Comment on Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux by Victor Marshall.
I notice that in your last post you have a link to Eugene Shubert’s site. Are you associated with Mr. Shubert in some way?
Victor Marshall Also Commented
Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
Imagine a group of people who invade you, grab your lands, kill your people- even women and children and BABIES in the arms of mothers- and then say that they had come to TEACH YOU ABOUT THE LOVE, MERCY AND COMPASSION OF THEIR GOD! Yeah, I bet that such treatment would really inspire you to want to love and accept their God and convert ot their religion, right?
Those who would say that some of Judeo/Christian teachings and practice never caused war and bloodshed and atrocities probably never read the Old Testament!
“Christian” teachings were not officially around in 1400 B.C.
Your statements sound more like those of an unbeliever than a believer. Even if you are just ‘playing the devil’s advocate’ it seems hardly appropriate in this context. You may have read the Old Testament but I’m not sure you have understood it if you feel compelled to loudly exclaim such statements.
Why not go one further. The Bible says that God exterminated the entire human race with water (except 8 persons), and promises to eradicate the majority of the human race again with fire – then raise them from the dead a final time and thoroghly annihilate them.
If a person really understands the Old and New Testament then they would realize that this is indeed a description of the one true living God of love. Why? Because of the nature and consequences of free-will, sin, and evil. Because of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan necessitating the excising of sin from the universe. Because of Christ’s substituionary sacrifice predicted in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New.
God was not willing to allow even wicked men deserving of death to experience anything that He himself wasn’t willing to suffer innocently in His own person on the cross.
After the cross, true Judeo-Christian teachings (and the true understanding of them) are never responsible for violence. Only the opposite.
True Judeo-Christian teachings would certainly not compell someone to exclaim that Judeo-Christian teachings and practice are responsible for wars bloodshed and atrocities.
Have you thought about accepting ‘The Prince of Peace’ as your savior?
Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
Victor Marshall,Youâ€™re absolutely correct.Dictators generally LOVE â€œDarwinismâ€ as it gives them an â€œexcuseâ€ to eliminate all those â€œweakerâ€ subspecies and races in order to have THEIR â€œhigher evolvedâ€ group â€œimproveâ€ the human race.
I’m not sure dictators in general favor Darwinian based eugenics. Certainly Hitler did. That has been very clearly established (the film ‘expelled’ explores this very well). Many dictators establish their regimes based upon the demonization and extermination of other racial or ethnic groups. This may or may not be based upon Darwinian assumptions. It may just be based on the need to use hatred as an engine to drive their regime.
The dictators responsible for the most carnage in recent history were Hitler, Stalin and Mao. These men were probably all psychopaths. Such persons have no conscience and have an insatiable lust for power over other human beings. Satan harnesses these types of people (even through outright possession) to effect as much destruction as possible.
Youâ€™re seriously stretching the attribution to Darwinism.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao’s marxist/atheism had underpinnings in Darwinism. After all, Marx and Engels were definitely enamored of Darwin. In 1861 Marx wrote:
“Darwinâ€™s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.”
The almost inseparable connection between atheism and Darwinism is thoroughly obvious and well documented. Darwinism does not always produce atheists, but very few atheists are not also Darwinists. Atheism is a good fit for a demonic psychopath. The outright denial of God or a higher authority(as well as resulting efforts to exterminate religion and Christianity specifically) must give much satisfaction to Satanic agencies and their psychopathic pawns.
The other side of the coin is Satan’s efforts to supplant the true faith with a counterfeit one. The classic example of this is the Roman Catholic reign of terror in the Dark Ages. Dictator psychopaths were also in charge of the destructive carnage, and also attempted to eradicate the true faith through violence.
All of these examples were to one degree or another what could be classified as cults (though not always in a strictly ‘religious’ sense). Fuhrer and emperor worship. The personality cults established around Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. The deification of caesars and popes. All of these instances could be characterized as psychopathic cult type phenomenon. Waco and Jonestown are just further examples of the same types of destructive, psychopath led phenomenon, on a smaller scale.
Satan will use what ever means possible to accomplish his purposes. Either religion or irreligion. The one constant seems to be the use of psychopathic leaders. The worst atrocities of modern times were orchestrated by mostly irreligious psychopaths, not religious ones. The final attempt to eradicate the faithful prophecied in Revelation 13 etc. will of course be a religious one (most specifically ‘christian’).
Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
So which has been the source of more bloodshed on this planet: Judaeo-Christian doctrines or Darwinism?
“Judaeo-Christian” doctrine has not been responsible for worldwide bloodshed. To make such a statement does a gross injustice to the truly Biblical representatives of the Judaeo-Christian faith (those who Adventists count as their spiritual forefathers) – and it only gives further credence to the Devils attempt to discredit and defame the true Judaeo-Christian faith.
Did Roman Catholic Dark Ages dogma result in mass bloodshed historically? Undeniably yes. Did euro/racist/imperialist quasi-‘christian’ doctrine result in great bloodshed? Yes. Have unbiblical attempts at developing a ‘christian theocracy?’ Yes. Nothing very ‘Judaeo’ or ‘Christian’ about these atrocities though.
The constant refrain is that ‘religion’ has resulted in more bloodshed than anything else. However, none of the major massacres and wars of the twentieth century can be characterized as ‘judaeo-christian’ per se, or ‘religious’ for that matter(unless you include Hitlers attempts to co-opt Catholics and Protestants under his fascist/fuhrer-messianic third reich banner). Nothing ‘Judaeo’ about Nazi Germany of course.
The vast majority of atrocities in our lifetime were not committed in the name of ‘judaeo-chrisitanity.’ However, the majority of them can be traced in one way or another to Darwinism.
Nazism, Atheistic Communism, Stalinism, and Maoism (by far the worst offenders numerically) all have philosophical roots in Darwinism.
WWI – 15,000,000
Russian Civil War – 9,000,000
Stalinism – 20,000,000
WWII – 60,000,000
Chinese Civil War – 2,500,000
Mao Zedong’s regime – 40,000,000
Where does someone get this idea that ‘Judaeo-Christian’ doctrine is responsible for great bloodshed?! From Atheistic Darwinists primarily.
Recent Comments by Victor Marshall
“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright, ‘Through faith we understand.’Heb.11:3” – Ed.134
As if all of your previous statements were not enough – here you come with this outrageous statement:
But I do deny that the Bible is the final authority. I donâ€™t think that it is the final authority.
I think it is plain enough now for all to see that the founding scientist of EducateTruth, who has vigorously been seeking to have LSU tow the orthodox Adventist line – is himself heterodox when it comes to the most foundational of Adventist beliefs!
Not only have you equated science with faith, you have supplanted Biblical authority with scientific authority. Isn’t this exactly in essence what theistic evolutionists do?! Is it possible that one who incessantly declares others to be ‘blind’ would himself be blind to his own hypocritical presuppositions?
Seventh-day Adventists are ‘people of the book.’ They claim the Protestant principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ as the very foundation of their faith. You are not a Sola Scripturist. By your own standard, if you were employed by the Adventist church, you yourself should consider employment elsewhere.
This is indeed a most grave and serious ironic twist.
If the issues are not yet clear enough I will here quote one of the denominations most preeminently orthodox theologians. You will find that his clear and definitive statements are diametrically opposed to your own:
“A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority, the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practiceâ€¦ The principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scriptureâ€¦.”
“Paul likewise rejects human â€œknowledgeâ€ (KJV â€œscienceâ€; Greek gnÅsis) as the final authority (1 Tim 6:20). Both OT and NT writers point out that since the Fall in Eden, nature has become depraved (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20-21) and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Nature, rightly understood, is in harmony with Godâ€™s written revelation in Scripture (see Ps 19:1-6 [revelation of God in nature] and vv. 7-11 [revelation of the Lord in Scripture]); but as a limited and broken source of knowledge about God and reality, it must be held subservient to, and interpreted by, the final authority of Scripture (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16; 3:1-2).”
“2. The Sufficiency of Scripture. The principle of sola Scriptura implies the further corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12). Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.”
“Adventists maintain the rallying cry of the Reformation–sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge and experience must be tested by this unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).” – Richard M. Davidson, ‘Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures:Toward an understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.’ BRI
Not only do you seem diametrically opposed to foundational Adventist theology. You also appear (for all intents and purposes) to be fundamentally opposed to the purposes and goals of EducateTruth itself.
â€œ4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroomâ€¦â€¦ The bottom line of this controversy is not about creation vs. evolution, but authority. Does the Bible inform our science or does science inform the Bible? This question lies at the heart of this controversy.â€ – Shane Hilde
In light of this further unfortunate irony – perhaps you should seek employment on another web site.
I encourage you to reexamine the basis for you faith and prayerfully surrender it to the Word of God – not scientific reason.
“When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow before the great I AM.” (SC 110).
More â€œsureâ€ than what? More sure than Peterâ€™s testimony. Peterâ€™s testimony is helpful and helps us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But even Peterâ€™s testimony is not adequate to affirm Jesus and who He is. We must necessarily turn to â€œMoses and the prophetsâ€ and validate Jesus as the Messiah based on their testimony.
Simply put, Moses is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith. If it is not in harmony with Moses, it is false. And this includes Jesus and His ministry.
Very good Bill.
I like to look at it this way as well. Moses said that, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” We have the two witnesses of the Old and New Testaments – each one establishes the testimony of the other – both are further established by a third witness – the Holy Spirit. These three witnesses are sufficient to establish truth.
The bible affirming itself as the final authority is the same as God affirming His own authority.
Another interesting parallel passage in the Bible is, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.” In this passage we have the concept that God is a sufficient witness for Himself. Of course, in a sense, He is also actually three witnesses isn’t He!
The bible presents its own evidence. It is self affirming.
If you deny the bible is the final authority on its on self affirmations, then you are simply not a bible Christian.
The bible does not try to â€œproveâ€ everything. Something are simply stated as a fact. Especially things that are not â€œproveableâ€ by science and/or human experience.
Science and human experience may be helpful, but they are not the final word and it is a mistake to try to affirm every jot and tittle of scriptual teaching by such â€œproofâ€.
Well stated Bro. Sorenson.