Self-Contradictory Postmodernism http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination#comment-49771 Yes, I’d say the spirit of Rome like the …

Comment on Schneider talks about La Sierra by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Self-Contradictory Postmodernism
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination#comment-49771

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

Postmodernism…

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…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

Schneider talks about La Sierra
@Geanna Dane:

Sean, you might want too check out Professor Kent’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…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Schneider talks about La Sierra
Intolerance of Intolerance?
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination#comment-49819

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.”

http://www.smh.com.au/national/priest-fired-for-unholy-communion-2009021…

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…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Schneider talks about La Sierra
Prof. Kent wrote (Spectrum Blog):

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination#comment-49765

Sean,

Your analogy to Catholocism fails on another obvious front. To believe that a Church which does not fire–and even shelters–pedophilic priests (who have broken both God’s law and U.S. law) would readily fire an employee who merely questions the virginity of Mary totally stretches credulity.

Oh really? Check out the following report of just such a situation where a priest was in fact let go for just such infractions:

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/04/fired-priest-isnt-going-qu…

You see, pedophile-priests aren’t public in their attack on the standards of the Catholic Church. If they were, the Church would no doubt have not shielded them as it did (to its own shame). Those who publicly teach directly contrary to the Catholic Church’s stated ideals and fundamentals are let go if they cannot be convinced to change their course.

I’m afraid that your myopic zeal toward persecuting theistic evolutionists within the Church, including those both real and imagined, has blinded you to the point you have lost touch with reality. I think you need a soul conversion much like Saul, who regained his sight only when he conceded he had been pursuing his own mission rather than the Lord’s.

Posted by: Professor Kent (not verified) | 12 April 2010 at 7:10

Interesting that you think yourself clear to judge the state of my very soul before God. Getting kinda personal aren’t you? – judging morality and motive?

You do realize that this issue isn’t a moral issue? – right? What one does or does not believe regarding the doctrine of creation isn’t going to save anyone or get anyone lost. It just isn’t a moral issue. It is an issue of Church government and order, however. It is also a basis of a solid hope in a bright literal future. You just don’t seem to understand what you’re attacking. Someday you will, but it would be far better for you now if you understood it now.

Regardless though, if you think you’re right, and those supporting you’re perspective think they are so clearly in the right, why not advertise it with pride? Why not present the clear rights of LSU science professors and other paid representatives of the Church and all other organizations to say and do whatever they please on the dime of their employers? LSU should be proud of its “academic freedom” – and advertise this freedom in a very clear and decided manner so that no one will have any doubt as to what LSU stands for. LSU should make it very clear to parents what its teachers stand for and promote, as the gospel truth, in their classrooms. Why even try to hide what’s going on if it is so right and so beneficial? Why all these efforts to sequester information and put students on academic probation for presenting what is really taking place in LSU classrooms?

Who is on the attack here? LSU’s professors can attack the pillars of the SDA faith for decades and put students on academic probation who are attempting to defend that faith… and LSU is somehow the “victim” of attack when someone simply points out what LSU is doing in public? – and asks for increased transparency? Please…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Response to a comment of a friend of mine posted in another forum:

    “Before the way of FAITH IN CHRIST was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, UNTIL the way of faith was revealed. The law was our guardian UNTIL Christ came; it protected us UNTIL we could be made right with God through FAITH. And now that the way of FAITH has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS.” Gal3:23-26

Faith is certainly what saves. This has always been true since the very beginning. Even those righteous persons who lived before Jesus was born into this world as a human being, even Moses or David for instance, were not saved by the works of the Law, but by Faith. The purpose of the Law was never to save, but to convict the sinner of a need of a Savior – since all have sinned against the “Royal Law.” It is faith in the Savior that saves. The work of the Law, carefully considered, is to lead us to know that our only hope of salvation is faith in what Jesus, our Savior, did for us and is doing for us. Yet, this faith does not nullify the Law or make the Law pointless when it comes to its job to constantly remind us of our need of a Savior – a saving Power outside of ourselves. Rather, the Power realized through this faith actually enables us to keep the Spirit of the Law as it was originally intended to be kept – through selfless love for God and for our neighbors.

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, makes this point particularly clear:

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. – Romans 3:31

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts… If a man who is not circumcised keeps the requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? – Romans 2:13-15, 26

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! – Romans 6:15

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” … So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good… For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. – Romans 7:7, 11, 22-25

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit… The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. – Romans 8:3-4, 7

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. – Romans 13:8-10


Christians and the Sabbath
Response to a comment of a friend of mine posted in another forum:

    “Before the way of FAITH IN CHRIST was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, UNTIL the way of faith was revealed. The law was our guardian UNTIL Christ came; it protected us UNTIL we could be made right with God through FAITH. And now that the way of FAITH has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS.” Gal3:23-26

Faith is certainly what saves. This has always been true since the very beginning. Even those righteous persons who lived before Jesus was born into this world as a human being, even Moses or David for instance, were not saved by the works of the Law, but by Faith. The purpose of the Law was never to save, but to convict the sinner of a need of a Savior – since all have sinned against the “Royal Law.” It is faith in the Savior that saves. The work of the Law, carefully considered, is to lead us to know that our only hope of salvation is faith in what Jesus, our Savior, did for us and is doing for us. Yet, this faith does not nullify the Law or make the Law pointless when it comes to its job to constantly remind us of our need of a Savior – a saving Power outside of ourselves. Rather, the Power realized through this faith actually enables us to keep the Spirit of the Law as it was originally intended to be kept – through selfless love for God and for our neighbors.

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, makes this point particularly clear:

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. – Romans 3:31

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts… If a man who is not circumcised keeps the requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? – Romans 2:13-15, 26

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! – Romans 6:15

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” … So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good… For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. – Romans 7:7, 11, 22-25

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit… The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. – Romans 8:3-4, 7

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. – Romans 13:8-10


Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Again, most people, including most non-Christians, consider late-term abortions (abortions within the third trimester of otherwise healthy viable babies) to be murder. There is relatively little argument about this. One doesn’t have to know the “precise point” to know that, after a certain point, abortion is clearly murder. The argument that a baby isn’t alive or really human until the moment that it is born is nonsense in my opinion.

Of course, before the third trimester, things start to get a bit more grey and unclear. Some define the beginnings of human life with the full activity of the brain’s cortex. Others define it with the earliest activity of the brain stem. Others define it as the beginnings of fetal movement or the fetal heartbeat. I might have my own opinions here, but the question I ask myself is at what point would I be willing to convict someone else of murder? – and be willing to put them in prison for it? For me, I wouldn’t be willing to do this until things are overwhelmingly clear that the baby is functioning as a full human being and is viable (which would include full brain activity).

As far as rape or incest is concerned, the resulting pregnancy should be terminated as soon as possible within the first trimester. Waiting for the third trimester is simply not an option because, at this point, it would still be murder to kill a fully-formed baby regardless of its origin…


Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
I agree with you up until your last sentence. It seems very very clear to me that a baby becomes human before it takes its first breath. A baby born at 40 weeks gestation is not somehow inherently “more human” than a baby that is still inside its mother at 39 weeks gestation. At 39 weeks, such a baby is indistinguishable from a baby that has already been born. The location inside or outside of the mother makes absolutely no difference at this point in time and development.

I think, therefore, that we as Christians should avoid both obvious extremes here in this discussion. There are two very clear ditches on both sides of the road here. We should avoid claiming that a baby is not really human until it is actually born at full term, and, at the same time, we should also avoid claiming that full humanity and moral worth is instantly realized at the moment of conception…


Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Most would agree with you that the baby John the Baptist, before he was born, was, at some point, a real human being who could “leap for joy” (Luke 1:44). Even most non-Christians would agree that a third-trimester abortion is murder. However, this isn’t the real problem here. We are talking about if a single cell or a simple ball of cells is fully “human” and if ending a pregnancy at such an early stage of development is truly a “murder” of a real human being. After all, when conception first takes place a single cell cannot “leap for joy” – or for any other reason. It’s just a single fertilized cell that cannot think or feel or move and has no brain or mind or intelligence of any kind. The same is true of an embryo that consists of no more than an unformed ball of cells for quite some time. Upon what basis, then, is it “murder” to end a pregnancy at this early point in embryological development?