resurrection] of the Sonship [Spirit – “I am”] that ‘saves’ the Offspring of the Father from his ‘prodigal dream’ of separation. “NOW IS the day of salvation” “NOW is the [only] acceptable time” as far as the Father is concerned when he looks at His still ‘dreaming’ Son! Christos [speaking through an ordinary man in space/time state “before Abraham WAS I AM’ not “I was” – indicating that the Spirit of Life in Him had been awakened to Its timeless/spaceless unseen [with the natural eye] single Identity.
The metaphorical ‘Father’ created the metaphorical ‘Son’ by extension LIKE UNTO Himself and with all the same powers – including the single degree of freedom to extend the creative act ‘like unto Himself’ or to create by projecting a world that was NOT like unto Himself – in other words, a world or separation – of “legion” rather than Oneness. This was only possible in ‘unreality’ of a ‘dream-state’ and hence has a beginning and an end. This worlds was not made by the “Father” but by the Son – and it was made IN the Son’s Mind for there can be no ‘outside’ of God.
Col.1:16 “because IN him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and FOR him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things IN HIM have consisted”
“Even as” Christ is ONE with the Father, YOU – yes YOU – not as a body-based separated little vulnerable ‘self’ but YOU — are ONE with the Christ – only the awareness of THIS FACT which began in an ordinary man called Jesus is still very rare. Why? because we still look for the salvation of the egoic self!!
“When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory” Col.3:4 – “revealed” where? IN the Kingdom of Heaven — which is WITHIN YOU [Luke 17:21]! Why do we still choose to stay in the ‘tomb’ of the body based separating ‘self’ when we are ALL part of the same Offspring of God [compare Gal.3:16 and Acts 17:28] – and, as such, are without fault in the Mind of the Father – for nothing can harm what He has created – and He [the Father] did not create this insane world – WE DID.
Compare Col.3:19 and Eph. 3:19.
Correction to previous comment – Compare Col.3:9 and Eph. 3:19
He [the Father] did not create this insane world – WE [the Christ who is “all and in all”] DID – and still cherish it. If we continue to ‘love’ the world We made [only the Offspring of God could have any real choice about anything at all] will will never ‘see’ the world that ‘Father’ loves. Otherwise, how is it that we are told “love not the world not the things of the world [that we made!]” yet we are to be like the Father Who “loves the world”! Well, it must be a different world that the Father sees and we – as His Son – don’t yet fully ‘see’!
IF we acknowledge that our Father is God then we must be Spirit – for God is Spirit. But if we cling to a body-based and separated identity the our ‘father’ is the ‘devil’ [note the lack of capitalisation] for the ‘devil’ is nothing more than a personification of the ego – that insane and unaware part of Our Mind that sits in the ‘temple of God’ [the Sonship] claiming to be charge – and has no power whatsoever other that is given to it by the Sonship – which WE ARE.
When we sing “this is MY FATHER’S world” we are declaring our ‘father’ to be “the devil” just as Christ spoke through Jesus. It is God that “justifies” [declares His Son to be GUILTLESS] – even if still deludedly clinging to His own creation – and the only mind that condemns Us is OURSELVES — if we cling to the egoic mind.
See Rom.8:33,34 and note that we are ALL…
” When we sing “this is MY FATHER’S world” we are declaring our ‘father’ to be “the devil” ”
The late Rev Maltbie Davenport Babcock would disagree:
This is my Father’s world.
O let me ne’er forget
That though the wrong
Seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world:
The battle is not done:
Jesus who died shall be satisfied,
And earth and Heav’n be one.
This is my Father’s world,
And to my listening ears
All nature sings, and round me rings
The music of the spheres.
This is my Father’s world:
I rest me in the thought
Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
His hand the wonders wrought.
This is my Father’s world,
The birds their carols raise,
The morning light, the lily white,
Declare their maker’s praise.
This is my Father’s world:
He shines in all that’s fair;
In the rustling grass I hear Him pass;
He speaks to me everywhere.
We seldom see what we do not look for. We seldom hear what we do not listen for.
So, Jim, I take it you disagree completely with Robin Vandermolen’s post above? You prefer the Pollyanna view of things to that of ‘nature red in tooth and claw,’ not to mention man’s interminable inhumanity to man, all of which combine to create a reality of life on this earth which is far enough away from a loving Father’s ideals as Voltaire’s adage would have it: ‘if there is a god, he is the devil’ There are a lot of insurmountable arguments in favour of that view, if one looks alone at the material universe. Babcock’s saccharin portrayal is a travesty of rational observation, let alone logical conclusion.
Read those lyrics carefully. The late Rev Babcock acknowledges that there was both good and evil in nature. He chooses to see God in the good and to trust God’s promise that in the end God will prevail and evil will be vanquished.
See Rom.8:33,34 and note that we are ALL God’s ‘elect’ [same word is ‘chosen’
Let me make another correction of the text!!
Correction to previous comment – Compare Col.2:9 and Eph. 3:19
The dogged Adventist efforts to transform the Genesis allegory into fact has a hidden sub-rosa reason I’ve not seen accounted for. It is this: Being “right” when all others are “wrong” is a powerful narcotic, once experienced, is a heavenly high.
For decades Adventism has appealed to the human desire to be “right,” an emotional and reasoned delivery from the confusion of competing religious claims in favor of one that is clearly correct above all others, a decisive, once-for-all resolution, distinguished by God’s personal design for the end time, and whose followers are therefore elevated above all people. To be an Adventist was to have the “Truth,” everything scriptural, and it was headlined in its name: Seventh-day Adventist. The end. All others were Falsehood, Marked by the Beast.
Once you have the “Truth” you can’t easily go back. Traditional Adventism is bound hand and foot to literal creationism, sola scriptura. In the face of modern scientific fact, it has only one choice, to find ways to creatively maintain the Creation allegory as fact and to herald that lie as the old/new “Truth.” Good riddance, disagreers. Intelligent Fence sitters, along with other schemers, perform that maneuver with hybrid schemes such as ID.
An Adventist without the “Truth?” You can stay in mental N. Korea. Or accept Adventism doesn’t have the “Truth,” never did. Find a new good reason for being one. One that thrives on allegory and science
Larry,
“Good riddance, disagreers. Intelligent Fence sitters, along with other schemers, perform that maneuver with hybrid schemes such as ID.”
The humanistic “intelligent” mind has destroyed the “Truth”.
“Schemers” are the ones who are “Raging against the LORD and His Anointed”.
So, all the best with your so-called “fields of ambrosia”; or rather, “wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever”!
What, Daniel, is “humanist” about the fact the universe Is billions of years old and the earth is a part of it? That isn’t a judgment or decision. It is a fact. You can ignore it, deny it, act is if it is false, believe what you want in its place. But you can’t make it go away.
By your measurement, who scuttled the Seventh-day Adventist “Truth” because he didn’t fulfill the prophesies and return according to the predictions and left you holding the bag of disappointment?
My advice for you is to take some R& time in the Fields of Ambrosia! Rest is good for the stressed, hysterical soul! There is no “raging against the Lord” in my post,” nor raging against you. There is no ”
blackness of darkness forever” for believers just because they don’t agree with you. You can believe what you want. That is just fine with me. However, you are the one in jeopardy, I fear, by being the
Judge, lashing out at the “disagreers” based on your thinking as the ultimate criteria.
In my interaction with enclaves of Adventists who hold very closely to a sense that God requires individual perfection of His people, before Jesus can return, I have worked in concert with mental health professionals who conclude that within the perfectionism culture lurks a heady element of addiction—a sense that each and every day, the follower of God is moving up the scale to a point of behavioral Nirvana. This sense of climbing Perfection’s Ladder infuses the individual with a literal, chemical high that becomes chronic and unshakable, and requires regular-if-not-constant nourishment in study groups and meetings. From a codependency point of view, it is one of the most binding effects of perfectionism (and affects most dramatically those with a predisposition to obsessive/compulsive thinking), and tends to isolate the practitioner culturally in a land of their own devising, where perfectionism is largely defined, not by the good works accomplished for humanity, for the needy, and in the creation of Christian community on a larger scale. Rather, perfection in this separate world is largely defined by the lurking evil one can avoid, the unholy influences one can bypass, the defined “sins” one can set aside, and the unworthy people one can shun… They have a sense of real attainment and a personal assurance of salvation because of the battles where they have fought and prevailed. This happens in many idealistic subcultures, and is certainly alive in Hindu lifestyle…
Brother Schwisow your comment was on target regarding the damage that perfectionism is doing to Adventists.
Seventh-day Adventists have a special proclivity towards perfectionism. It is something we struggle with because we often fail to understand the difference between healthy striving and perfectionism. It is critical to finding inner peace and picking up our life. Research shows that perfectionism hampers success in any spiritual journey. In fact, it’s often the path to depression, anxiety, addiction, and life paralysis. When things are perfect, that’s when we need to worry most.
Perfectionism is the voice of the evil, the enemy of God’s people. If you allow it to inhabit your life perfectionism will keep you cramped and insane your whole life, and it can become the main obstacle between you and a personal relationship with God. Healthy striving is self-focused: “How can I improve?” Perfectionism is other-focused: “What will they think? Perfectionism is a self destructive and addictive belief system that fuels this primary thought: If I look perfect, and do everything perfectly, I can avoid or minimize the painful feelings of shame, judgment, and blame. At its root, perfectionism isn’t really about a deep love of being meticulous. It’s about fear. Fear of making a mistake. Fear of disappointing others. Fear of failure. Fear of success. Perfectionism breeds dependence on self apart from God. It is pure evil.
Phil Harker, you have my attention. Would you please enlarge
our understanding of the verses you have presented above.
1. Having died in Christ in baptism. With Christ within, as Christ is one with the Father, yes we will be Spirit, but what will we be? What is our role?
2.When Christ who is your life is revealed, (for you are the Sonship), you also will be revealed in glory??
3.You are ONE with the CHRIST, which began with an ordinary man called Jesus??
Hi Earl – as you have asked for specific clarification of my comments, I will endeavour to respond specifically to each in turn. Needless to say, perhaps, my responses, to be worth anything at all, will take a little more space that usual – but I will be as brief as possible without making it unreadable. In order to do so, I will need to take up more than the space allowed for each response.
Now, I realise that the editor of this blog line may feel that my responses are simply too long to be allowed to remain. If this is the case, I ask the editor allow my email address to be passed directly to you so that I can send my full reply.
My responses will appear in separate inserts – and your first question, at least will probably go beyond the limit set.
Earl’s first question:
1. Having died in/with Christ in baptism. With Christ within, as Christ is one with the Father, yes we will be Spirit, but what will we be? What is our role? (Find some relevant texts and insert refs)
Response: You, the REAL you, have always been within the Reality of ‘the Christ’ – the One and only metaphorical ‘Son’ of the ‘Father’. For Earl was “born of the flesh” but You are ‘born of the Spirit’ [“What is born of the flesh IS flesh, and what is born of the Spirit IS spirit” John 3:6] and whereas that which was ‘born of flesh has a beginning and an ending in space/time, that which is ‘born of the Spirit’ is “born of God” and therefore has no beginning and no ending and exists entirely within the eternal NOW and not within space/time at all. To use more scientific terms, “the Christ Mind” is ‘non-local’ whereas the natural mind is ‘local’. This makes sense of the Christ Mind speaking through Jesus and saying “before Abraham was, I AM” not ‘I was’!
Now, your statement “Having died IN Christ in baptism” needs to be a little more clarified. Yes, You, the real YOU, were IN CHRIST [not just forensically or legally or vicariously] but ACTUALLY and “just as” Christ was ONE with the Father, so YOU are, always have been and always will be, ONE with ‘the Christ’ – “who is all and in all”.
Response to Earl’s First Question – Continued:
Now the baptism that you refer to cannot be the ‘baptism’ of water, which is symbolic of the real baptism, but refers more accurately to the ‘baptism of fire’ –the death of the flesh and the rebirth as spirit, the journey through the cross – [“But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with” Mark 10:38]. This is the baptism that You went through on the cross – for this was the final journey in the ending of the attachment to the flesh [the real reason for the empty tomb, I might add!]. And if Christ [who REALLY is “all and in all”] dies to the flesh for all, then all [the all being the ‘all’ of the Spirit – the ‘light’ that lightens ALL who come into the world] then You too have died that death. See Rom.6:2-9. BUT the ‘awakening’ or ‘quickening,’ (Ep.2.1, Col 2.13) or ‘resurrection’ TO the awareness/consciousness/knowledge of that FACT is rare indeed. Why, because the full return of the prodigal Son to a remembrance of His undivided REALITY as Spirit is still to be realised. This will happen – for Love will always ultimately realise that hanging on to a ‘dead thing’ [the body has no Life in itself, but is animated BY Life] and seeking for its ‘salvation,’ has nothing going for it.
Response to Earl’s First Question Continued:
From the perspective of a ‘dead body’ Christ is said to be ‘within’ Earl, however, from the perspective of the Living Spirit, Earl is nothing more than a temporary, but highly valuable, instrument for the expression of what You are – and what are You? You ARE Love – not ‘loving’ but LOVE itself. Obviously the term ‘love’ as usually understood is vastly inadequate here. Earl has been born within the Son’s ‘dream of separation’ within space/time and will end within space/time – but You have no beginning and no ending so You are NOT within space/time, rather space/time is within YOU [see my earlier quote from Col.1:16 NRSV – “for IN HIM all things in heaven and on earth were created…”
“What will we be?” – here your words indicate other than NOW – but contrary to what I heard a minister at a recent funeral ‘misquote’ Christ as saying in John 14:3 “where I will be you will be also” the correct wording is “where I AM [in the eternal NOW] you will be also (when you awaken to your REALITY in the Christ “who IS [NOW] our Life”.)
What is Our purpose here? To shorten ‘time,’ by spreading the ‘good news’ that nothing in REALITY has ever changed despite all the madness of our prodigal journey into separation! The whole story is the ‘awakening’ of the Sonship Who still use the cosmic dream of space/time to experience the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ in the unreality of space/time.
Answer to Earl’s First Question Concluded:
Only that which is ‘unseen’ – the Spirit that ‘sees’ and ‘chooses’ to ‘stay’ or ‘return home’ – is ‘Real’.
Response to Earl’s Second Question:
2.When Christ who is your life is revealed, (for you are the Sonship), you also will be revealed in glory?? (txt?) — PS: I was referring to Col.3:4 “When Christ who IS [i.e., already] our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory”
Response: The ‘awakening’ or ‘resurrection’ of the Christ Mind after the ‘baptism of fire’ experience, typified in the ‘crucifixion’ of the old, individuated, ‘material self,’ is when the Mind becomes increasingly aware of the ‘glory’ of the indescribably beautiful character of Love. This is far beyond the notion of an anthropomorphic God who ‘loves us’ mortal beings, puts us mortal beings [who Christ described as captives and without any notion of freedom] to the test and divides some into sheep and some into goats and casts the goats aside! On the contrary, ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’ are nothing more than metaphorical references to two opposing ‘thought systems’ in the ‘kingdom of heaven’ which is within US – still within the collective Christ Mind. The ‘sheep’ thoughts are thoughts of unconditional Love and the ‘goat’ thoughts’ are those thoughts coming from the part of the Mind that imagines that ‘separation’ could be made real and have real effects – “who is this that condemns” – the devil – that personification of the egoic mind that imagines that separation from the Father is actually possible!
Response to Earl’s Second Question Continued:
The ‘goats’ have to be thrown out of the ‘kingdom’ – out of the Mind – the ‘final judgement’ of the Son of God is “NOT GUILTY.” For nothing he ever imagined regarding separation was ever any more ‘real’ than in a space/time dream.
Have you ever wondered what a ‘dream’ would look like if it were dreamt by an infinite Mind? It would seem to be very real, but reality can never have a beginning or an ending. Hence Paul’s statement regarding the unreality of what we see with mortal eyes, and the Reality of what is ‘seen’ with the eye of the Spirit. God IS LOVE that could never, and will never, destroy His ‘Son’ – and we are ALL in that ‘Sonship’ despite illusions to the opposite.
Response to Earls Third Question:
3.You are ONE with the CHRIST, which began with an ordinary man called Jesus??
Your real Oneness with Christ did not BEGIN with Jesus – but the full awareness of this FACT of unseparated Life of ALL in perfect union with the Father, without beginning and without ending, was fully realised for the first time in an unimportant man ‘without form or comeliness,’ after the lineage of David according to the flesh, “made like his brethren in EVERY respect,” called Jesus. Christ is not the surname of Jesus! Because within just a few generations, the true mystical understanding of the Gospel as “Christ formed within” was lost and Christ became indistinguishable from a man called Jesus. The growing awareness of OUR true identity’ in the Sonship of the Christ was lost and the dark ages returned. The illusion of time is for this to be restored – and it is happening, quietly, like a ‘thief in the night” the ‘second coming’ is happening in the inner ‘kingdom [not kingdoms] of heaven’. “He gathers His Elect [the Sonship] from the four winds, from one end of Heaven to the other.” How could We have ever been really outside of the Mind/Spirit we call God – “one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” Eph.4:6.
Response to Earl’s Third Question Concluded:
Again, what is the purpose OF this prodigal journey through the mortal vale of the flesh? So that the extension of God we metaphorically refer to as His “one Son” could have that ‘one degree of freedom’ that would mean the Son could be more than a ‘robot’! Not the ‘freedom’ to destroy His reality or birth-right – but the freedom to experience in living colour, so to speak, and in perfect safety, the opposite to His reality so that he could see ‘both sides’ – One Real – one false – and through rejecting His ‘shadow’ side know for Himself why only Oneness of Life could ever be ‘safe’. And when the Son is finally and fully awake in All, the ‘dream’ will end, and like ‘Alice in Wonderland’ [a great allegory, by the way] it will never have been in reality – for she ‘awakens’ at the same moment she went to sleep and dreamed the insane dream.
Phil, it appears you ripped a few of pages from Webster’s Dictionary, tossed them into a vegetable blender, hit the mulch button, and then dumped the sludge on Atoday. Blah blah blah, or less!
My intent isn’t to criticize you personally, your faith or belief, but to point out how vacuous it is string endless words together when God’s love and the Gospel of Christ are so simple.
Here is my version (unsolicited for sure!) of the “enlargement” rascal Earl requested, to show how to wade in his shark infested surf, trick-musings!
1. A loving person.
2. Always
3. Yes
The texts you quoted and he referenced don’t matter. His Bible, mine and yours is full of them! They are fine in the mind, not so much when explained in writing according to each person’s opinion.
Thanks for your feedback Bugs, I fully accept that my responses did not make any sense to you and realise that when a subject is viewed from incommensurable paradigms the conflicting interpretive frameworks make the other persons perspective seem to be nothing more than nonsense.
Phil, you are very welcome! I readily confess my part, that my viewpoint which is comprised of at least one, if not more paradigm(s), does make your prospective framework(s) seem to be nothing more than nonsense! Whew, did I get that right? I think you may be saying I just didn’t understand you. If so, that is true! Thanks for the heads up!
I confess having spent some time reading Heidegger, Nietzsche, Bonhoeffer, Brunner, Bultmann, Gilkey, Neibuhr, Schweitzer, Tillich, Kant, Kierkegaard, Jesus, and others whom I don’t recall at the moment. Jesus was the most understandable, without incomprehensible paradigms either on his part or required on mine. So, I like his style the best. Nothing to wade through. No blender. Simple paradigms, not incommensurable ones. That’s all I am saying. Simple worlds for a simple guy!
Bugs – With respect, if the words of and works of Jesus were so easy to understand that even the simply ‘natural mind’ could understand them – why was it that almost no-one understood him or even recognised who he was?
If you compare just three passages of scripture (i) “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was COMING INTO THE WORLD.” [John 1:9] and (ii) “She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one COMING INTO THE WORLD” [John 11:27] and “He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” [Matt. 16:15,16]- it would seem that only Martha and Peter had an basic understanding that it was not the man Jesus that was “coming into the world” [for Jesus, the man, was already ‘in the world’ just the same as anyone else] but that it was the Christ – the awakening of awareness that it is not flesh that has life [for, of itself it can do nothing], but only the Spirit has Life and is the true ‘birthright’ ad true ‘identity’ of all – if that Spirit would only let go its attachment to body-based separation and specialness, which blinded even his closest disciples to their common identity in the one Offspring – the Christ. Yes, this is, as Paul called it, a great mystery, and cannot by understood by the natural mind that always seeks the salvation of its separated little self. Christ spoke of the ‘salvation FROM’ the captivity to the ‘self’ not of…
Serge, magnificent display of the entertainment value of theological musings! I think you just said Jesus isn’t Superguy. If so, I, too, was entertained! It released me momentarily of the shackles of mind control with which Adventism has held me in its cold, legal, mechanical, inescapable grasp (a vexing addiction only you have been able to detect, and thanks)!
Scuttled by spell checkers that are too smart for me. Should have been incomprehensible (come now Phil, you know what I meant) not incommensurable paradigms! Now that you have gone, would you please reply to my accusation?
Phil,
Looking to John’s Gospel for clarity should always come with the caveat: He is not describing the narrative of the other three but a defense and polemic for Jesus’ divinity; something not believed during or for many years following the Resurrection.
The Gospels, which were more of a biography, were written after Paul who was the first to preach Christ and Him crucified, but not that he was equal with God. It was John who proposed this belief, but not accepted
but never claimed by the synoptics of Paul. It was John’s agenda; although not formally aceepted until the early fourth century.
John is NOT a simple and easy read; just as his Revelation is very obtuse, affording numerous explanations through the centuries; but left for Adventists to make the claim that they alone have the answers. But many before him were equally certain of theirs.
Hi Elaine – Thanks for your response. Firstly I agree that John is not a “simple and easy read” particularly for the fundamentalist mindset. He is the most ‘mystically minded’ of the Gospel writers and again, must misunderstood by those looking at the ‘story’ of Jesus from a literalist perspective. Also, I hope I didn’t give the impression that I though Jesus was God – for Jesus was clearly ‘born of the flesh’ whereas ‘the Christ’ was ‘born of the Spirit’ and that only the Spirit has Life – the flesh “profiteth” [give, or adds, no advantage] nothing. I clearly see Spirit as Real and flesh [that which is ‘seen’ with eye of sense] as ephemeral, transitory, illusory, basically “unreal” in that only what is “eternal” can be Real. As for “Christ crucified” I read this as Christ being “crucified TO” to the world of the flesh in the same was a stated by Paul in Galatians 6:14 “May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” Indeed in the story Jesus was literally crucified in and of the flesh, but Spirit itself cannot be crucified, hence the term must refer to Christ being crucified TO material self, just as stated in Rom. 6:5 “if we have been united in a death like his” the “like his” is revealed in verse 6 as being a ‘death to the [body-based] old self’.
However, I acknowledge that we all ‘see what we look for’ and therefore there can be no ‘objective…
Continued from previous note – my last phrase seemed not to fit the letter limit even though it fitted when I was writing it?
What I ended with was “However, I acknowledge that we all ‘see what we look for’ and therefore there can be no ‘objective truth’ for on “I am” is Truth Itself.”
Jack, North Koreans who dissent have no option but to stay. In Adventism, dissenters are welcome to leave.
The beliefs you disagree with were voted on by a majority at the GC session. Stop with the sour grapes already and move on.
Do you believe that the majority is always right and what God wishes? That vote changed nothing other than to register the dissent for WO.
It is NOT one of the Fundamental Beliefs nor did it change the constitution of the church that gives unions the final authority of who to ordain in their territory. Since when has the majority decided truth or right?
The comments on this thread of the last couple days are highly enlightening as to how two very wise learned people are able to digest the same various texts, yet have opposing views of the content. Both individuals are gentlemen, highly articulate, and desirous of aiding others to their point of view, but in a kind and gentle manner. (that is until Larry departs from his serious views, and inserts his often humorous hyperbole, which i love. i would match up Larry with any other SDA, or former SDA, in knowledge, both religious, and secular, although not that he is always accurate, although always honest.
This creates a dichotomy for those at atoday. It demonstrates how difficult it is utilizing Sola Scriptura alone, as the “end all” of “IT IS WHAT IT SAYS”. SEZ WHO??
This brings me to what Jesus stated “God is Spirit, and must be worshiped in Spirit and truth” John 4:24; “but when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” John 16:13; “how much more will your FATHER in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him” Luke 11:13; “the HOLY Spirit whom the FATHER will send in my name will teach you all things” John 14:26.
Let’s not kill the messengers. Think about it. Truth, knowledge, wisdom is available to every soul, who asks
The comments on this thread of the last couple days are highly enlightening as to how two very wise learned people are able to digest the same various texts, yet have opposing views of the content. Both individuals are gentlemen, highly articulate, and desirous of aiding others to their point of view, but in a kind and gentle manner. (that is until Larry departs from his serious views, and inserts his often humorous hyperbole, which i love. i would match up Larry with any other SDA, or former SDA, in knowledge, both religious, and secular, although not that he is always accurate, although always honest.
This creates a dichotomy for those at atoday. It demonstrates how difficult it is utilizing Sola Scriptura alone, as the “end all” of “IT IS WHAT IT SAYS”. SEZ WHO??
This brings me to what Jesus stated “God is Spirit, and must be worshiped in Spirit and truth” John 4:24; “but when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” John 16:13; “how much more will your FATHER in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him” Luke 11:13; “the HOLY Spirit whom the FATHER will send in my name will teach you all things” John 14:26.
Let’s not kill the messengers. Think about it. Truth, knowledge, wisdom is available to every soul, “who asks for it”. Fundamentalists, Traditionalists, Conservatives. Progressives, all who love our Lord Jesus, asks of the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, again, again, often, constantly, and you will receive that which you treasure.
Are the teachings of Jesus truly so simple that even a child can understand them? Is there ‘no secret knowledge?’ Matthew didn’t think so.
Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
It seems as if the General Conference, since San Antonio, has been taking an approach eerily similar to North Korea’s and even to the Papacy. http://goo.gl/NmcLVE . It seems as if there is a “GC Papacy” at work.
Why are you so hard on North Korea?? I bet you think you are better than them. “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
There’s an old saying: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
For those who become upset at their brothers and sisters who have different ideas, how can you ever handle all the difficult questions from a non-believer? Or do they always agree with what you present, perhaps out of courtesy or lack of Bible knowledge?
Adventists are better students of the Bible that most any other Christians. But they are also trained on “proof texts” to support their views and often dismiss other texts that offer challenges.
Phil. There are a great grouping here of commenters that are worlds apart on the elements, and or variations of interpretations of most every meaningful verse of scripture. At times we have atheists, agnostics, fundamentalists, conservatives,liberals, progressive, and those who believe they are constantly led by the HOLY SPIRIT. Most are dignified and sincere in their beliefs, and yet not overbearing or lack empathy for others. And there are a few who are fixed in a certainty of knowing it all. Sometimes, some are called to task, if they venture too far in beligerant attitudes. A lively give and take that ebbs and flows. We welcome you to share the bully pit here, and and hang tough. Remember, beside the commenters here, there are supposedly over a hundred thousand souls sharing the ether here. God Bless you PHIL.
Hi Bugs, Earl and Daniel – Phil Harker PhD, retired professor of psychology has ‘bugged out’ of the current discussion. He only became involved after I prevailed on him to respond to a few of the ideas that were coming up. He and I have been very close in our forty year long joint search for a non-dualistic understanding of scripture – me with a theology background retrained in medicine when the hierarchy enforced their mind control post Glacier View, and he as a psychologist/educator with a deeply spiritual foundation in SDAism that made him a highly regarded maverick in the field of psychology in Australia.
Given the nature of our discussions over the years and the nature of some of the topics appearing on AToday I encouraged him, against considerable resistance, to input into the forum some of ideas that I felt were particularly interesting though potentially inflammatory to those holding dualistic conceptions ie,Spirit & materiality are being equally ‘real’. He didn’t want to do this for two reasons; firstly, because he felt such a forum was not the place to allow an adequate explanation of such material when they would almost certainly be viewed within traditional frameworks of thinking; and secondly, because he is extremely busy writing the final sections of a book that actually covers all these topics and questions that have
Cont: and secondly, because he is extremely busy writing the final sections of a book that actually covers all these topics and questions, and more, that have been put to him. His book will be titled FROM FUNDAMENTALISM TO FREEDOM: The Search for the True Holy Grail, and with a subtitle as simply: BEHOND SCIENTISM – BEHOND HUMANISM – BEYOND DOUBT.
Now I should say, that if Phil doesn’t return to this forum it won’t be because he is offended – I have never seen him offended by anything, no matter how hard I tried!. On the back wall of his office at Uni was a large sign saying “Offence is never given. It can only be taken. And when it is offered and refused, any offence intended returns to the one who offered it”. No, if he doesn’t return it will simply be for the two reasons that I have suggested above. I would encourage him to return, if the discussion warrants, but quite frankly I think he needs to finish his book for there are millions sitting in the pews of churches dissatisfied with an anthropomorphic view of a God who is said to ‘be Love’ but still entertains the option to torture (punishment without the possibility of learning!). There is a more beautiful ‘way’ to understand the metaphors, allegories, and stories of scripture that goes way beyond ‘self-centred’ salvation, and maybe it is time for it to be ‘remembered.’ I just hope he gets that book done asap.
Thank you, Serge. Much appreciated. Give him my regards.
I can’t work out what is happening at the moment but my posts are appearing all over the place. There is one a little way up the page relating to Phil taking his leave ‘pro tem’ for any who might be interested. (Now I wonder where this one will end up?)
Earl, to conclude these thoughts.
Your love for Jesus the Christ is not in doubt. The genius of Christianity is that it (the early writers) were able to personalise what might otherwise be a philosophical concept only. One cannot describe ‘love’ for an idea and feel the same emotion as one does with love for a Person. SPirit is Personhood to the uttermost. When Paul said the SPrit bears witness with our spirit, this can only happen at the deepest, most intimate of personal levels. The authors of this true, deep and mystical experience knew it for themselves and were able to communicate it quite well, given the limitations of language. But later interlopers added less enlightened understandings and so we have some tension in the NT between the ‘now’ experience vs eschatological, immanent vs imminent, etc. If one reads with an awareness of this tension, one is less likely to be perturbed by the less enlightened versions.
One final comment on the phrase, ‘crucified in my place.’ He was not crucified in your place. Rom 5,6 is clear that we must all die a death like his. ‘The soul that sins shall die’ is not negotiable. The wages of sin is death and always will be. THe gift of God is not escape from death. It is LIFE which follows that death. You hath he quickened who were dead. This death is ‘ego-death,’ a yielding up of the ‘old man’ independent (of GOd) nature which seeks to live in separation from the he who is our Life.
Apparently I have been “blacklisted” from this conversation?
My comments are no longer appearing here.
This article is good in showing how to set up a nice analogy, and then applying it to something in a completely mistaken way.