Comment on Schneider talks about La Sierra by Sean Pitman, M.D..
Schneider seems to confuse the need to maintain Church government and internal order with moral judgments and condemnation against those who do not support the ideals of the SDA Church organization. This simply isn’t true. Just because the Church cannot sponsor a person as an official paid representative before pulpit or classroom who does not support the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals does not mean that the Church has passed moral judgment on that person or that this person should not be loved as a child of God.
I simply do not understand those in leadership positions who are so unwilling to take action on matters of Church government just because it will create controversy and hard feelings with some who do not agree with this or that stated stand of the SDA Church. What right does anyone have to undermine the Church’s ideals on the Church’s dime? Where is the need for the leadership of the Church to stand idly by and see this happen decade after decade by those who are becoming bolder and bolder as time goes on without any action in response?
When will someone grow some backbone in Church leadership? Hopefully before this Church, as an organization, collapses into irrelevance…
Table of Contents
Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented
Sean, you might want too check out Professor Kentâ€™s replies at Spectrum.
Prof. Kent seems to me to want his cake and eat it too. He claims that he understands and believes in the need for clearly established internal order and government within the Church. Yet, Prof. Kent seems to get very upset every time anyone suggests that the Church actually back up what it says it stands for on a fundamental basis. I don’t know about you, but I see that sort of thing as being inconsistent… At least I don’t have any good idea as to where Kent would draw the line… aside from with the issue of women’s ordination that is. Anything beyond this is unclear as far as I can tell…
Schneider talks about La Sierra
Intolerance of Intolerance?
If there’s one thing I can’t tolerate it’s intolerance.
Sean, the story you shared (http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/04/fired-priest-isnt-going-qu…) provided a rather extreme case that hardly evolved around a single fundamental catholic belief. Questioning the virginity of Mary appeared to be a rather small issue. I seriously doubt your claims.
Posted by: Professor Kent (not verified) | 13 April 2010 at 12:22
Everyone is intolerant at some point – hopefully. Even God kicked Lucifer out of Heaven when he rebelled against the order and government of Heaven and tried to take over. What about civil crimes? Are you tolerant of child rapists living in your neighborhood? – or would you throw them in prison?
Oh, but you’re not talking about civil crimes. You’re talking about tolerance for religious ideas – right? And, I agree. Civil society should be tolerant of a very wide range of religious ideas and practices – as long as those ideas and practices do not counter civil law (like laws against child molesters, etc).
No religious society should ever be allowed to enforce their particular religious views and observances on civil society at large – period. However, it is perfectly fine, and even necessary, for a religious organization to be able to only hire those individuals who actually represent the goals and ideals of that particular organization. It would be silly to expect that all organizations would go no farther than basic civil law in what they stood for within society at large. Otherwise, there’d be no point in having different church organizations since there would be no differences.
As far as your notion that the Catholic Church would never fire a representative for publicly undermining the stated ideals and goals of the Church, you’re quite mistaken. Although “Father Kennedy” was not fired for just one infraction (few people who strongly oppose any church organization are only opposed to just one issue), all the infractions listed were doctrinal differences of opinion.
“Father Kennedy, of St Mary’s in South Brisbane, allows women to preach, blesses gay couples, denies the Virgin birth and claims the Church is dysfunctional.”
Many who frequent this particular forum would be fully in support of all of Kennedy’s opinions here – and therefore would clearly not be employed by the Catholic Church. Go figure…
Yet, if the Catholic Church did not stand for anything unique, if it hired those who did not support these same unique beliefs, what would be the point of having a “Catholic” perspective? The term “Catholic” would be meaningless after a while if nothing unique was really represented by the term “Catholic”.
The same thing is true of the SDA Church. If the term “SDA” really doesn’t mean anything unique from anything else, what’s the point in having an “SDA” church? The term would soon be meaningless as far as giving anyone any sort of idea as to what sets the SDA Church apart from any other group of people…
What you’re arguing for is a lack of identity – eventual irrelevance that is not distinguishable from what already exists in civil society at large. You are actually the one who is intolerant of any organization that doesn’t agree with you and your view of what all should believe and stand for within their own organizations…
Schneider talks about La Sierra
Yes, I’d say the spirit of Rome like the Pharisees before them is alive and well in the church. However, like both groups before you, historic Adventism refuses to see that it is THEY and not progressive SDAism that harbors the spirit.
Posted by: Darrell (not verified) | 12 April 2010 at 8:04
You have to know that you are being just as judgmental against those who disagree with you as is anyone in this forum. You just said that certain people disagreeing with you harbor the spirit of Romanish suppression, persecution, and Phariseism. Is this not a judgment on your part? – suggesting your willingness to suppress what you consider to be evil from your perspective?
You see, you can’t get away from making judgments if you have any sort of opinion on any topic. You are making judgments on who is right and who is wrong and what kind of government should be in place within the Church.
Hopefully, however, we will all refrain from making moral judgments as to the motives of one another as this type of judgment is the prerogative of God alone.
Also, we should not think to appeal to the Church to take on civil authority. All should be free to leave any Church or religious organization at will, free of any civil repercussions or moral recriminations regarding these particular points of doctrinal disagreement. It always turns out badly, always, when any church thinks to take on the powers of civil government. God does not appeal to the force of civil power to convert, but to the force of the appeal itself and the drawing of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.
This is not to say, however, that God does not expect the Church to establish internal government and order. God is a God of order and expects his Church to display internal government and order over those who think to freely take on the name of His organization. Remember, Heaven is a place of order. Even Lucifer and his angels were kindly asked to leave Heaven (more like forced out) when they openly rebelled against the order and government of Heaven and tried to take over…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.
Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?
I know that various European countries, including the Netherlands, Denmark, and Spain, have reported outbreaks of COVID-19 in mink pelt farms – leading to the culling of more than a million animals. From laboratory experiments, it’s also clear that ferrets (a relative of the mink) are also readily infected with the “novel coronavirus”. Aside from this, however, I’m not aware of any “issues” with animal experiments regarding COVID-19 in particular. However, in 2008 there was an interesting experiment involving ferrets that were given the flu vaccine against the H1N1 virus – who then became sicker once exposed to the live virus as compared to those ferrets that weren’t vaccinated. The reason for the effect was unclear, and Skowronski, the lead author, urged other research groups to take up the question.
“Skowronski likened the mechanism to what happens with dengue viruses. People who have been infected with one subtype of dengue don’t develop immunity to the other three. In fact, they are more at risk of developing a life-threatening form of dengue if they are infected with one of the other strains.”
Skowronski called the second theory the infection block hypothesis. Having a bout of the flu gives the infected person antibodies that may be able, for a time, to fend off other strains; flu shots only protect against the strains they contain. So under this theory, people who didn’t have flu in 2008 because they got a flu shot may have been less well armed against the pandemic virus.”
While interesting, such an effect has not been identified in the animal or human trials for the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. Also, subsequently updated flu vaccines to the H1N1 strain haven’t had this problem either (Link).
“For such a time as this”
Again, while a good diet and great health are important, this just isn’t enough to effectively prevent disease during a viral pandemic. As I’ve already explained, this is why Ellen White took the smallpox vaccine herself and advised the others who were with her to do the same. Such vaccines are, in fact, part of the most effective ways of “keeping well” rather than “curing disease” after the fact…
Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?
Regarding the recent situation where 23 nursing home patients died in Norway following vaccination the mRNA vaccines of Pfizer and/or Moderna (given to 30,000 people so far), these patients were all over the age of 80, were very frail. It is also somewhat difficult to determine a link in this particular population between the vaccine and any other potential cause of death – since around 400 nursing home patients die in Norway every week. However, at this point, it is not ruled out that adverse reactions occurring within the first days following vaccination (such as fever and nausea) may contribute to a more serious course and fatal outcome in patients with severe underlying disease and general frailty.
Steinar Madsen, medical director with the Norwegian Medicines Agency, said: “We are not alarmed by this. It is quite clear that these vaccines have very little risk, with a small exception for the frailest patients.” (Link)
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health said concluded that “for very frail patients and terminally ill patients, a careful balance of benefit versus disadvantage of vaccination is recommended.” (Link)
Consider this also in the light that more than 30% of nursing home residents are likely to die if an outbreak of COVID-19 occurs. So, weighing the risks and benefits of taking the vaccine vs. being exposed to a potential COVID-19 outbreak seems to weigh heavily in favor of taking the vaccine – with the exception, perhaps, of those who are already very frail.
“For such a time as this”
It’s a serious mistake to compare the advances of modern medicine to the prophecies of Ellen White regarding the activity of Satan during the Last Days – where Satan appears as a powerful angel of light, even taking on the form, appearance, and attitude of Christ (making fire come down from the sky and healing the sick and speaking words of grace and comfort in order to deceive the world). Are you really suggesting that the modern mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are actually part of these final “benevolent” works of Satan? How is this anything but extremist nonsense? – a rejection of a gift of God to help humanity by claiming that it is actually the work of Satan himself? This sort of thing reminds me of this passage in Matthew:
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” (Matthew 12:24)
You do realize, after all, that Ellen White took the smallpox vaccine herself during an outbreak? as did her son William White? and that she recommended that all of the others who were with her at the time take the vaccine as well? (Link) Contrary to some claims that I’ve heard regarding her actions here, it wasn’t that the vaccines in her day were less risky or more “pure” than they are today. They were actually riskier compared to modern vaccines, but still far far less risky compared to getting the actual infection itself. That’s why she took the vaccine. She also recommended that missionaries in areas infested with malaria take quinine – that we should, “do the best we can” in such situations (Link). When medications are beneficial and are appropriate, they may be used. When surgery is called for, it should be performed. In 1905 Ellen White wrote:
“Those who seek healing by prayer should not neglect to make use of the remedial agencies within their reach. It is not a denial of faith to use such remedies as God has provided to alleviate pain and to aid nature in her work of restoration…. God has put it in our power to obtain a knowledge of the laws of life. This knowledge has been placed within our reach for use. We should employ every facility for the restoration of health, taking every advantage possible, working in harmony with natural laws… It is our privilege to use every God-appointed means in correspondence with our faith, and then trust in God,… If there is need of a surgical operation, and the physician is willing to undertake the case, it is not a denial of faith to have the operation performed… Before major surgery, the entire body is saturated with a powerful and, in a sense, harmful drug [the anesthetic], to the point of complete unconsciousness and to complete insensibility. By the same token, after surgical procedures, the physician may find it necessary to administer medications that almost certainly include drugs to give relief and prevent the patient from lapsing, from sheer pain, into a state of surgical shock and, in some instances, possible death.” (Link)
Ellen White also recognized that blood transfusions could save lives. She herself had radiation therapy — X-ray treatments at Loma Linda for a skin problem. In short, she was not opposed to reasonable advances of modern medicine, accepting them as gifts of God, not sinister plots of Satan. We should remember her example in this regard and no turn away from the gifts of God that He has granted us through the advances of modern medicine.
As promised, I took a look at Sangers Sequencing and I found a 43 page PDF from the FDA who is complicit in the scam–it’s simply the entirety of the PCR test they all are using…
You don’t know the first thing about PCR or genetic sequencing. Did you even watch the video about Sanger Sequencing that I recommended?
Why would I need to study science for years to be able to break down all of these 43 pages of information, and critically analyze it?
Because, you don’t know the first thing about these scientific tests, not even the basics. Yet you feel yourself free to make claims about them that are absolutely false. You even claim that you’re guided by the Holy Spirit when you make these false claims – which is a very dangerous thing to do. You’re treading on holy ground with your presumptuous claims.
John_16:13 However, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit gives you knowledge about things that you are unwilling to seriously study or investigate or that He will guide you when you are unwilling and too arrogant to change when errors are revealed to you. You’re simply wrong with your understanding of PCR and how it is used. You don’t understand the first thing about genetic sequencing, and you’re even wrong about Mrs. White and her own use and recommendation of vaccines for others. Almost nothing you’ve said is true. Yet, you claim to be guided directly by God in this nonsense of yours? Please…
There’s simply no point in discussing these things further with you. It’s just no longer useful to me.