What Does God Call Us To When Everything is Changing?
By Monte Sahlin, August 30, 2016: I have never seen as much change as is exploding all around us right now, despite the fact that I was born in the post-World War II Baby Boom and was a teenager in the 1960s. I have lived through the TV generation, the Civil Rights Movement, the turmoil over the Vietnam War and the War on Poverty, and it still leaves me unprepared for what is happening today. The unprecedented election campaign for President of the United States, the “Brexit” vote in Europe, but more specifically the changes in Christianity in America.
“The End of White Christian America” is described in a fascinating book by Robert P. Jones. He points out that 1993 was the last year that white Protestants made up the majority of the population in America. There have long been tensions between a dominant segment made up of American Protestants with a European ethnic background and the growing numbers of Catholics, Jews and ethnic minority groups. Adventists actually have a unique take on these tensions, sympathetic in many ways to the powerless. The Ellen White classic, The Great Controversy is actually more critical of Protestants than Catholics, using the papacy primarily as a way of predicting that a Protestant establishment would engage in much the same oppression of minority views as occurred in a medieval Europe where the Catholic church was dominate.
From the beginning of the Adventist movement, its leaders have been clear about the racist element in American history. We early took a stand against slavery and have long welcomed immigrants without regard to their technical status with the government. This is one reason why nearly a decade ago the Adventist membership in North America crossed the threshold into a reality still a couple of decades away for the U.S. population as a whole: the majority is a mosaic of ethnic minorities. That transition is one of the changes underway around us. Among Americans 55 years of age and older, three quarters are white. Among Americans under 18 years of age, just half are white.
A “politics of nostalgia” resulting from a “fragile white privilege” attracts many in the fading white Christian America. It comes out in an irrationally negative attitude toward the country’s first black president, the apocalyptic tone of arguments over same-sex marriage and religious liberty, and potentially dangerous views on immigration and refugees. Growing numbers of individuals feel that they cannot discuss the issues with friends anymore and the Internet has become a virtual insane asylum, which testify to the deep impact of the changes underway.
Religious change is a key part of this river of trends washing away certainties that have been in place for centuries. It is a different kind of change than Christianity has faced for at least 500 years. The most common response is to try to understand it using old categories and models, which are simply inadequate.
Church attendance across the board is down. And young adults are less and less likely to go to church, even if they were born into a faith community. The median age for white Christians is 54, meaning that half of the people in that category are over 54. The median age for the U.S. Census is currently 37.
The unaffiliated or those who say that their religious preference is “none of the above” are the fastest-growing segment of the religious profile. The median age for the unaffiliated is 36. It is important to understand that relatively few of these people are atheists. They are not against God. In fact, they are not really willing to say they are agnostic (uncertain about the question of God’s existence). Most are “spiritual, but not religious,” meaning that they understand that there is a spiritual dimension to life and have some sense of a Divine presence in the universe, but they have many questions about the traditional way in which discussions of theology and philosophy have been structured, and their experience of organized religion leaves them feeling cold.
There are some stridently religious people, including some Adventists, who reflect nothing positive or inviting about faith. They proclaim “truth,” but it does not come across as good news nor even believable. Evangelical Protestants, the segment closest to the Adventist faith and within which it is usually grouped, have often mingled a certain kind of politics with their religion. Once upon a time, Adventists were part of this, actively participating in the coalition that imposed Prohibition (a ban on alcoholic beverages) on America in 1920. It backfired and was soon seen as a disaster and reversed. Consequently the majority of Americans are unwilling to establish laws enforcing Bible norms of morality.
What Would God Have Us Do?
Does God want us to vote for lawmakers and judges who will impose what we understand to be His moral requirements through civil law and judicial decisions? Does God ask us to take sides in the great battles over morality and change that are underway in the world today? Is that truly the authentic Adventist role in these times?
Matthew 25:31-46 provides us with direct word from Jesus on these questions. The context of this passage is the question asked by the disciples in 24:3, “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” That makes this an Adventist text because it is about the time of the second coming. The theme of the entire passage from 24:4 through 25:46 is how to remain faithful to Christ, how to wait for Christ’s return. In this bottom line story Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, welcome the alien, help the poor, and care for the sick and the prisoner. “Just as you did for the least … you did it to me.” (24:40)
Representing the Divine Heart of compassion and love is the most essential witness. Unless we have that truth clear, all doctrine is “sounding brass,” a pointless noise. If you are tempted to think that defending the truth and combating error are more important than Christ’s focus in this passage on practical compassion, remember that at the end of the story those who miss the point end up in the lake of fire, despite the fact that they honestly ask, “When did we see you in need Jesus?” One can battle for truth and end up on the wrong side of the final judgment.
The turmoil that is churning the world right now can try your soul. On all sides you will hear people asserting falsehoods small and large, and doing so genuinely. It becomes very difficult to keep one’s humility because so many things are so obviously wrong. Beliefs at polar opposites are deeply held by large numbers of people in large variety. But humility is required if I am a follower of Jesus. I must remind myself that no matter how strongly I believe something to be truth, I could be wrong. No matter how clearly I see a thing in Scripture, I could be wrong.
Adventist Today has a very liberal policy for writers and comments. We allow people to post comments who clearly have no sense of humility whatsoever. Some seem to think that God has appointed them the resident theological censor to point all the untrue things that others write. We tolerate them because Jesus died for them and commands us to be compassionate, and because they may be right and I may be wrong about the issues at hand. (We only remove the right to comment when an individual has created a legal problem or has generated complaints from other readers who have suffered from aggressive personal comments.)
The issues currently being debated in the world around us lead some to think that it is OK to make comments that are an insult to other readers, focusing in an overly negative way on the gender, ethnicity, faith, education, occupation, philosophy or political views of others. The problem with that kind of message is not just that it violates the guidelines for comments, but that it does not display the compassion that Jesus asks us to focus on at this point in history. According to the text mentioned above, it puts you on the wrong side of God’s divine judgment.
We no longer live in the world that I was born into. The cable TV in my community constantly reminds me of that with its ads promoting a channel with “family friendly” shows, most in black-and-white and all produced in the 1950s and early 1960s. We do live in the world that Jesus has called us to. We are called to be his witnesses, his servants, his agents of divine peace and compassion in this world, no matter how much we may detest it.
Monte Sahlin is the executive director of the Adventist Today Foundation. He is an ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination where he served for 44 years before retiring in 2014.
Wow! You nailed this one!
“One can battle for truth and end up on the wrong side of the final judgment.”
Monte,
Amen!
Faith that does not produce results in growing the Kingdom of God is ineffective and evidence that we have a form of godliness but none of the power. It is too weak to save us, so why would we imagine it could be effective in accomplishing the mission Jesus gave us to go and make disciples?
Ellen White gave us timeless advice when she told us to be perceptive enough to recognize when old methods of evangelism fail and to be imaginative enough to try new methods. She also told us that health ministry united with gospel ministry would be a powerful evangelism tool. Following the ministry model of Jesus, the Your Best Pathway to Health method of using mega-clinics touches people where they are and ministers to their needs. Patients are invited to attend health education-lifestyle improvement classes that include the spiritual foundation for healthful living. Doing that presents God as loving and caring about them and increases their interest in attending evangelistic programs. How effective is it? My daughter and I participated at the event in Beckley, WV and have been following reports from the area. I have received a report that this Sabbath the membership of the Beckley church will be doubling as a direct result of the clinic! Doing that is actually an old method of evangelism that looks new because we’ve gotten so far away from it for so long. It’s a method that works. How many other places should we be using it?
William, In the early 90s, the International Churches of Christ had numerous congregations in the L.A. and Southern California area. They built those congregations of thousands of mostly college age or under 35 year olds over a period of several years, from a small core group.
They had no church buildings but rented venues such as the Wiltern theatre and various hotel banquet rooms, old movie theatres, sometimes in parks. The attendees were not losers, street peoplebums. Most were college students from places like UCLA, USC, Cal Tech or recent graduates with degrees in medicine, law, social work, nursing, students from Cal Tech, UCLA, USC. One of their pastors graduated from Annapolis and another faithful member from MIT and USC law.
Gay affirmation was unthinkable. Homosexuality was something to be repented of; they didn’t pander to the fleshpots of Egypt. They offered the young people a way to build a stable Christian family after finding a heterosexual partner from within the church, which is what the youth of the generation desired.
Never heard a word about the mark of the beast or the IJ but heard a lot about repentance from sin, faith in Christ, baptism by immersion, which they framed in a context which made it something very special.
I saw that army of youth EGW spoke about but they weren’t interested in Adventism.
Hansen,
That seems a good illustration of two things: that we can evangelize without having formal churches and how long the Adventist disconnection between youth and society has been happening. Turning that around requires that we learn to deal effectively with social issues, including your pet issue for complaint, homosexuality. Condemning those who are willing to wrestle with those issues and learn how to minister the Gospel in the face of those issues just perpetuates the church’s disconnect and failure.
William, Adventism has become irrelevant in the States. The young people joining the ICOC wanted stable families but had no idea how to build one. ICOC gave them a way. A man who got divorced while a pastor would have been out on his ear. Even pastoral families who had children wobbly in the faith were on the outs. Problematic when the church founder’s daughter decided to leave but that’s another issue. Even he was sacked.
It’s unfortunate that Adventism has become so desperate for members that they are willing to accept practicing homosexuals. It’s retrograde, not progressive. if the pastors were competent, they could bring people into the church who weren’t gay. How many homosexual members do you think Doug Batchelor attracts, or any of the AF evangelists? ICOC demonstrated beyond a doubt that there are literally thousands, tens of thousands of talented people willing to give their lives to Christ. It wasn’t a free ride, either. A lot was demanded of the members financially and otherwise. I have no doubt that if the Sabbath would have been preached, it would have been embraced by nearly all.
Ironic that the ICOC were the spiritual descendants of the Campbellites, a group who tried the warn the Millerites of their error and were traditional opponents of SDA, often debating people like Canright.
Hansen,
if you knew the power of God over sin in your own life, you would not be so focused on condemning specific sins. Instead, you would be celebrating the victory God gives those who allow Him to work in them. You would know from experience that the sin isn’t the problem, it is the failure to embrace the power of God. Yes, that failure is widespread. How you relate to it is up to you. You can fear the problem and complain about it as you do repeatedly. Or, you can experience the victory God promises to you if you will let Him be in control and transform you.
The path to victory over sin begins with seeing the power of God working in someone else. When will they begin seeing that victory in you?
It is not Hansen whose focused on sodomy. It is everybody else’s focus. If it weren’t the single-minded obsession of so many to make the abominable perversion normal he wouldn’t bring it up.
Monte’s famous fourth paragraph is exhibit “A”
Thanks Monte! I’m going to borrow some of your thoughts for a sermon that I’ll be preaching next Sabbath on the parable wheat and the tares. I think it’s very appropriate . . .
Thank you Monte for making clear why so many feel the way they do and why we need to be willing to become a different people than we are. Brilliantly executed short essay!!
I am not so sure that this excellent commentary tells us why people feel the way they do (it’s pure stereotyping), but it does tell us why the church fails in its evangelism to the “nones.” Any sort of approach that could meet the needs of the public would not be any more allowable on any level than a significant change in the order of worship–the sameness of which many of us have tolerated for decades.
I am reminded of the film produced by young people that was rejected at the GC and shelved. I’m nonplussed at this use of funds and talent. There are so many creative people able to use media and produce life-changing programs and churches who could bring the Gospel to their communities in new ways. I have suggested a few in my lifetime even the local church. We must get over our disdain for the LGBT group, as well as WO, or interested people will turn around and leave as soon as they hear it. Denying marriage to SS people in the nation is like passing a Sunday law!
Monte, please. I am so sick of hearing that every white person is racist and “It comes out in an irrationally negative attitude toward the country’s first black president,” You are so wrong and this attitude makes us even more separated. I have dealt with this before on here and as an independent would appreciate a blog to add a more rational opinion to this revolting and intolerant belief.
Ella, I wholeheartedly agree. Those on the Left love the piece. Those who are conservative see Monte engaging in the same kind of insults, negativity and irrationality which he decries. It’s just that those on the political left think it is factually self-evident that successful Whites are privileged; that opposition to same-sex marriage is apocalyptic hysteria; and that wanting to enforce immigration laws is dangerous xenophobia. So how could those observations be insulting or negative?
It’s really incredible hubris. It is pointless to respond because for so many – especially on the political left – politics is their religion. Failure to politicize faith is to betray the gospel.
The political left of Adventism pays lip service to the Biblical teaching that ALL nations are corrupt. But that doesn’t lead them to suspect that using government to force our fellow citizens to get on “God’s side” may not be doing the Lord’s work.
And what is doing the Lord’s work? – Making sure that everyone has equal abundance of Maslow’s basic needs. It is Theistic materialism. It completely misses the point of the parable of the sheep and goats, and ignores the radically anti-materialist message and life of Christ.
Nathan, I agree that using government to force fellow citizens to “get on God’s side” is not the Lord’s work. In fact such laws, whether from the left or right, are wrong. But, I am convinced from careful study in the original language and scores of commentaries across the spectrum of views that the parable is about literal poverty, disease, immigration, prisoners and compassion. Those things are not symbolic of something else, so far as I can see.
Monte,
The parable is not political. You have an intimate responsibility to live your life giving yourself to the least of these His brethren. Don’t imagine you can fulfill His commandment by voting.
Our service to Christ in the guise of the poor is not for you to judge.
Consequently the majority of Americans are unwilling to establish laws enforcing Bible norms of morality. Can you tell us where the norms of morality are derived from if they are not derived from God’s law?
The young are abandoning religion because they don’t suppose anybody ought to be telling them
they are sinners. We have taught them there is no sin, only equality. The only sin is inequality. The law of God judges them and they don’t like it. Change they can believe in. The end of history and judgement has arrived. Each of us is now liberated to define the universe and our place in it to suit ourselves.
Mr Abbott, might we delve into this just a little? From a millennial point of view?
The many that are taught right from wrong are out there trying. We see multitudes that are seeking and searching for HIM. They are looking for someone that Loves them enough to stand up to them…..for them and tell them about HIM. But all the see and get are those that want to talk about themselves and their ideas of HIM and not about HIM. We need HIM, not someone that does not practice what they preach, nor preach what they practice or as stated preaches nothing.
We all have our BIBLES and can read. We know that rebellion or tearing down is wrong. We know what helping the poor and others means. We are there. We see the many that Love others enough to stand up. We also see them suffer in Love for others, not for themselves, as those others seem to wish to create the environment as some form of self proclaimed help, only to bully. We can see why they do not want laws of Government or HIM.
To never have someone that Loves you enough to stand up to you and for you is sad. But that does not seem to be the problem here. None of us have ever been able to figure out exactly what this is or how it can be so easily justified. But as you state, the drive is to the end result. No matter who or how many are trampled getting there. The result far outweighs the casualties of war. Without the actual war, cause or justification. This is what is left for us to fix?
Monte, you claim to agree that getting the government to force people to get on God’s side is not the Lord’s work. You concede that such laws are wrong.
So what are we to make of your use of the parable of the sheep and goats as God’s answer to the questions of how He wants us to vote? The entire tenor of your Commentary leaves the strong impression that our salvation very much depends on getting off the political sidelines and joining forces with the “non-atheist” spiritualists – who are on the side of the sheep – to fight against evangelical Christians for what you think is Biblical morality.
I really got a kick out of your attempt to defang mom-believers. “After all, they aren’t really atheists; they just aren’t ‘stridently’ religious. If they are practical and methodological atheists, does it really matter? Strange logic, Monte. Revelation doesn’t really mean what it seems to say. It isn’t about oppression of those who worship the Most High by those who deny His authority and distort His character. It’s about recognizing that commamd and control earthly governments are part of God’s final solution to dealing with those who praise His name and exalt him in worship, while supporting Brexit and refusing to support the earthly kingdoms that are implementing His will. We do indeed live in strange times.
I did not say every white person is racist. I did not say every white person has an irrational negative attitude towards the president. Some do. I don’t know the percentage, but it is a reality that it makes no sense to deny.
Of course it makes no sense to deny that some White people have an irrationally negative attitude toward the President – just as it makes no sense to deny that some Black people have an irrationally positive attitude toward the President. But what’s your point? Some Black Americans had an irrationally negative attitude toward George Bush. The same could be said of Whites – irrationally positive attitudes toward Obama, and irrationally negative attitudes toward Bush.
But obviously, in context, you intend something more. You want the reader to feel, without opening yourself up to criticism, that intensely negative attitudes toward Obama are irrational, and therefore, Whites who have such feelings must be racist. If that’s not what you are trying to convey, your observation has no point to it.
I happen to believe that Obama has been the most consequentially dangerous, destructIbe president in American history. Most conservative Black and White pundits share that perspective. You can’t get much more negative than that. Do you think that. Presumably, you think that’s irrational. So I infer from your statement that you think my negative views of Obama are motivated by racism.
There are different ways to insult people, Monte. One is to presume that all right thinking people live and react within the echo chamber of identity group tropes and meta narratives which are the common currency of leftist ideology.
“I happen to believe that Obama has been the most consequentially dangerous, destructIbe president in American history. Most conservative Black and White pundits share that perspective.”
MOST CONSERVATIVE pundits may agree, but then what about the many liberal pundits and those who have taken either or both sides at various times?
I read three daily newspapers including the NYTimes and WaP as well as watch the news each evening, so to leave a false impression because of what you believe, only tells the reader that you will probably vote the Conservative ticket. But there have been far more dangerous and destructive to the Constitution presidents before Obama, and we should fear that if Trump is elected, he will be far more destructive of this nation’s ideals as written in the Constitution as he doesn’t even know what’s in it, believing he can change laws at his will.
I respect your right to believe as you do, Elaine. My point wasn’t to make a political statement, but to suggest that strongly negative attitudes toward Obama are neither irrational nor presumptively racist – a notion that Monte’s comment seemed to suggest.
If we follow the methods of Jesus that is He mingled, He won their confidence, He met their needs and then He bid them follow Him, we would not have room in our churches to house new believers. We are of the opinion that our methods are the best so we compromise here and there in order to be successful in our evangelistic programs. When we are united as a church family and see each other as important to the mission and we pray for a fitness to witness the Holy Spirit will use us and God would add to the church such as would be saved, as it happened on the day of Pentecost. So many weeks of prayer, so many 777 prayer sessions, so many reading of the word but no revival no reformation.What is the problem I pray God please help us.
Clyde,
The problem I see is people being more devoted to theology, to being right about God than being right WITH God and actually doing what He told us to do. A lot of people are all talk about God and think their talking about God is what He wants when they’re disobeying Him by not allowing His immense power and love to flow through them.
Take a look at the 4th paragraph of Monte’s Commentary. When one uses terms like “political nostalgia” to in effect denigrate and devalue the philosophical gravitas of traditional values; when one uses phrases like “White privilege” to denigrate and devalue the achievements that have made America and the world unimaginably prosperous, is it any wonder that rational respectful conversation is so difficult. How can one respond with dispassion when their interlocutor gives them the option of either being thought immoral or stupid for refusing to use labels like Monte does as a predicate for constructive dialogue?
What if I wrote a Commentary talking about “Black lawlessness” resulting from of a fragile “politics of entitlement, grievance and revenge?” The howls of outrage about my rascism would be deafening. That Commentary would not stay up a day. And rightly so, because the demographic facts of criminal behavior have nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with values. Similarly, the demographics of success have nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with values.
This is but one example of how wrong-headed it is to construct political meta-narratives that demonize or privilege citizens based on identity group characteristics. The difficulty we have discerning and following God’s will in the places He has put us cause us to gravitate toward finding meaning and significance in political sentiments that produce moral thrills. And that’s…
Clyde, what if love isn’t a method?
Ella, what if rationality is the problem, not the solution?
Is it not helpful to keep in mind that the Second Coming is not an end and not even a beginning but a continuation of God’s creative intent and energy. If so, perhaps the present is as meaningful as any moment in time will ever be, by design.
So true, Bill. “…a continuation of God’s creative intent and energy” – lovingly, patiently, severely trying to wrench us from the illusion that our destiny as His children is dependent on our ability to navigate and prolong existence in the physical natural world that is the product of His mind and word. But that creative intent and energy are directed toward saving and recreating – not evolving the world through human effort.
I like this quote by Nathan: “Failure to politicize faith is to betray the gospel.” This is so true and though he meant it for the “left” it is also true for the “right.” We need a balance, and balance means listening to others, avoiding extremes, and being tolerant.
Note: In reading about the Matt. 25 judgment of sheep and goats and comparing that with other parables by Christ, I am noticing that He always chooses to help those who cannot help themselves. He especially names orphans and widows and those in prison, and he heals the sick and disabled. They all have one thing in common–helplessness.
What about those healthy men and women who can help themselves but are poor and become dependent? Or even the unhealthy among us who know what to do but don’t do it? How does responsibility enter in?
Is our society/government making it hard for some people to be responsible and accepting immorality and lawlessness? And I am including the corrupt rich as well (with their legal loopholes), especially celebrities who mock morality.
You make a number of curious assertions, Monte.
Where do you get the idea that Americans reluctance to support laws enforcing Biblical norms of morality is the product of the country’s experience with prohibition? Prohibition was hardly a Biblical moral norm. And furthermore, Americans overwhelmingly continue to use Biblical norms as arguments for the moral necessity of their various political positions. Isn’t that what the social gospel claims to be all about?
I am also puzzled by your suggestion that Adventist leaders have been clear about the racist elements in American history. I know they were abolitionists. But as Adventism spread to the Southern states, were political concepts of racial equality embedded in the Message? For that matter, how vocal were Northern Adventist leaders in condemning de jure and de facto racism in Post-Bellum America? I am unaware, unaware that early Adventist leaders had much to say about political racial inequality once slavery was outlawed.
Finally, you say “we have long welcomed immigrants without regard to their technical status with the government.” These carefully crafted words need to be unpacked. What are you referring to? Are you suggesting that the Church has supported sheltering and facilitating those who enter and remain in the country illegally? You implicitly want to bootstrap from some Adventist historical precedent to a moral
position that opposes enforcement of our immigration laws. What precedent would that…
Nathan, I did not say that the parable has anything to do with voting. You are reading between the lines. My basic point is that God has a different agenda than voting for whomever; a different agenda than that of the “Christian” political activists.
The connection between Prohibition and current attitudes on a variety of issues promoted by Christian activists has been made in many books and articles, both pro and con. You may not see alcohol as a Bible principle, but it was seen by many Christians as such from the 1870s through the 1930s, including Ellen White and other Adventist leaders.
Nathan, your approach to Monte’s commentary is puzzling. You are clearly doubtful of his sense of our Seventh-day Adventism traditional behavior during cultural upheaval. How do you respond to his core assertion:
“We do live in the world that Jesus has called us to. We are called to be his witnesses, his servants, his agents of divine peace and compassion in this world, no matter how much we may detest it.”
I’m on board with Monte’s assertion. I agree with you if you sense that Seventh-day Adventism is traditionally inadequate. And I agree with Monte that Seventh-day Adventism has never been indifferent. Not even close. And we can use that history as encouragement as we take up our role as witnesses, as servants, and as agents of divine peace and compassion in the world we have been called to.
Last sentence should have ended, “as Monte so warmly encourages us.”
Monte and Bill – I understand that the Commentary is cryptically written so as to thinly insulate Monte from being accused of having actually condemned anyone or any set of beliefs. But I don’t see how you can get away from the conclusion that Monte feels that SDA Christians who challenge the political agendas and metanarratives of the Left are outside the traditions of mainstream Adventism, and in league with the Protestants that Ellen White warned against.
I don’t really understand what Monte is saying in what you view as his core assertion. Oh, I understand what he means about what Jesus has called us to. And I generally agree, although I think as an abstract statement, and as a partial window, it isn’t very meaningful. I do think the assertion is inadequate. But then, how could any abstraction or set of abstractions be adequate.
The part I don’t understand is “…no matter how much we detest it.” What the heck does that mean? Monte did a remarkably effective job of hiding his core assertion in Political rhetoric that detracted from that assertion.
And finally, Monte, telling me that lots of books and articles agree with you isn’t an argument, but a fallacious appeal to authority. I was hoping for a reasoned explanation of the contention that Americans are more resistant to Laws based on Biblical morality as a result of prohibition. As I see it, they have simply changed their definition of what constitutes Bonlical morality.
Monte,
You do have a tendency to impute a species of hagiography to Seventh-day Adventist history. I’ll refer you to the EGW searchable online compendium. There you will find a terribly conventional Mrs. White speaking out forcefully in favor of the Negro work and counseling the need to provide separate facilities and churches for the colored people in light of the extreme prejudice against them in the south (where almost all the Negros were in her time). Specifically so the work could go on among the whites also. She considered racial intermarriage fanaticism and counseled young people against miscegenation, promising one young fellow his useful service to the church would end if he did.
She sounds like she had absolutely no problem with the Plessy v Ferguson 1896 Supreme Court decision that established the constitutionality of separate but equal public facilities for whites and coloreds. She was counseling the same thing.
Ellen White never wrote about immigration. Her silence about the Blaine amendment which was a blatantly anti-catholic proposed constitutional amendment against parochial schools is confirmation of her opinion: “our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions…” Test. vol 5 p. 451
Catholics were the focus of anti-immigrant sentiment during Mrs. White’s lifetime.
Thank you for these observations, William. Very fascinating stuff I wasn’t aware of.
William, SDAs ties to racism are unfortunate. Glendale, CA, for example had a KKK march down the main street of the town in 1962; it was one of the strongest Klan strongholds in the western U.S. The town served as headquarters for the VOP, Pacific Union Conference, Southern California Conference, Glendale Academy, and the Glendale Sanitarium.
California, in general, was a stronghold of racist sentiment for decades, burning down Chinatowns
crafting exclusionary laws, general persecution. This is quite strange, considering a Chinese herbalist, Yee Fung Cheung, saved the wife of Governor Leland Stanford from death by pulmonary disease. Stanford was a strident anti Chinese immigrationist who softened his position after they helped him complete the transcontinental railroad.
See the Wikipedia article on the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I just noticed Nate’s comment that “I happen to believe that Obama has been the most consequentially dangerous, destructive president in American history. Most conservative Black and White pundits share that perspective.”
The operative word in the second sentence is “conservative.”
I happen to believe that Obama has been the most positive and constructive president since FDR. Most liberal Black and White pundits share that perspective.
Now I ask Nate, what do we do now? Throw verbal stones at each other? You know the statement attributed to Jesus, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”
What is the “sin” that Jesus is talking about here? But that is another topic . . . he is talking about moral failings not about political “sins.”
We have just confirmed what we already know –that there are those posting on the AT website that have 180 degree differences in the manner in which they evaluate contemporary American politics. There are some Christians who are actually thinking about voting for Donald Trump. Can you imagine?
So I ask Nate again: What do we do now? Continue to slug it out verbally? I doubt that is the best way to proceed. But Nate might have a different point of view. He does on already every topic.
You completely missed my point, Erv. Monte’s leftist preamble insulted my political and moral values, using racist phrases like “White privilege,” and strongly suggesting, without saying, that strongly negative attitudes toward Obama are irrational and therefore, presumptively racist.
Now to me, Monte’s political comments were sort of like deliberately passing gas in church. I wanted Monte to know that his sentiments come across as no less insulting and ideologically narrow-minded than the beliefs and values that he finds strident and insensitive. So I let him know that he had insulted me by imputing racism, irrationality, homophobia and xenophobia to my values.
So where do we go from here, Erv? We stop gratuitously inserting highly controversial political drive-by attacks As analogies and illustrations. (In other words, LAY OFF OF TRUMP!) Of course he’s a buffoon. But many of us will vote for him over the alternative. And in case you hadn’t noticed, most of us have the good taste and restraint not to take the bait when your snarky Trump references leave your favored candidate highly exposed.
Second, we stop assuming that all right minded people share our values and beliefs. Instead of stating our political opinions, as facts, like Elaine, we preface what we know will be controversial with “in my opinion, or I happen to believe.”
Finally, avoid politically correct slogans and pious religious cliches. Bumper sticker politics or theology invites verbal…
…invites verbal slugfests.
Nathan,
With regard to ‘white privilege’ (personally I prefer to not capitalize a description of skin pigmentation unless it grammatically appropriate to do so), I would say that the concomitant denial and intentional preservation of white privilege (by the deniers of it) is at the root of racial disharmony in 21st century America.
Donald Trump is the incarnate definition of white (male) privilege; and that reality may be the reason that he has an opportunity to be elected as the successor to the first black President of the United States. It is a conservative backlash that should have been highly predictable.
To Erv’s point, it is highly ironic, if nothing else, that those who most commonly decry the coarsening and moral decline of the culture are more than willing to have Donald Trump as President of the United States—ostensibly because his opponent, who is quite probably the single most intensely and thoroughly investigated individual who has ever sought or held public office (in the history of the world), is a liar. As if Trump is not.
No, Clinton is not opposed by Donald Trump voters because she is a liar. She is opposed by Donald Trump voters because she is a liberal. Trump’s ascension is completely and literally reactionary. It is effectively a political ‘tribal’ uprising/tantrum.
This has happened before in world history.
Stephen,
HRC is not an attractive candidate. She is not merely a liar, she is a corrupt liar. At this point it is obvious the reason she destroyed her emails is because they would reveal the intimate connection between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation was selling access to Sec. of State Clinton.
Donald Trump is certainly not a conservative reaction to Obama. Nate observed on another thread, “Obama and the Left created the Donald Trump phenomenon. Without the high-handed disregard for the rule of law and American interests…” Such is the tragedy of this political reaction. An opposition candidate has arisen who says he will play by the same rules. He will ‘win’ stuff for ‘you’ instead of ‘them’.
Trump is a master of the zero-sum political and economic philosophy the Democracts have become so beholden to – the dichotomy of winners and losers, of the 1% vs. the 99%.
In short – ‘white privilege’ encapsulates an idea that the rule of law is a ruse – merely a mechanism to exercise power. Power is what is to be grasped – neither candidate has an inkling of what public service is. The voters have followed their chosen leaders – raw power is what they want. Increasingly here is what our rulers are giving us. A government of men, not laws.
Stephen,
So the success of an astute businessman is the result of privilege that is inherent in the color of his skin? If you want to talk about “white privilege” let’s also talk about “black privilege.” I remind you that no nation on the face of the planet has enacted as many laws for the purpose of giving legal privileges and financial benefits to one race as America has to give privileges and benefits to blacks.
How is Donald Trump who was, as a variation of the joke goes, born on third base but is now further advantaged by the narrative that he hit a triple (“…the success of an astute businessman…”) not the personification of not only white male privilege, but also a representation of the denial of it?
When your father gives you a “small loan of a million dollars” (his verbatim description) to start you off in an industry in which he (the father) is already well-established, and you are a white male WASP in the United States, you are the child of privilege, by very definition.
What’s more, when the bragging about and leveraging of your subsequent success—despite multiple bankruptcies, and legal suits including racial discrimination and fraud—and a boorish appeal to nationalism, jingoism, and bigotry catapults you to a major party presidential nomination without ever having previously run or served in any public service capacity; then you are the beneficiary of a culture of favor and privilege, by definition.
When the only previous foray into politics for such a personage had been leading the questioning of the legitimacy of the election of the first black POTUS, based on bogus claims that he had not been born in the United States, with the accompanying claim to have had some of the best lawyers in the country coming up with confirmation of this illegitimacy; then we’ve witnessed an attempt to leverage privilege to discredit someone…
…of lesser privilege via false accusation (‘witness) about them. The same thing used to happen to male slaves on occasion.
One can deny that Trump’s ascension is a ‘tribal’ conservative reaction until one’s neck turns red, but Hillary Clinton was not a factor in Trump defeating the likes of Kasich, Bush, Rubio, et al for the presidential nomination of the major conservative party in the United States.
Trump won that nomination because he is representative of the type of individual that a plurality of angry white conservatives in America think should be running things; and that had absolutely nothing to do with either Clinton or Sanders
Stephen,
The advantage Donald Trump had was not being white, but having a father who taught him how to succeed in business. In contrast, consider the results that Liberal-Socialism is having on the black community in the destruction of families so that the majority of youth are born out of wedlock and do not have parental role models to teach them those same things. Still, the number of blacks who are succeeding in business refutes your argument about “white privilege” because it is not their race helping them succeed, but improving themselves, learning and practicing the principles of business, working hard and learning the hard lessons failure teaches (as Donald Trump describes in “The Art of the Deal”). So the irony of your argument is that if there is such a thing as “white privilege” it is because the Liberal-Socialism you support is preventing the vast majority of blacks from becoming affluent instead of helping them be successful.
William Noel,
I have news for you (among others); white privilege in our society is a reality that predates Karl Marx.
I can’t believe educated, intelligent people will spend precious time arguing for the buffoon Republican candidate these days.
Vote for him if you must. But don’t display your lack of culture by advertising it.
What does God control?
“What does God control?”
Observing humanity’s egotistical and self-centered mindedness; who must have their say above all others–I would say: not much!
And the question again, Monte? Oh yes… What is God calling us to? Is He calling us to go back to our past to find Him? Is He asking us to find Him in denouncing and separating ourselves from those whose values we find distasteful?
The Corinthian Church found itself fighting over values, authority and narratives when Paul wrote to them, saying, “I resolve to know nothing among you save Christ and Him crucified.” One thing I am sure of. We will not find Him by aligning outselves with political causes, or in condemning those who identify with political causes that we detest.
Amen! My point was that Jesus has a different agenda than any side in the current chaos of opinions and feelings. The agenda of Jesus is practical compassion for “the least,” an active demonstration of His love for humanity.
And on that, Monte, we agree 1,000%.
I am not sure whether an outsider like me will be able to post a comment. I was born into an Adventist family in Australia, a fourth generation Adventist. I went to Avondale from 1974-1978 and taught at Fulton College in 1979. That was enough Adventism for me. Eventually I completed a PhD from the University of Adelaide, entitled ‘Socialising Accountability for the Sacred: A Study of the Sanitarium Health Food Company’. I look up a few Adventist sites every now and then to follow this academic interest, where I came across this article.
To try and understand where Adventism came from I have read amongst other books – De Tocqueville’s classic text on the USA, Max Weber’s writings on his visit to the USA, Tave’s book on Visionaries. Now nearly 200 years on, the count of years since the disappointment of 1844, has been abandoned in Adventism. In Australia Adventists, JWs and Mormons are bundled together with other American sects. Continuing to link Adventist and American experience while not unexpected only confirms Adventism’s marginal nature. To put it bluntly why should anyone have to understand America to understand the church they belong to? As Samuel Johnson noted, the Bible is ‘clear in its essentials, but not in its ‘controversial points’. Linking the Bible with the USA is certainly not essential but controversial and in this instance self-indulgent as well.
Les,
One should probably strive to understand Judaism and the history of the Jews if you are going to be a follower and believer in the purported Jewish Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. If their holy scriptures are going to be yours… don’t you think?
Not that your thoughts aren’t interesting. They are just subsumed in the bigger irony of Christianity taken as a whole.
“Linking the Bible with the USA is certainly not essential but controversial and in this instance self-indulgent as well.”
Les, this “linking” is no doubt derived from those who have interpreted Biblical prophecies carnally, i.e., incorporating world powers, countries and events, such as America, into their theology and by this unwittingly express superiority and dominance over all other countries. “Self-indulgent”? I would say: Self-glorification. Now from whom did all this originate? Yes, indeed, there they are again, those early SDA “church” founders. I don’t think Joseph Smith is innocent, neither.
From a child’s view this does sound a lot like hypocrites playing in the sandbox.
Did CHRIST not tell the bedridden man after he healed him to “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” in John 5. Was this not HIS example in Love. Does no one understand Love anymore? No, we listen to “sounding brass” that means nothing. You take complaints that mean nothing, while others receive the real complaints and Love you enough to help. Yes there are many self created legal issues here and all I see is the absolute discrimination of others. Those like my dad that Love you enough and are capable and still fights for you, because he can and Loves you, no matter what. Definitely not because of anything you do or any value you add.
It is like complaining about attendance. What are you going to do about it, just complain as usual? Maybe you could tell others about HIM, instead of trying to sell them yourselves and your opinions. Maybe we could look at the failing Conferences within the Unions without blinders on and see why they are failing. Even with the massive hard work of others in those failing Conferences, we see those trying to sell themselves to others. Others that need HIM. Maybe you can tell us why the two Southern California and the Ohio Conferences are loosing members, while most of the rest of the Church is growing?
Are you going to leave us your failures as always, or try to fix some of them?
Whisper,
Hypocrites playing in the sandbox? No, much worse. It is people who have a form of godliness but none of the power arguing as if they knew what God wanted them to do. What is missing is the power of the Holy Spirit, which they deny that they need and would not recognize because following the intimate guidance of God is so unfamiliar to them.
Please, be careful with your criticism of the failures of other because your repeated talk about HIM speaks volumes about your lack of experience with the Holy Spirit, too.
Interesting to observe how political choices are so important to Christian folk. Especially when both major parties are so corrupt, rotten to the core. First we have Clinton who has been a part of the political scene
of feeding at the hind teets of the political cornucopia largess for over 40 years. She has been involved in shadowed dealings for most of that time, beginning with the White Water Real Estate scam in Arkansas, where others in her group went to prison. Then there was Vince Foster, her lover, a so-called suicide
in the Nations Capitol. You’ll note the Clinton’s hanging in together, even though they are both sexual
deviants, because they’ve always had a “open marriage”. Hillary is also bi-sexual. An auful lot of “real”
skeletons in her background. Her State Dept management was a total USA disaster. And while as head of the State Dept, she was promoting the Clinton Foundation, world wide, to the amount of over 3 billion dollars.
Bill has departed the Foundation just a couple of weeks ago, leaving her to face the ongoing investigation
as the Head of it. Past presidents can do no harm. She will be a continuing legacy of the Obama Administration. And you people want her to be your President????
While Trump is a buffoon, boisterous talking, no political correctness in this guy. Saying he will solve the illegal alien problems we have in the U.S., also stopping the importation of Muslims from Syria and the Middle East. Build a wall on our Southern…
Earl,
She also appears to have Parkinson’s Disease. That is not my opinion, but what I have been told by a number of physicians. Her coughing fits are the result of paralysis in her throat that allows mucus to run down her trachea to her vocal cords. One week ago she was photographed using a step stool to get into a Secret Service SUV because she is losing motor control in her legs. When she sits, her hands to a “pill roll” tremor and her head bobs up and down. The press and people attending her rallies are prohibited from using camera flashes because of the neurologic result that it causes where she loses the ability to think and speak for a period of time ranging from a few seconds to longer. Given the rate at which Parkinson’s Disease advances, in as little as a few months she could be unable to walk or think clearly. Even in the best case, if she were elected she would likely be an invalid before finishing her first term. Even if the Parkinson’s diagnosis is incorrect, she has had at-least three documented major blood clot episodes so she is taking the blood thinner Coumadin and has a greatly multiplied probability of suffering more strokes. The doctors I have spoken with say future strokes are not an “if” question but when, and when it happens she faces a far higher probability of it being catastrophic.
The risk of electing someone facing such massive and potentially catastrophic health threats is a gamble no reasonable voter should dismiss.
Maybe it’s a choice between a Clown and a Crook??
>>>>>border, deporting all those from the Southern hemisphere who have not conducted themselves as
“model Americans”, all those who’ed committed crimes, gang members, and other undesirable aliens.
Yes he is brash, unforgiving, a strongman meaning to make America great again. Reaching out to black
citizens to make America great for them too.The Democrats have curried their favors since Lyndon Johnson, but there has been little improvement in removing the ghettos they reside in, and providing meaningful
employment opportunities. Instead their jobs have disappeared to Mexico, and beyond. Look at the destruction of Detroit and Michigan. Observe the black on black crime and murders of their own race.
This is because of the break down of the wholeness of families. Less than 40% have A Father living with their Mothers. Gangs guarding their turf, recruiting the young, introducing them to booze, drugs, andlack
of concern for the value of a life. This has got to change, so the youth of the U.S. have a chance to exist in
a family oriented structure, such as was in the 20th Century. Now it wasn’t perfect, but several hundred percent better than now, with the exception of hate in the hearts of some, but it is changing for the better and future generations can be the beneficiaries of Great America. Can the imperfect Trump make a difference?? He sure can’t do worse than the status quo. Outright Socialism is what the Democrats are bringing.
I doubt very seriously, and in fact am quite confident, that not one thing that I have written about Trump can be factually contradicted.
On the other hand, the statements that William Noel and Earl Calahan have written in response contain unproven accusations, rumor, and innuendo which both have stated as fact. They feel entitled and privileged to level these accusations whether they can prove them to be true or not.
For his part, William Abbott has assigned the modifier of “corrupt” to his accusation of “liar” to the same individual; even though this person has never been charged with having committed any crime, and has very likely been the single most thoroughly and intensely investigated individual during their own lifetime to have ever lived.
I honestly believe that their comments, opinions, conclusions, and way of thinking is representative of at least 70-75% of white American men, and perhaps as many as two thirds of white Americans who will vote in November all told; which would be enough to be elected President—despite the reality that none of what I said about him is untrue.
How fascinating this is!
Stephen,
The problem is that you see racism in so many places where there is none. Let someone from “Black Lives Matter” or the Clinton campaign make some wild claim and you believe it. You believe so much is racist that sometimes I’m surprised you don’t complain that night is racist because it isn’t black enough, or that the abundance of city lights blotting-out your view of stars at night isn’t “white privilege.” You are ridiculous.
William,
That which can be classified as a “wild claim” is apparently a subjective call. Trump’s opponent has been described (or ‘identified’) on this thread as an adulterous bi-sexual murder suspect with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease from multiple medical professionals (besides being a “corrupt liar” of course)!
What’s more, on this thread it has also been falsely and wildly claimed (again) that because of affirmative action—which addresses previous discrimination against white women as much as it does any other demographic group—“no nation on the face of the planet has enacted as many laws for the purpose of giving legal privileges and financial benefits to one race as America has to give privileges and benefits to blacks.”*
I realize that I am in the face of my white bretheren on this site with regard to white privilege and white entitlement in the United States; and that it is more than uncomfortable to be confronted with a reality that you would rather deny and certainly rather not discuss.
But many dwell in an echo chamber and never personally communicate with black people about these issues. Instead they generally only talk to those who are either white themselves, and/or who see things as they do.
I provide a black perspective that is certainly in the small minority on this particular site, but is probably the majority view of those who regularly sit in American Adventist pews today. That view should be represented on Adventist Today.
*If it is not affirmative action to which you refer William Noel, please identify just one or two of the “many laws [enacted] for the purpose of giving legal privileges and financial benefits” to only black people (“one race”).
If it is indeed affirmative action to which you refer, please demonstrate how “the legal privileges and financial benefits” in its provisions are purposed to benefit only black people. Thank you.
Stephen,
EEOC
Affirmative Action
Government contracting
My family and I have direct experience in all three areas so we have firsthand knowledge of just how terribly discriminatory they are.
Are you seriously suggesting that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and “government contracting” are purposed to benefit only black people. We know that affirmative action addresses previous discrimination against white women. So are you telling me that the EEOC and government contracting does not address previous discrimination against white women?
Stephen,
You are giving us a wonderful illustration of denial, disbelief and devotion to argument instead of pursuing truth. We’ve been over this ground before and you’ve made it clear that no volume of evidence will convince you to change your mind.
William Noel,
Evidence is comprised of factual information. Only facts can qualify as evidence of anything. The EEOC, affirmative action, and “government contracting” opportunities are not designed to only address systemic and institutional discrimination against black people; because they also are also designed to address systemic and institutional discrimination against, and exclusion of, white women, and others—and they do.
That is a fact. Only facts are persuasive to my way of thinking. I recommend their consideration.
And what is this “devotion to argument” nonsense? I simply disagree with you about practically everything. (What makes you think that I must agree with you?) It takes two to tango. If you don’t want to argue with me, you should perhaps stop doing so (unless you are devoted)
Let me make a confession of the obvious: I take advantage of Adventist Today’s liberal policy of tolerance toward those, like me, who do not have the requisite humility to frequently permit statements that we know to be false to go uncorrected.
In my not-so-humble opinion, permitting untruths to go uncorrected is in large measure how we got in this mess in the first place. (But I could be wrong.:)
Those of us who are not Americans must endure this endless round of North American race talk and political ranting on this religious forum! To me, this sounds like a group of children quarrelling over trifles. Why not forget this religious forum, and get into politics!
Nathaniel, our rebuttals here are not race related. i have never been a racist. The facts i’ve stated are true.
i do not vote. i have no horse in this race. Yes there is white elitism and privilege here, but it is Hillary Clinton, versus Donald Trump, as the privileged twosome running. The Clintons are untouchable as far as
any taint from their adventures. Every statement i made about her Arkansas scene have been corroborated by Arkansas Ste Troopers who were their guards and chauffeurs, including the Vince Foster tragedy. The in crowd of the Lobbyists kickback corruption scheme among both parties is a known factor, and they work together and protect their own. This is why every media source and the very own party of which Trump
is the nominee has been joining the Democrats in trying to destroy Trump’s campaign, because he is not an insider politico, and they are afraid he will expose the Billions of dollars squirreled away and shared by all members of the Club. This is why if it appears he will win the election he will be assassinated. This Club has been in existence since Eisenhower, maybe even before. i speak from experience from my intelligence assignment being directly involved with Wash D.C. bureaucrats 1958-1964. My history is from personal
observation/NSA/CIA, Fort Meade, Md,/Chantilly,Va. The reason i suggest Trump is that he says he will
change the order of how business is conducted in D.C. otherwise under Clinton, One World Govt is assured.
Stephen,
That’s funny, you are an honest man. Your manly defense of Mrs. Clinton: She has not yet been indicted. Not that it hasn’t been considered, considering all the investigations.
I’m sure you realize what the Clinton Foundation was doing wasn’t illegal, but still utterly corrupt. HRC was reprehensibly more interested in her and her foundation’s politics than she was in the sacrifice requisite to the office of trust she held. To behave as she did while she was President Obama’s secretary of state was corrupt. And you wouldn’t say it was not.
You damned the candidate with faint praise.
You did the the best you could.
William Abbott,
I make every attempt to only say things that I know to be true. I am not here to say anything about Hillary Clinton other than that which is proven to be accurate. By the same token I will point it out when accusations are made that are not necessarily true.
I consider Trump to be a bigot; and bigotry is a bigger disqualifier from my perspective than email impropriety that has been investigated by the FBI, or than Benghazi that has been investigated by Congress, or than the Clinton Foundation to which a double standard applies.
George H.W. Bush had a presidential library foundation that predated the presidency of his son. No one ever questioned whether or not donors to that foundation were ever granted access or meetings with the George W. Bush administration.
Hillary Clinton has been investigated by political adversaries with investigative and subpoena powers going back about a quarter of a century. Trump will not even release his tax returns.
So I’m more careful to hurl charges of corruption. I plead guilty to that. On the other hand I have evidence of bigotry if you would like to hear it.
Stephen – since you are one of the few on this website who is conservative in Adventism and liberal in politics, I have a question for you: How do you square the traditional Adventist interpretation of the lamb-like beast of Revelation with an America that is in your view acting increasingly lamb-like on the national and world stage?
I confess I am relying more on a childhood prophetic gestalt than on any deep study of Scripture. But it was always my impression that early America – as founded and maturing – was the lamb-like beast. Yes that America – the one with the defective Constitution; the one with no Wall of Separation; the one that permitted states to be racist and discriminate on the basis of religion; the one that was stealing land from Native Americans and herding them onto reservations; the one that was exploiting laborers and facilitating “robber barons.”
I was always under the impression that we shouldn’t be fooled by that lamb-like America, because it would appear more dragon-like with the passage of time. Adventists for the most part opposed FDR (maybe I’m just projecting my own Adventist upbringing) because the path to a NATIONAL Sunday law necessarily needed a strong federal government.
Now liberals say that Obama’s America is becoming more righteous (lamb-like?) as progressivism moves it from the dark ages of oppression into the Kingdom of justice and equality (sans Liberty) for all. I think I need a refresher course on SDA eschatology.
By what I perceive to be your eschatological reckoning, Stephen, the increasing secularization of America, along with the purging of religion from the civic arena, is good news for SDAs who hawser “finishing the work” to staving off end-time, freedom-crushing political events. In other words, the “beast,” in its present form, is actually trying to impede worship of the “Beast” (conservative Christians who are overtly political), and is turning its back on its dragon-like history.
This is an “interesting” – not to mention self-serving take on Adventist eschatology.
I would say Nathan that you have fabricated a rather self-serving caricature of what I believe; but thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight.
I believe that the USA, land that I love, is represented as the second beast of Revelation 13; and though lamb-like in its Constitution and ethos will speak as a dragon as it seeks to enforce some sort of observance of the image of the first beast of Revelation in violation of its constitutional (First Amendment) principles.
I believe that danger on this front can come from both the political left and the political right, or either from the political left or the political right (as they have been represented in the U.S. for more than a generation now). This is because both the left and the right are both quite willing to impose their wills on the consciences of people.
I have not said anything about Obama and his policies making the nation more “lamb-like;” and, yes, I do think that the secularization of the American government is generally a very good thing for the cause of religious liberty in America; and that infusing and conflating the national government with religion is dangerous to the cause of religious liberty in America—as it has invariably been everywhere throughout human history.
As long as the federal government is secular and is neutral with regard to religion, I favor a strong federal government because of my confidence in and concurrence with the words of the United States Constitution; whereas I do not trust and have no confidence in most of my fellow citizens, nor in the 50 separate and distinct state constitutions and state governments.
It is true that the U.S. will one day violate the principles of the First Amendment, but I’d rather try to hold them to it in the meantime.
Isn’t it a bit ironic, Stephen, that you seem to have such confidence in a criminal justice system that investigates, and refuses to indict, a political candidate when its leader is openly stumping for that candidate – but you do not trust the verdict of that system when it investigates, prosecutes and acquits or refuses to indict possible crimes against Blacks by non-Blacks (especially police officers)?
It’s ironic to me that you would see irony in my position with regard to HRC; and regardin the police.
Mrs. Clinton, once again, has primarily been investigated by and/or compelled to testify before her political adversaries; people who do not necessarily wish her well politically (unless you have information about that Kenneth Starr, Trey Gowdy, and James Comey to which I am not privy; which is possible). That is a little different than the police investigating the police, or from local prosecutors investigating charges against local police officers in the same basic jurisdiction (when they are most often on the same side).
I am certain that you know about this kind of thing. So the burden of explaining irony is perhaps on you; isn’t it?
You know very well, Stephen, that Congress did not conduct a criminal investigation – only a “witch hunt.”😉 It is the F.B.I. that conducted the criminal investigation. And last I knew, the FBI is part of the Obama Administration. Be honest! Doesn’t it strike you as outrageous that an independent prosecutor has not been assigned to investigate HRC and her corruption scandals? I know that even if she was indicted and convicted you would vote for her before Trump. So you really lose nothing by admitting that the HRC investigation has not been one of the finest moments for the DOJ and FBI.
Stephen,
Here is the evidence: 154 private citizens officially visit Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her tenure. 85 of the visitors are donors to the Clinton Foundation. Collectively they donate 156 million dollars. This information was never turned over to anyone by HRC. Emails disclosing the facts were recovered from other parties.
As you noted, selling access to the Secretary of State apparently is not illegal. If you want to suggest an approximate synonym for ‘corrupt’ be my guest.
Many of the 85 donors were foreign citizens.
As I said Mrs. Clinton is an unattractive candidate. You say Conservatives will not vote for her because she is a liberal. Well Trump is no conservative. Many, maybe most, conservatives would prefer to vote for someone else. Mrs. Clinton is an unappealing alternative.
William Abbott,
Saying that Trump is not a conservative is like me saying that Bill Clinton was not a liberal. Just because Trump deviates from 100% pure orthodoxy doesn’t mean that he is anything other than a reactionary authoritarian with a problematic history insofar as racism and nativist bigotry are concerned.
He may also be a con man (Trump University); but hey, he’s apparently an acceptable alternative to Hillary—because she is a “corrupt liar.”
Give me a break man. Who are you kidding? You oppose Hillary because she is a liberal. You would have opposed Sanders for the same reason. It doesn’t make any difference what Trump has said or done…or will say or do even. He isn’t a liberal, so he’ll have your vote.
George H.W. Bush established a presidential library foundation in the early ‘90s. People have donated to it of course. Has anyone ever asked or counted how many of those people subsequently got some access to or audience with officials of the administration of Bush’s son (George W. Bush). The answer of course is no.
The same goes for the transcripts of her speeches. Has anyone running for President ever previously been asked to release transcripts of their speeches as a private citizen to other private citizens?
Meanwhile Trump won’t even release his taxes. Is this the Ginger Rogers standard being applied (who had to do everything Fred Astaire did; except backwards and in heels) to this female presidential candidate?
Stephen,
I hope you can see the humor in your ‘defense’ of Mrs Clinton. You just ignore her liabilities and attack Trump. Fair enough. But it underlines my point. She is not an appealing candidate.
It is also humorous to read about who I am going to vote for and why. You know more than I do. You surely have read over 13% of Republican voters are undecided.
Maybe if Mrs Clinton were a better candidate more Republicans would consider voting for her.
William Abbott,
Besides attacking Trump, I also put some of Clinton’s “liabilities” in some comparative contemporary context.
Perhaps you believe that the FBI didn’t conduct an independent and thoroughly professional investigation into her use and misuse of emails, and believe that Directory Comey is a shill for Clinton and the Obama Justice Department. And perhaps you hold her to a higher standard for her husband’s presidential foundation than anyone has previously been held regarding other presidential foundations (insofar as the access of donors to remaining family members in office is concerned). Perhaps you somehow do not feel that Trump is a bigoted, boorish, profane, inexperienced authoritarian reactionary, and con man. Or if perhaps you actually do believe some or all of this about Trump, but believe that Clinton is a “corrupt liar” (and therefore a less attractive option than Trump), then you must vote your conscience.
But I don’t buy it. I believe that intelligent people like you see Trump for what he is as much as anyone else does—which should totally disqualify him from your consideration. Yet you’ll vote for him anyway, and would prefer him to win the presidency over Clinton—because Clinton is a liberal; and you don’t perceive Trump to be a liberal…
The reality is that one of them will be the next POTUS. Hillary being a very flawed candidate isn’t an excuse to vote for Trump; because such an easy case can be made that Trump is an even more flawed, and less qualified, candidate.
If it makes you feel any better, Stephen, I would vote for HRC over Kim Jong-un if those were my only choices. Trump is everything you say. But having never served in public office, he cannot be accused of grossly breaching public trust for personal gain. He cannot be accused of attacking women to shield his spouse from sexual abuse charges. He is not a far left wing Alinskyite ideologue. There is no reason to believe that foreign governments could use data they have hacked from his personal electronic devices to blackmail the country should he be elected.
The one thing I will grant you is this – if one learns good judgment through failure, then HRC should have stellar judgment, because she was an abject failure – make that disaster – as Secretary of State. Her only real success consists of 1) her ability to tack further and further left in the past 15 years; and 2) her ability to turn public service into hundreds of millions in personal enrichment. This is why many leftists with intellectual integrity will not be able to bring themselves to vote for her.
I will not vote for the Trumpster because I live in California. But I would surely vote for him if I lived in a swing state. And yes, the reason is because HRC is, like Obama, a hard core global leftist. For all his faults – and they are many – I think Trump loves America as a sovereign nation. He understands that it is hard work and free enterprise – not dependence and regulation – that make America great.
Nathan,
It does indeed make me feel better that at long last I have gotten someone to admit that they oppose HRC because she is a liberal; and will (or would) vote for the likes of Trump (who you admit is everything that I said he is), because HRC is a liberal (well, so as not to misquote you “a hard core global leftist,” in your view).
A couple of big differences between us of course is that it makes not one iota of difference to me that Trump “loves America as a sovereign nation,” since I believe him to be a bigoted and nativist authoritarian reactionary; and of course the ONLY thing that I believe makes America great are the words and principles of the founding documents upon which it was founded.
I don’t believed that the blessed and the privileged, though many of them are hard working, are any better than those who are not as materially blessed and are less privileged; and who may rely on government assistance for food and shelter.
As for foreign governments and hacking, Trump of course has publicly encouraged cyber espionage by foreigners; and has expressed an unsettling admiration for the leadership and “popularity” of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, both which should of course eliminate him from consideration—even against HRC.
But then again, she is a liberal, right? (I couldn’t even make this stuff up if I tried.)
Stephen – we agree that industriousness, material blessings and good fortune do not make a person any better or more worthy in God’s eyes than than indolence, scarcity and bad luck. For that matter, Mother Teresa may not be any better in God’s eyes than Mumia Abu-Jamal. But that’s kind of beside the point isn’t it? No one has been talking about moral worth in the Kingdom.
What I was referring to in my tepid defense of Trump is the economic and political values that produce good citizens and make a country strong. Yes, he sounds like a bigot. But I don’t know that he has a track record of behavior that suggests he actually discriminates in his treatment of people. Joe Biden and Harry Reid made what I found to be shockingly bigoted remarks about Obama when he was running for president. So did Bill Clinton. From what I’ve heard, Hillary is an equal opportunity abuser of people.
The problem I have with Trump, among other things, is that he is so unfiltered. He coarsens discourse terribly by appealing to and exploiting bigotry. One can oppose political correctness without encouraging the nativist baseness that is its opposite.
And by the way, Stephen, my objection to HRC is not simply that she is a left wing ideologue. That is certainly her history. But she has become a self-centered pawn of special interests, with absolutely zero intellectual or moral integrity. Despite him being to the left of HRC, I would vote for the “Bern” in a heartbeat over Hillary.
There is a history of Trump and housing discrimination dating back to a suit filed by the Nixon Justice Department (which resulted in what the government considered a far-reaching settlement) with which you may wish to familiarize yourself Nathan. In fact, the infamous Roy Cohn was a legal advisor to Trump at the time, if that tells us anything.
The point is not whether you would vote for Sanders or Clinton in a Democratic primary (or whatever); the point is that you would vote for Trump over any liberal. For folks such as yourself, I would guess that you did not hesitate to vote for Richard Nixon in 1972—even with the Watergate story swirling overhead—because (pure as the driven snow) George McGovern was the alternative.
Let’s face it, honesty (or the lack thereof) is neither the dealmaker or deal breaker; but ‘liberalism’ is. And therefore even someone who you know exploits bigotry might get your vote over a liberal if you thought that your vote could help him or her defeat the liberal.
Okay Stephen. So why don’t you tell us what conservative you would vote for over Hillary? What’s wrong with voting against leftist ideology, especially when the candidate is so thoroughly corrupt? You, for example, have made it quite clear that under no circumstances would you vote for an overtly religious conservative running for president. If you think you’re going to shame me by pointing out that I would rather vote for a blowhard populist bigot than a feckless leftist kleptocrat, have at it. I don’t think you exactly can lay claim to the
moral high ground in that contest.
Prisons are segregated for a reason.
You miss my point Nathan. I’m not trying to shame you so much as I’m trying to get you, among others, to admit that your opposition to Hillary—and more importantly, your willingness to vote for the likes of Trump, has everything to do with the fact that she is a liberal; and that liberalism is a bigger disqualifier than anything else.
Although I did vote for him in the Alabama primary because at least I believed him to be constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS, and I thought that he was the slightly lesser of evils among his competitors; I’m not willing to vote for the likes of Trump for President in a general election—whereas you are. That’s the issue.
One would think that his admiration and affinity of the “leadership” of a communist Russian dictator and an adversary of the United States—a former KGB agent for cryin’ out loud—who kills journalists and political enemies, and Trump’s stated willingness to plunder the resources of a sovereign nation in contravention of American rules of war, would be total disqualifiers for a lover of America—if his history of footsies with bigotry and discrimination were not.
It just goes to show how pure and deep the disdain for liberalism by conservatives is; and cements my own perception of what conservatism actually is.
To the extent that you consider someone of the philosophy and temperament of former Republican Utah governor Jon Huntsman a conservative, I can envision voting for a guy like that over Hillary under certain circumstances. Unfortunately that iteration of Republican is extinct.
We are not communicating well, Stephen. Hillary is no liberal. As an Alinsky acolyte and hard left globalist, she is much closer to communism than liberalism. That’s why I oppose her. You are more repulsed by bigoted rhetoric than by hard core leftist political action.
To say that Hillary is liberal is absurd. She has little in common with the liberals of the 60’s, 7o’s and 8o’s., and nothing in common with classical liberalism. There is a readily identifiable corpus to conservative values and political philosophy. The only common thread to “liberalism” is the progressive urge to undercut the moral and political values of Western civilization as rapidly as politically feasible. Its effect, if not its intent, is nihilism.
Oh we were communicating just fine Nathan. But now you see a need to ratchet it up rhetorically and redefine liberalism (as it has been understood in the United States for the past 75 years or more). In the 21st century McCarthyism to which you obviously subscribe, a liberal is now a communist. Communism surely cannot be that offensive to you, otherwise you would not hope that a sympathizer to a communist dictator become POTUS.
Hillary Clinton is a liberal because her policy prescriptions and voting record are in the tradition of progressive northern Democrats like FDR, Hubert Humphrey, the Kennedys, McGovern, etc.; and along the same lines as the iconoclast Texas Democrat LBJ, who was the most liberal U.S. President in history, including Obama, if outcomes count for anything.
To deny that Hillary Clinton is a liberal is absurd. But if you prefer to call her a progressive for whatever reason, have at it. The point remains that you oppose her and would support Trump because of her positioning on the ideological spectrum.
Oh, and I plead guilty to the charge of that I am “more repulsed by bigoted rhetoric than by hard core leftist political action.” I would hope that anyone would be. Bigotry and hatred are sinful; “hard core leftist political action” is political.
Communist Russia called itself socialist; the Nazis marched under the banner of socialism; Hillary and her supporters have been unable to articulate the difference between her beliefs and socialism. You’re right. Hillary is part of a long history of liberals who have progressed from classical liberals to socialists. Now, having abandoned the nationalism that distinguished socialist countries from communism, and having embraced the regulatory state that seeks to suppress speech and repudiates religion as a source of public morality, today’s “liberals” look and sound a lot more like the communists of the 20th Century than the liberals. I didn’t call Hillary a communist. She is what can best be described as a crony socialist – albeit a thoroughly corrupt one. Her leftist ideology protects her from being held accountable, because the only ones who have the power to hold her accountable are fellow soldiers in the war on Western civilization.
Socialism is simply an intermediate step on the way to bankruptcy and totalitarianism. I recently saw a video of a man from Venezuela who said he had voted for Hugo Chavez for all the same reasons people support the likes of Bernie Sanders and HRC. He said he became
Disillusioned by the reality of failed promises and came to America. He is dismayed to see how Americans want to take this country down the road to dystopia traveled by Venezuela.
So tell me, Stephen, would you prefer Venezuela to populist appeals to nativism?
Stephen and Nathan,
The term ‘socialist’ had pretty precise definition once upon a time. Socialists believed, in varying degrees, that private property was bad and public ownership of property was necessary and desirable. Communists were violent, revolutionary socialists. Other socialists sought change through peaceful, even democratic, means. The Nazis won a plurality in the 1933 German elections and came to power specifically because the Communists would not work with the other international socialist parties to defeat the National Socialists aka the NAZI party.
Bernie Sanders claimed to be a socialist and Mrs. Clinton adopted Sanders’ positions on issues to attract his voters. Neither Sanders nor Clinton advocate abolishing private property in part or in whole. What the neosocialists propose instead is for the state to exercise control over private property. Control is better than ownership: It was easy to blame the big banks for the last recession, i.e. their greed, when in fact, the most important causal in the 2008 bank panic was the housing policies of the federal government. Government control, rather than government ownership is best suited to socialist ends. Government gets to blame the victim of their policies. Who could the Communists blame but themselves?
Nathan’s observations about Bolivarian Socialism are apropos. The similarities between the different-flavored socialists and their goals is unnerving.
Yes, you offer a fine, concise analysis of terms that are used loosely. What HRC and Bernie say, and what their ultimate goals are may be two very different things. They are both steeped in communist ideology. They have to filter what they say because 66% of Americans are not ready to turn the engines of production over to the government. Totalitarians have always hidden their true motives and concealed their agendas behind Orwellian labels. What Obama promised and what he actually delivered have been quite different in many respects.
When a politician like Obama looks at the generous welfare state that is America and says he is going to radically transform the country, it tells you two things: 1) he doesn’t like America; 2) he wants to take it much further left. Hillary has made it pretty clear that she wants to be the third term of Obama. So what form of statism we will end up with is less clear than the reality that HRC wants a bigger role for government and a shrinking role for the private sector – at least those portions of the private sector that have not, will not, or cannot pay to play.
Let me start by addressing the ridiculous false choice between “Venezuela and populist appeals to nativism” Nathan.
But then again, why should I? You’ve gone over-the-top Nathan, and I probably have played a role in pushing you there; but nevertheless, there you are.
I pled guilty to the charge of being “more repulsed by bigoted rhetoric than by hard core leftist political action” in America, so then you go full straw man on me and imply that this is therefore a choice between Venezuela and Trump’s brand of nativist politics. Are you kidding me? I would rather the implosion in Venezuela than the nationalistic and ethnic holocaust in Hitler’s Germany; but saying that puts me in the same over-the-top league with you.
Democrats of the Sanders variety now are clearly envious of western European style democratic socialism, as is found in Sweden for example. Other Democrats are more desirous of emulating the role that government plays in Canada, the UK, France, and Germany; with those health care systems and labor laws being the primary features that are envied.
Hillary Clinton is a liberal who is not even as far left as George McGovern was; and could not under any circumstances be as legislatively effective as LBJ was.
William Abbott is being reasonable and accurate in suggesting that Democrats want more government regulation, as there is in Canada, the UK, Western Europe, and Japan, as opposed to government ownership.
(What about Trump’s obvious admiration for…
…Putin??
What about Trump’s admiration for Putin, Stephen? That is a really dumb red herring. What does he admire about him? His strong resolve and determination to defend Russian interests? Would that Obama demonstrated a fraction of Putin’s love for his country, and belief that his country has been a force for good in the world! Odious as Putin’s will to power is – and Trump has made it clear he will oppose him – he has not taken every opportunity to shame and trash his country in order to demonstrate that he is morally superior. He has not made his country an object of scorn and derision throughout the world.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. I find far more to admire about Putin as a leader of a world power than I do about Obama. That doesn’t mean I would in any way support him or his policies.
Quite frankly, I am far more concerned about the admiration and friendship Trump has expressed for Hillary Clinton in the not too distant past than I am about the admiration he has expressed for Putin. Trump seems to say and do whatever pops into a disturbingly shallow mind. He is coreless and clueless. Hillary is neither. She is calculating and cunning in a schoolmarmish sort of way. But she is as committed as Obama to the Marxist principles that much of Europe and Scandinavia are realizing – too late – don’t work. She will sacrifice those values in a heartbeat for one thing – personal wealth and aggrandizement. I’d prefer Obama for a third term.
“As I said Mrs. Clinton is an unattractive candidate. You say Conservatives will not vote for her because she is a liberal. Well Trump is no conservative. Many, maybe most, conservatives would prefer to vote for someone else. Mrs. Clinton is an unappealing alternative.”
All we know for a fact is this. More and more people hold their political loyalty above the bible and word of God. They would support the devil if he was endorsed by their political loyalty.
Politics is the religion of more than a few SDA’s. In the end, their loyalty to their political agenda will transcend loyalty to the Christ of the bible. And this is not one party or the other. But both parties have their loyal supporters who abandon Christian principles to endorse their parties candidate.
Dr. Carson is a disgrace to his SDA upbringing. Does he actually think he can endorse the republican party that endorses homosexuality as an accepted norm? Apparently Mike Pence thinks he can endorse this duplicity that his Catholic religion condemns. And Dr. Carson thinks the same thing.
Such a position is impossible for any true Christian who accepts the word of God as the Christian mandate in every area of life. And Hillary Clinton is worse. She has betrayed public trust and not fit to hold any public office on any level.
But of course, she is only a “puppet” in the hands of those who control her. Just like Obama was/is. He did what he was told, and so will she.
“Politics is the religion of more than a few SDA’s. In the end, their loyalty to their political agenda will transcend loyalty to the Christ of the bible. And this is not one party or the other. But both parties have their loyal supporters who abandon Christian principles to endorse their parties candidate.”
Voting is compulsory in most countries; and it’s difficult to avoid being corralled into the cubicles like sheep–how one votes is beside the point.
So how do these words apply to Christians, those who belong to the King of kings and Lord of lords: “2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Rom. 12:1,2); ” 15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15-17) ?
Monte, I am on the same page as you are. We are at a “hinge of history” that is bringing a vast change in the way people view the world.
You asked, “Does God want us to vote for lawmakers and judges who will impose what we understand to be His moral requirements through civil law and judicial decisions?” In my mind, that would be totally opposed to our traditional ideas of religious liberty. We can work for freedom to have our own convictions and live by them, but to try to impose them on everyone else is NOT religious liberty.
And to those who still look at homosexuality as sodomy, I have only one thing to say: You badly need education! If you knew as many LGBTI people as I do, and the pain, rejection, and suffering they have gone through, and if you knew all that science has learned about homosexuality, and if you were willing to consider the huge amount of theological study that has given us a new way of understanding the few biblical texts that discuss this, AND if your hearts were open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and this present truth, you would have a change of heart. Never mind arguing with me for I have spent many years studying this.
You are a real hoot, Carrol. It must be very heady to know who is and who is not open to the Holy Spirit by just knowing what they think about homosexuality. But enough said. If you’ve spent many years studying this, your conclusions and moral opinions are surely quite unassailable. Thanks for warning folks that arguing with you is pointless. 😂
Carroll,
I admit to being stuck in the past. As far as I know I am the only one here who consistently uses the old word, Sodomy.
Please tell me everything thing science has learned about Sodomy. Homosexuality is a term used to describe mental illness, coined a little over one hundred years ago.
Surely you don’t refer to this scientific discovery that Sodomy was not a temptation and sin but a diseased mind.
Tell me what science knows today.
If someone is willing to learn, there are many scientists: geneticists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and more, were you can find an abundance of information newer than 2,000 years ago. FYI, “sodomy” is an ancient term used for male sexual intimacies. “Homosexual” is a condition, just as is heterosexual, and neither is sinful, unless being heterosexual is considered by some as a sin.
Read and study for yourself; no one can teach what you cannot learn by reading for yourself; besides, would you believe if a scientist told you?
I’ve always wondered if those who express the most vocal opposition to the private sexual practices of a relatively small minority of our fellow citizens have a deeply hidden agenda that they would never reveal. These individual express deeply held beliefs about what these individual are doing behind closed doors. I’m not going to make any suggestions here, since I would not wish to raise to consciousness in those individuals what is actually driving their behavior. That is between them and their professional mental health specialist.
What do you mean, Erv? Are you only concerned about the “most vocal opponents?” How about those of us who simply believe that homosexual intimacy is contrary to Biblical morality? You love to reduce all opinions with which you disagree to some psychological disturbance, and yet you get rather testy when anyone ascribes motives to you that you have not articulated.
I’m really not aware of anyone with a stage who vocalizes opposition to anyone’s private sexual behavior, except in the context of religious opinions. Do you also feel that those who express
opposition to private behaviors, such as sex outside of marriage, have some deeply hidden agenda?
Do citizens of atheist countries like China, that oppose homosexual intimacy, also have deeply hidden agendas? Did mental health professionals, who classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until the ’70’s, have deeply hidden agendas?
Face it Erv, science has discovered very little in the past 50 years that adds to our factual knowledge about homosexuality. No “gay gene” has been discovered. And even if it was, why would that change the moral calculus? Desire, as a basis for morality, would render pre-marital sexual abstinence cruel and unusual punishment for teenagers at the height of sexual potency.
Erv, do you simply think traditional morality in general is a sign of mental imbalance? Please tell me I’m wrong and why. Your mindset is what landed Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag, and Refuseniks in mental…
Erv,
It’s the hermeneutic, exposing the new hermeneutic, that is my not so hidden agenda.
The Bible says what it says. Sodomy is a no no. Other cultures and people tolerated it, even celebrated it. Moses called it an abomination.
I’m psychotic? No, I am telling the truth about the past. I am assuming we have to respect the sacred history. We can’t be changing what it says.
I’m not the strident one. Moses is.
Elaine,
Since we know that the Bible indicates that heterosexuality can be practiced (or engaged in) sinfully, what is your point?
Someone else wrote this but it’s on this topic:
“I’m really not aware of anyone with a stage who vocalizes opposition to anyone’s private sexual behavior, except in the context of religious opinions.”
Why should anyone’s private sexual behavior have any relationship to others’ religious opinions? Aren’t both between the people involved and their God? How can you know of other people’s sexual life? Is it a topic that should interest anyone? Does anyone have the chutzpah to inquire of such personal actions simply because it affects their religious belief?
Do some have the habit of inquiring about others’ very personal lives, if members of the same denomnation or congregation? What could spur such interest and inquiry?
That’s pretty easy to answer, Elaine, unless of course you believe that sexual relationships are not a moral issue that impacts anyone but the participants. i never cease to be amazed at how folks like you suddenly, with no new information or knowledge, got so smart that you can cavalierly dismiss moral that were commonly held by even the left as little as 20 years ago.
Wow!! So the church has no business speaking out about sexual morality, Elaine? Your amoral moral values give “the banality of evil” new meaning.
Most senior experts in the fields you have listed state otherwise. Most of the recent research disproves such resent theory which was stated in motive and now being classifying as hyperbole’s without substantial or actually any support. We are starting the loss of the second generation in knowledge, because we build on nothing and will try to prove anything.
We constantly fight the same resultants, created from the same root cause and problem, stemming from evil. We cannot teach, progress science or even care or defend ourselves anymore, yet call it progress. We are going to need this lost knowledge soon and it would be nice to actually rely on it now.
We have created and progressed the most arbitrary, artificial and unsustainable economy and society ever known. We are addicted to anything and everything coming and going, especially if it is not HIS cause. The BIBLE warns us this will happen and here it is. We attempt to justify the unjustifiable and prove the unpronounceable at every turn, yet evil is still just evil. The lack of HIM. All continually perpetuated, only making the responsibilities of those transparent and outside of the little boxes, yet obligated to provide and protect, much more difficult. The simplest of Truths.
In reading many of these comments it becomes quite apparent that there is a large number of Seven-day Pessimists within the Adventist church. Does any other religious denomination harbor, or so openly declare that the world is going to hell in a handbasket? Maybe they missed out in joining Jim Jones’ group who all left this horrible world.
Adventists are so convince of the nearness of the “end”, whatever that means, that they should work to stir up more trouble in order to fulfill that prophecy which is so often promoted.
In reading many of these comments it becomes quite apparent that there is a large number of Seven-day Pessimists within the Adventist church. Does any other religious denomination harbor, or so openly declare that the world is going to hell in a handbasket? Maybe they missed out in joining Jim Jones’ group who all left this horrible world.
Adventists are so convinced of the nearness of the “end”, whatever that means, that they should work to stir up more trouble in order to fulfill that prophecy which is so often promoted.
Elaine,
“Seven-day Pessimists?” Elaine, sometimes your descriptions are deadly accurate! I need to remember that one.
Elaine asks, “Does any other religious denomination harbor, or so openly declare, [a belief] that the world is going to hell in a handbasket?” It’s an interesting question, Elaine. I’ve always called myself a happy pessimist. I hope for the best, but expect the worst.
As a child, I experienced a much more pessimistic Church than the one I see about me in Southern California, where progressivism often creates angry optimists – folks who know history, reason and science are on their side, but are mystified that anyone could look at reality and come to opposing moral conclusions. But Adventism traditionally have only been pessimistic about the present order. They have had great confidence in what Christ accomplished on the cross, and great hope in the promised re-creation – though as Monte points out, that hope has not always led us to pour out our lives in reckless acts of service and self-sacrifice. Most of us cling pretty firmly to the blessings with which Adventist values and culture have blessed us.
As for other denominations, I sense more acute awareness of end times among all conservative Christians than at any time in my life. Christian Progressives who work on and admire 21st Century Towers of Babel, and see them rising, have every reason for optimism. Christians with a more constrained view of human nature – who know who they are, where they have come from, and where they are going – have every reason for pessimism about those same towers. Cont. below…
The problem as I see it, Elaine, isn’t that SDAs are overly pessimistic about the world we live in. The problem is that we aren’t sufficiently confident that Jesus has freed us in order that we may be free – free from the fear that pessimism naturally induces; free to live generously and open-handedly because we are not slaves to the natural order of scarcity, greed, and predation;? and free to joyously proclaim the pessimistic, hope-filled message of Revelation – that things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get a whole lot better. But it’s okay, because God has already won the war.
Nate, you wrote:
“How about those of us who simply believe that homosexual intimacy is contrary to Biblical morality?”
Answer: Your personal beliefs should be followed as you interpret the Bible. But please, give others the same privilege of deciding their on ideas of Biblical morality. Shouldn’t that always be good advice: Let others read and study and make such decisions guided by their understanding and conscience? Is there any time when others should interject their ideas for others to follow?
Of course, Elaine. Everyone should be free to believe as they see fit. But if you think it’s wrong to try and persuade others that their ideas or values are misguided, why are you on this website? Erv was suggesting that proclaiming values he does not share, with strong conviction, is indicative of mental disorders. Why don’t you chose him for intolerance???
The problem, Elaine, is that we are social beings who live in civic communities and faith communities. To abjure communal standards of behavior is inconsistent with community and invites anarchy. You love imposing your moral will on others, and using the police state to do it. How about this: When individuals decide to join communities, they choose to give up a certain amount of freedom and autonomy. If they change their minds and want to reclaim freedom and autonomy that they gave up, the community has every right to ask them to leave. It’s really pretty simple. Kind of like a marriage. If a spouse who has committed to love, cherish, etc., decides he/she wants to sleep around, the non-cheating spouse has every right to ask the philanderer to get out. And the protest, “Well, you’re not perfect either,” should and will fall on deaf ears.
Hmm. “God has already won the war.” In most wars of which I am familiar, there is a losing side and a winning side. The winning side — in Nate’s scenario, God — usually then can impose conditions on the losing side. If the war has been won, something seems to be missing here. What changes have taken place, what condition has God imposed on his opponents? Perhaps Nate would be so kind to explain. Have all human being been saved? Is the Devil under arrest and being tried for war crimes? Or perhaps the Devil has lost and no one told him. (The former two sentences assumes that there is a literal Devil. If you wish, “the Devil” might be used as a metaphor for evil.)
I can understand, as the “Devil’s advocate,” Erv, why you might have a keen concern about his fate. But I have more difficulty understanding your obtuse failure to recognize the militaristic reference – to God having won the war – as a metaphor. Your difficulty in transcending obvious concrete literalism is a hallmark of fundamentalist thinking. Who woulda thunk that Bill Sorensen, Trevor Hammond, et. al., would find a kindred spirit in Erv Taylor!!!
Mr Taylor, I thought GOD won the war long ago and our absolute surrender to HIM were the terms.
Mrs Nelson, most other Christian religions declare that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, because we are told and can see that. Other religions are luke warm and some even part of the problem, but we are optimists in our surrender to HIM and the promise of HIS Blessings. But we do preach the end is at hand, because we are commanded to do so. Because we are but a vapor and the end always at hand.
Yes we are pessimists, the world is evil and we know that. Would you rather we have unthinking optimism or undue pessimism? We search for the simple Truths. Shouldn’t we? Yet that search in many cases has become a struggle.
Let’s take intelligence as the prime building block and as example. I am familiar with the study in which a few thousand primary and a few thousand secondary genes are identified as having impact in the research of intelligence. This research has nothing to do with the actual apparent risks in splicing or alternate coding, only study. Yet we get statements that the research “cannot possibly be socially neutral—and in fact will intensify social inequities.” from law and sociology professors, like those at Penn, actually impacting philanthropic support (and you definitely don’t want to know where that support was directed to). Alternate funding was found, but does social ignorance outweigh intelligence?
Whispers, I’m sure you had something of importance to write, but I confess I’m at a loss to determine what you’re particular point was. Could you unpack that for those who are unable to know how to reply?
“Mr Taylor, I thought GOD won the war long ago and our absolute surrender to HIM were the terms.”
Any war against God is one-sided. Who said God needs to win any war? What weapon formed against Him can gain the victory? Certainly not lies. And those who think their tongue is sharper than the Word of God are only wise in their own eyes.
Mrs Nelson, the point is as you explain. The BIBLE, Prophets and knowledge is all out there. We have to learn through each generation over and over again, but is part of the growing. As Mr/Mrs DD states, we can and maybe should look at others around us for examples, but the growing is part of us and makes us what we are.
Yes, isn’t HIS Strength amazing? That HE Loves us so much it hurts. HE hurts for miserable us and because of miserable us. Jeremiah 8 brings me to tears every time I read it. Yet we still continue to hurt and continue to exist because HE Loves us. You are right, that is our war.
On a comparative scale we live in one of the most peaceful, atrocity free, sinless times the world has ever seen. As a heroic rescuer of the world because of its collective evil this is one of the worst times God could choose. To perform rescue here now he would have to explain his fecklessness for the tens of thousands of times in history when conditions were infinitely worse. And he did nothing.
Forgetters of history are doomed to repeat it. Apocolyptictists are the forgetters. History is bulging with stories of horrible evil perpetrated by armies, despots, warriors, criminals, evildoers of every type on countrymen, individuals and nations. Every victimized, nation, group, and human during their horrible experience cried out to be rescued by God. Israel expected a Messiah, as did Jesus, as did countless others, all certain their age and experience was the ultimate bad.
The war in heaven is imaginary. The heave-ho of Lucifer, god’s challenger, is a farce acted on the whimsical Heavenly Broadway stage for entertainment purposes only. Oddly, it is limited to an Adventist audience who view god as a wimp, barely succeeding to control his empire.
Wake up, Adventists. Your prediction of an end time has failed as have all others throughout history. You seem to have forgotten that and are doomed to continue the perpetual, useless fantasy of the ages. God has never intervened in human history to deliver anyone.
Salvation isn’t near, our neighbors are.
In a very limited, myopic sense, you are correct, Larry…if the time we live in doesn’t include the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the atrocities of Mao, etc. Thanks to “liberal” democracy, and the resolve of peace through strength, the West has won unprecedented peace and prosperity – at least for itself and nations that subscribe to Enlightenment values.
But it does not require prophetic clairvoyance to see that we are in a tectonic period. We have enjoyed a respite from history, and history is about to return with a vengeance. It cannot be otherwise when the values that built the Pax Americana are being repudiated with a vengeance. Of course those values were never adequate to satisfy the deepest needs and yearnings of humanity for redemption and restoration. But they did a very good job of somewhat constraining human nature for over two hundred years.
Trust me, Larry, I am not a traditional SDA apocalypicist. I don’t need to see the hairy hidden hand of the Pope manipulating world affairs to see that we are in an end time. In our lifetime – i.e., within the next 10 to 25 years – we will see the Pax Americana continue to unravel. The West will join the rest of the world in lurching between anarchy and despotism. Tribalism and Babel-like confusion will become the new norm. Except now the tribes will have weapons of terrible destructive capacity.
By grace, my trust is in the Lord who reveals himself through scripture. Where is yours, Larry?
“By grace, my trust is in the Lord who reveals himself through scripture.”
Unfortunately, Nathan, many have not experienced a personal-spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. And without seeing Him work in their lives, how can they “trust” Him? It’s like children who have seen their parents nurture, comfort, solving their problems which builds “trust”, or “faith” in them. Those who see Jesus, through the Spirit, working in their lives, these are the ones who “trust” Him and have the “Faith of Jesus” within them. “He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself;….” 1 John 5:9-12.
DD,
There are many who toss scripture at others in admonition about obeying Him and loving others, but who aren’t doing anything that actually ministers God’s love in the way Jesus did. What are you doing besides quoting scripture? Are you doing anything? Is the church growing as a result of your ministry?
“There are many who toss scripture at others in admonition about obeying Him and loving others, but who aren’t doing anything that actually ministers God’s love in the way Jesus did. What are you doing besides quoting scripture? Are you doing anything? Is the church growing as a result of your ministry?”
William, you must be dying to tell everyone all the wonderful things you do for the Lord. Why don’t you make a list so we can all rejoice at the higher level of holiness you have attained than everyone else, who, in your opinion, does nothing, since they don’t post it here on the forum?
Heaven forbid that others should “quote scripture” in the forum dialogues. Apparently, you are far above scripture and need no such exhortation.
So, I am looking forward to your “list” of holiness personified. I am sure it is long and tedious. But I will bear with you in your endeavor to enlighten me and anyone else who may have an interest.
Check with Dr. Taylor, you may have psychological problems and may need some serious help. He may know someone he can recommend to help you with your problem.
Even Jesus may have used scorn, ridicule and contempt on some occasions. None the less, His goal was to be redemptive and like his servant Paul, “by all means, save some.”
Bill,
No, I’m not dying to tell others what I’m doing for God. I’m just looking around and seeing a lot of people who are doing a lot more talking about doing the things God wants us doing than actually doing anything for God. My experiences actually doing things that minister God’s love are so rewarding that I wish others would get involved so they could be as richly blessed. Are you ready to let your deeds start talking more loudly about God than your keystrokes?
It’s not really so much a matter of having to see in order to believe, DD. God seldom hits people over the head with incontrovertible evidence that what is good and life producing comes from Him. Whether we choose to believe that good comes from a loving creator God who can be trusted is not just a product of personal experience. Didn’t Jesus say, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”?
I think Larry might agree, with qualifiers. My statement to him was in the context of his rather Panglossian view of the world, and his ridiculing of Biblical apocalyptics as a meaningful and accurate way to view the world. My views, right or wrong, certainly take scripture seriously. I’m not sure what Larry believes about God because usually I don’t pay much attention to his comments. But I’m pretty sure that His view of God and history is not anchored in Bible prophecy. That’s why I asked where his trust is grounded.
Anchored in Bible prophecy, Nathan? If you like that (pick and choose being the operative rule) that is fine with me. To me it is the ultimate quagmire of meaninglessness. It’s determination is all opinion, mental self-stimulation. Interpretation is entirely subjective based on the opinions of millions of Christians. It’s a form of religious mental frolic, without actual benefit, except for fun.
If a boat had to depend on the quality of anchorage suggested here for securing prophetical based faith, the wind would blow it unrestrained in every direction. Dragging a bottomless ocean floor is the experience of prophetic sailors. I can’t “believe” in prophecy because there are no successful predictions to its credit. The prophecy mariners catch the minnows of convenient Scriptural words and misapply them from their original context and offer them on the market of big fish “truths.” Everyone in the world knows the common exaggeration and the unreliability of fish stories.
How can I claim such heresy? Easy. By looking at historical Adventism. Not one of its foundational prophecies have remotely been realized. So they cannot be offered as positive evidence of the value of machinations based on the voodoo of prophecy. And it is the last in a line of thousands of years of Scripture based prophecy, all of which only have meaning fabricated by eager assignors. Even Christ, the apocolypticist, was in error about living witnesses seeing the salvaging Messiah.
Not a find theologian, a fine one.
Nathan and DD:
You say: “By grace, my trust is in the Lord who reveals himself through scripture. Where is yours, Larry?” As an act of faith, I understand and accept your viewpoint. As a reality I don’t buy it. Scripture is useless because it is interpreted in a thousand different ways by millions of people. Who is the “corrector” one?And if you can point to even one significant, actual, account of rescue by deity of anyone historical, not interpretive, in a time of great threat, horror, or need, please advise me of the source.
Where is mine? Same place as yours, in the head. Mine isn’t dreamsville, however. No expectation of magic extraction to La La Land. Just the realization that intervention by Superguy is hopeless, won’t happen, because he never has. Every time the chips have been down he has been, AWOL, busy elsewhere (perhaps law clerking in the heavenly sanctuary). My joy is in living life fully, following Christ’s recommendation not to worry about tomorrow, and my treatment of others as I want to be.
Oh yes, Larry. Now I remember why I generally pay no attention to your comments. Your angry, scornful rants – ridiculing what others find sacred, and then claiming to live by the Golden Rule – make Bill Sorensen sound like a calm, respectful, dispassionate voice of reason.
Nathan,
Your anger expressed at me, your personal invective and your avoidance of addressing my propositions indicates a struck nerve. Am I supposed to pussyfoot around you and your angst to protect you from hurt feelings? I don’t set out to cause anyone pain. All I ask, just show me where I am wrong, if you can. Most people on this forum don’t agree with my outlook. But they treat me with respect, even Sorensen, kind of! Some do challenge me. I respect them. I have no anger at you.
Bugs,
Jesus Christ, from start to finish, trusted and believed in superguy. He believed what he was saying when he told us not to worry about tomorrow because the evils of today were sufficient thereof. On the Cross, Jesus continued to believe, not that superguy would intervene; He believed superguy was intervening. The cross of Christ is superguy’s intervention.
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
E’en though it be a cross that raiseth me;
Still all my song shall be nearer, my God, to Thee
Superguy is nearer than when we first believed
William, you are a find theologian, a metaphorical ruminist. Assigning meanings to Christ is a time honored exercise of opinion. And legitimate, too, though the outcome Is that one notion is as good as another.
I think you must like Superguy, too!
Oh yes, History! That booorring subject in school that most students slept through. Some are even found on Adventist blogs who can be identified by the limited knowledge retained only through reading a recommended prophet’s books. The most pessimistic are the ones who have been most ardent students of her writings, disregarding “worldly” historians who don’t really know the entire story from beginning as they do.
Charles Dickens begins one of his best books: “These were the best of times; these were the worst of times.”
And he’s always right: take your pick. Or as recorded in Voltaire’ Candide: “This is the best of all possible worlds” because we get to decide.
“Or as recorded in Voltaire’ Candide: “This is the best of all possible worlds” because we get to decide.”
Decide what? To view life through our preconceived ideals. Conclude this or that is reality; this or that is the truth? If there is no foundation the building will fall. What is the foundation? Surely there is a foundation, otherwise we couldn’t live in the world together.
Bugs,
As one who has regularly (yet respectfully) challenged you, let me say that your zealotry against historic Adventism causes you to frequently overstate your case. We have previously gone over this ground regarding no prophecies having been fulfilled to your way of thinking (or personal satisfaction); and frankly it is boring to me to recite contemporary American history and other international current events as evidence of anything.
I don’t think that Nathan really meant to offend you as much as to indicate that your Biblically prophesied scoffing does get a little old—and/or boring. But if it serves some therapeutic purpose, continue to do what you have to do, I suppose.
Thanks, Stephen, for your comment. Back when I was a mainline Adventist minister I think I reacted to someone espousing my current thoughts with the alarm similar to that of Nathan. Recently I had an encounter with a similar reaction from a lifelong friend who left the Adventist ministry when I did. He has written several spiritual books recently advocating the role of Christ and his appearance as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. I have been measured in my response to his views and I respect his work and have recommended his books to several people, though they aren’t something I could embrace for myself. I’m hoping our friendship hasn’t been dashed though I don’t think so. My point is that I respect the views of others as I have yours.
One of my most enjoyable experiences on this forum has been my conversations with you. We probably haven’t budged the other an inch from our positions. As for me I have come to respect you for your unmovable loyalty to your faith and church, and your willingness to converse with me.
One my learned things here is that honesty as a high Christian value has its civil limits when challenging shibboleths. My thinking today is the culmination of about fifty years of honest evaluation and review. I arrived here on my own.
Your suggestion I am guilty of overkill is not taken lightly. We’ll just have wait and see if I can restrain myself! Oh, Nathan hasn’t offended me, reminded me of me long ago.
Laugh, if you must, Nathan and William, about my hard-earned knowledge regarding homosexuality. But you are the ones showing your ignorance, by way of arrogant sarcasm, in the face of constantly growing knowledge and understanding. If you really would like to educate yourself in the rapidly expanding area of theological study regarding homosexuality, here are a few books you should read: _The Bible’s YES to Same-Sex Marriage: an Evangelical’s Change of Heart_ by Mark Achtemeier. _Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships_ by James V. Brownson.
Carrol, have you read the Bible?
Carrol,
I’m not sure if I’m the William you were speaking to. Still, I offer that the “constantly growing knowledge and understanding” about homosexuality consistently denies one thing: the power of God to change people to which I am an eyewitness and by which I have been blessed. God is both totally able and completely willing to change anyone who asks Him to remake them into His image. Because it is not often seen seems to deny the possibility that God could change a person when it really is just measuring how little people are seeking Him. If that is not evidence of how greatly we each need to draw closer to Him, I will have a hard time finding a greater example.
Carrol,
Here is your chance and my challenge to you. Please summarize in 1500 characters Mark Achtemeier and James Brownson’s arguments. I promise to go buy the books if you can frame your summary reasonably and intelligently.
Count me doubtful. God told Moses its an abomination.
Mr Boshell, if we Love others and live by HIS example, should we not hope HE is somewhere else helping others? I would say that is the Truth of Sacrifice. Should we appreciate HIS Sacrifice for others or are we sometimes jealous?
I would say we should all be in that Truth of Sacrifice, but we also need to remember how big HE is. HE can give us anything, but can we handle it? We need to remember that we are the limiting factor. Can anyone here state that they have not been Blessed, even as bad as we all are?
As Mr/Mrs DD states, it is much easier to believe when they see HIS Works in their lives. Can we not hope that for others and still remember that blessed is he that believes and has not seen?
Should HIS Works in and of our lives not also be a light to others? I would say that if we Love others we should never be a hindrance and be built upon the solid foundation of Light.
Should our joy be the center of our lives or the joy of and for others? Did HE have that privilege in Sacrifice?
Do we listen to historians who wake up one day and think they are center of the universe? Attempting to teach a Jew about being Jewish or a Greek about interpreting Greek? Now that’s an optimist.
We do need to remember how much Love it takes for others to stand up to us and for us. We also need to remember we are only a very small part, of that which exists Eternal and only if we chose and are Chosen to be.
You speak using classic words of spiritual theory. Can you give us some evidence of how God has worked in your life so we can know you have experience with what you describe and trust that there is substance to your utterance? How has God worked in you? What ministry has the Holy Spirit given you where you see His power working through you?
Mr Noel, did you not wish to seek physiological help as Mr Sorensen suggested? As stated, I am sure that Mr Taylor or Mr Sahlin should be able to help you find one. I think it is the least they can do.
Did you really wish to harass me? Should you not stick to harassing my 16 year old sister? On second thought, that may not be a good idea either. I would estimate that she bypassed anything you could comprehend or understand over a decade ago. You did teach her how to handle situations that we could never create for her. She got with our pastor and through her vast network of friends, many.
Luckily she has grown far beyond you in Love also. She asked them to pray for you, but she could have asked for anything. Just as she could have asked her FATHER and HE would have done anything for her. That is the scary part of your concept, HIM.
All she did above was state the simple Truths and ask for suggestions to issues she and her generation will face. Then you contend there is more than hypocrites out there, condemn her statements of Truths and her spirit. While you are unable to offer help or fix anything and say nothing.
How are we suppose to know who you serve, if you don’t? How are we suppose to produce evidence of your service? My ministry in the Holy Spirit is to protect others from those like you for right now. It seems very few want to Love others enough to stand or stand up to others in Love for them, that is what is missing.
“Mr. Noel, did you not wish to seek physiological help as Mr. Sorensen suggested? As stated, I am sure that Mr. Taylor or Mr. Sahlin should be able to help you find one. I think it is the least they can do.”
Brilliant, Whisper’s Sister, that made my day! Excellent!
DD,
I’ll gladly accept your accusation about my psychological state because those on whom the Holy Spirit fell at Pentecost were accused of being drunk. We operate differently because we are driven by a power that others simply do not understand. Instead of being focused on knowledge about God and accusing others of sin and psychoses, we have experienced His transforming love so we willingly go on His errands where we see Him do amazing things.
How long will you continue speaking in theory about God’s love and ministry for Him instead of discovering the power He offers?
DD,
You question reveals much about your lack of Bible study and experience with God. Jesus said in John 15:8 “This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.” God doesn’t tell us to do anything if we won’t see results. Thousands joined the church after the Holy Spirit was poured-out on believers at Pentecost, so the disciples saw results. I see people becoming believers and being drawn closer to God as a result of my ministry, so I am seeing results. Whether they just grow in their Christian faith or become SDAs is an issue only if your greater spiritual focus is on arguing instead of soul winning.
Since you’re so focused on being right and arguing instead of soul-winning, how are we to believe you are even a follower of Jesus?
Whispers sister,
Why such a defensive answer to a simple question? Those who are ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit are typically filled with stories about how they see God working through them. Such defensiveness and accusation reveals great insecurity about a person’s relationship with God. So let’s make the question really simple: The church grows as a result of the presence of the Holy Spirit and us doing what He wants us doing in the power He places in us. So, is the church growing as a result of your proclamations about God? If not, why do you persist in following that course of action?
Firstly, William Noel, I found Whisper’s Sister’s remark quite funny. It brought a smile to my face. Secondly, are you not “tossing Scripture” at me to support your so-called Pentecost experience? Also, how are you doing the work of Jesus when you spend so much time here commenting? Would you like some of us to leave, giving you more space on this forum to fill with your own opinions?
“The church grows as a result of the presence of the Holy Spirit and us doing what He wants us doing in the power He places in us. So, is the church growing as a result of your proclamations about God?”
What “church”? Are you talking about the SDA church? And if the Body of Christ on earth is growing, would you or any human see it? Just as the apostles were devastated when they saw Jesus die, dashing their hopes in the “restoration of the kingdom of Israel” on earth, so, too we cannot see who or how many are being touched by God’s Spirit.
Do you need visual or verbal accolades from people to affirm you are doing God will?
William, you quoted John 15:8: “This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.”
I would have to agree with you on that point had you been using an English translation closer to the original text. But take a look at the Received Text through the NKJV:
“8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.”
Also, you wrote: “Since you’re so focused on being right and arguing instead of soul-winning, how are we to believe you are even a follower of Jesus?”
It’s clearly evident this really applies to you—I’m not the one constantly “arguing” and opposing every other commenter here on this forum; mentioning the H.S. more than Jesus Christ. So, who are you following? Don’t answer that; I’m not here to “argue” with you.
Whispering Hope, you say: “Mr Boshell, if we Love others and live by HIS example, should we not hope HE is somewhere else helping others?”
Is God just a helpful Grandpa, Superguy, limited to being one place at a time? Here, but not there? On some kind of schedule? I hear he takes time out to clerk in the Heavenly Sanctuary, perhaps that is his problem. Just wondering.
Yes, too cute, I know. My point is that in loving each other as our neighbor we participate in God’s love so in that sense it puts him everywhere at the same time. One can’t love others without reflecting it on an ultimate level and, in a sense, becoming his Agent. We don’t need Superguy, to stand up for us, just us, Super People, his living example.
But Mr Boshell, do we not see HIM and HIS Works everywhere and always? We have seen our Grandpa’s and the many others looking out for us also, but was it not because of HIM?
Do we not need Superguy or just not want to praise and thank HIM for the network of HIS Body? Would we be held together by more than spaghetti otherwise?
Are we Superpeople with or without HIM, or because of HIM? Does everyone not have that same choice? Are we special because of the choice, or does the choice make us special? But remembering above all that it is HIS choice.
You raise a very valid point though. Maybe in being younger, I do not fear change as much? But maybe it is more like apprehension? I know that HE can do anything and rely on that, because assuming the responsibilities of the older and seeing the shape of the world out there is scary. Not scary for us in HIM, but in heart for the fear that others would have without HIM. Knowing that things will get so bad HE will have to intervene.
The instinct of affection is hard to overcome and we want everyone to be Saved. For them to feel the Love and comfort that we feel. It is hard to remember that it is HIS choice, then their choice and not ours. We cannot rewrite HIM or HIS Plan to change that, yet we see others make the attempt and understand why. HE does not change. There is no Superguy v2.0, no matter how badly we wish it. We are only HIS agent.
Larry and Nathan, neither of you experienced WWI, WWII, KOREA. Perhaps you were in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Although we have not had to defend our native soil until the recent terrorist attacks, we
have been involved in bloody actions which snatched the lives of many many young men and women away. Ask the grieving family’s of our non-involvement in these hellish actions. Evil infests the whole Earth.
The USA has been highly privileged until the 20th century as we were a land undeveloped in the world of nations. The Indian nations were tribal, continually raiding, killing, and kidnapping other tribes. Mostly
nomadic, not building, in what became the USA. Evil permeates every nation. Why is this so?? The knowledge of Good and Evil is alive and well on Planet Earth. Again i ask, why is this so. How long should it take for Earthlings to learn there is intelligence in “live and let live”. There is a great natural desire in human creatures to fight to supreme control of turf, and control of others. Let the strongest survive. Men
are corralled into Armies to do the will of the Commander in Chief?? Why does not peace reign supreme in the hearts of men?? Because men’s hearts are evil continually. The love of God reigns supreme only where there is peace. Whenever global people are united as groups, there is despotic control of every fact of life for the ruled. This is the result of Socialism. Our present Govt. is headed to control of all, globally.
>>>>>>>Ask the grieving familys of our “involvement”>>>>>>
i find that on Atoday, “Larry the BUG, UGH-H”, gets a lot of static, yet he expresses “fruit of the Spirit”, than most here. Yes, he is a mischievous imp, twerking the angst strings of those offended. There are some so certain of prophecy having been fulfilled, yet take Larry to task when he asks for proof. For a certainty,
where was God when billions have tasted anger, bitterness, agonizing pain and suffering, and finally the
grave, without appearing to offer a tender word of support?? Sinful people in civilized societies have more
empathy and consolation in offering support and loving care than that of our Savior, the Christ, in our individual sufferings. i admit i know not the heart of God and His eternal plan for Earth’s people, as He has trillions of other creatures on trillions of other planets in the infinite Cosmos, of which we know nothing. Other than the Holy Spirit of God, of which many are out of the loop, we have the fallible Holy Bible for
reference to His Almighty power of perfect love and creative power of life, which interpreted by every creature, leaves a dearth of full explanation without questions, answers or doubt, and as humans, more
beneficial software for our computers is much required. Faith is the required tool of acceptance, and we are
programmed to have full transparent descriptions of all things. Perhaps God, at this date, will manifest our
desire for the proof of our faith, as the Earth is in need of heavenly messengers, not…
“TWERKING [caps added by me] the angst strings of those offended.” Earl, you are a thoroughly modern guy, much to my surprise, and insightful, too, not at all surprising! I give credit to your sojourns in the Fields of Ambrosia where a resting soul finds youthfulness and a bright brain soars, even into the cosmos!
>>>>>>>>>> fallible EARTHLY prophets!!!!
Thank you!! get behind me Satan. Though He gives me eternal death, yet will i trust Him!!
Earl – I think the satan you would banish is seducing you if you seek infallible heavenly messengers communicating truth that cannot be misinterpreted or mistaken. God provides evidence – seldom timeless proofs. We believe and know primarily by faith. Those who demand validation of faith assertions by mathematical or scientific proof are on a fool’s errand.
God will not take away your freedom, which is what you are essentially suggesting when you suggest that the world needs infallible proof by infallible messengers. I don’t think He will even end freedom in eternity. Infallible proofs take away our freedom. I don’t know how He will take care of the sin problem, once and for all, while still preserving freedom. That’s a real conundrum. But I can’t believe He gave us freedom in order to show us that we can’t handle it and don’t want it. We’re that the case, why give it in the first place?
We live in a world that has powers in high places. The “money” Elite who wish to control all the shekels. This gives them the power to control the masses on Earth. To exterminate what they consider surplus and enslave the rest. O’ yes, that is their game plan, and Socialism which many of the younger generations are
adopting, falls right into their hands. The Democratic Party of the past 8 years under Obama, has moved
the USA directly into the path of Socialism, and Clinton is just a another 4 years of solidifying that fact. That is just what the money Elite want, to enslave the people, just as it was under Joseph Stalin in Russia, who when in complete control, killed 20 million tribal Russians. The Elite are estimating there are approx
5 billion human creatures that aren’t needed, consider the surplus as vermin. They are without mercy or love. They serve the “love money god”, the Prince of Darkness who rules Planet Earth. Where would Earth be today if not for the Prince of Peace, the Father and Author of L O V E!!!!????
Barbarians ruled Earth until the arrival of Jesus the Christ.
And there have been plenty of barbarians since Jesus.
And there were plenty of barbarians before Jesus, some became barbarians by order of God, as they recorded. Did God ask them to do such barbaric acts? Or did they attribute their own actions to God’s ordering?