Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Sean Pitman.
I answered this comment earlier. Animals are not human beings and not culpable in the context of moral law. Your parallel is a “false dilemma” based on an apples to oranges parallel.
That’s not an answer to my question as to why animals are not morally responsible while humans are? You’ve simply stated that they aren’t. You’ve not explained why they are not.
Even if human beings are ignorant, they are still culpable and will be judged by the moral law.
Again, this is just a blanket statement. It is not an explanation as to why this would be so if ignorant animals or robots are not judged as morally culpable. This also doesn’t address my question as to humans who are mentally insane or otherwise mentally deficient.
Jesus does not plead His merits for dumb animals and ask pardon for their sins of ignorance.
Why not? You call animals “dumb” animals. Does that mean that morality requires a certain degree of intelligence before any living thing can be held morally accountable? Yes, or no?
Re-read our whole dialogue. I have commented on every issue and shown both bible and EGW quotes to support the truth of the matter.
That’s simply not true. You’ve make blanket statements, but have not attempted to seriously address my counter questions. You’ve just claimed they are irrelevant, but have not even tried to explain why this might be so? Also, you’ve not seriously addressed the many statements from both the Bible and Mrs. White that are counter to your position of guilt prior thought or action or conscious assent to any known sin or rebellion against known truth.
Here’s another interesting dialogue along these lines:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-sinners.php3
And I am still grateful that you and others have exposed the duplicity of La Sierra and other educational institutions in the SDA church. We see no resolving of the problem. And this is only one problem the church has gendered in the last few decades. The liberals claim the church has no right to discipline. And this is why they have so much control of the church today, simply because no one has disciplined for years.
On this we are agreed. Everyone is scared that drawing a definite line in the sand will cause the church to split. This may be true, but it will only get worse the longer such decisions regarding church order and government are delayed.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
I guess someone who accepts neo-Darwinism must have some problems with the reality of Biblical prophecy…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
You didn’t answer my question as to what you would do if you happened to have been in a place like Sandy Hook Elementary School when a shooter entered the building. Or, what you would do if someone threatened the lives of your own family. Also, don’t tell me that Australia has no police force or that the police there don’t carry guns…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
The Bible and Ellen White are very clear that Satan and his angels were forced to leave heaven just as Adam and Eve were forced to leave Eden after they fell to Satan’s charms. They are also very clear that the wicked will one day be excluded, by force, from the New Jerusalem and will, eventually, be completely destroyed from existence. I don’t think that’s how it worked with you and your family…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
