In March, 1970, the general conference officers met to discuss this question. Neal Wilson, then president of the North American Division, made a statement on March 17 that was picked up by the Religious News Service. He was quoted as saying,CONTD... (http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2014/2/abortioninadvent.html)We would not feel it our responsibility to promote laws to legalize abortion…nor oppose them….though we walk the fence, SDA’s lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and over population we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.8
vookehi mya88,
Before you get on DB, what is your position on Abortion
....What is your church's position?The closest church I can call 'church' is Presbyterian though I differed with them on many points. I have never read the official position but they are basically pro-life not unlike Catholicism.
Does your position have to align with the churches position?I believe it should. Amos 3:3, how can you walk together except you be agreed?
There are laws that govern such issues in the best interest of those affected. What if the circumstances for such was rape......Does your position then change?No it doesn't.
What doe scripture say about it?Abortion is not mentioned in the scriptures but sanctity of life is very much there. Debates of when life starts are as old as man. Some like SDAs reckon it starts at birth, I think it starts much earlier, at conception.
When the fertilized egg divides, it becomes an embryo. Laboratory staff will regularly check the embryo to make sure it is growing properly. Within about 5 days, a normal embryo has several cells that are actively dividing.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007279.htm (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007279.htm)
If like Termie, to you Christianity is primitive BS acceptable ONLY to low IQ primates, say soA fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.QuoteIn March, 1970, the general conference officers met to discuss this question. Neal Wilson, then president of the North American Division, made a statement on March 17 that was picked up by the Religious News Service. He was quoted as saying,CONTD... (http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2014/2/abortioninadvent.html)
We would not feel it our responsibility to promote laws to legalize abortion…nor oppose them….though we walk the fence, SDA’s lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and over population we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.8
A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
The word abortion is used in different senses, so I'm not sure I agree/disagree with either one of you. I believe in the principle of "double effect" my church recognizes: that is, if taking an action that saves a mother or otherwise helps her in a serious condition results in the pain or even the death of the baby, I do not consider that murder/evil/abortion. So I do support it in those circumstances. But from what I've read on the subject, it's never necessary to directly target the baby for killing per-se as if the baby is some sort of virus/bacteria or disease. It's only that some procedures/medication intended to save/help the mother might be harmful or even fatal to the baby, but the death of the baby is not the targeted goal of the procedure/medication, even though it is foreseeable. So with this exception, I agree with you two.vookehi mya88,
Before you get on DB, what is your position on Abortion
No abortion unless under strict medical prescription, reason being, the fetus is as human as the mother.
My church's position I think is widely known in a general sense, though the technicalities/intricacies are a different matter.Quote....What is your church's position?The closest church I can call 'church' is Presbyterian though I differed with them on many points. I have never read the official position but they are basically pro-life not unlike Catholicism.
Neither does mine change. Though asking the woman to bear the pregnancy is asking a mountain of a sacrifice. However, I see the baby born of such circumstances as being as much a victim as the woman forced into that situation. Sad situation whichever way you look at it.QuoteThere are laws that govern such issues in the best interest of those affected. What if the circumstances for such was rape......Does your position then change?No it doesn't.
Abortion is not mentioned in the scriptures but sanctity of life is very much there. Debates of when life starts are as old as man. Some like SDAs reckon it starts at birth, I think it starts much earlier, at conception.I believe life starts at conception. Only then do you have biologically distinct organisms from the mother/father, and these organisms if uninterfered with, will become you and me. Any other demarcation given to determine the humanity of the baby is arbitrary and unscientific, not to mention immoral. If we don't know when a human life starts, we shouldn't be playing Russian-roulette guessing-games with it. :)
Here are the verses I use to arrive at my position
Exodus 21:22-23 (KJV)
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Two suckas duke it out and hurt a pregnant woman causing miscarriage, the offender pays whatever the hubby demands. IF it was malicious, death. This means the unborn is regarded as fully human and miscarriage as murder. For this reason am pro-life.
Flipping the question(s) back to you. Please answer them.
I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
There is nothing to apologize for. We are all religious. Some atheists like to equate their lack of belief in a deity with rationality. But that is just one aspect. We are all prone to bouts of irrationality. Some folks are just more elaborate about it.No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Profuse apologies for annoying your sensibilities
What do you mean by 'religious'?There is nothing to apologize for. We are all religious. Some atheists like to equate their lack of belief in a deity with rationality. But that is just one aspect. We are all prone to bouts of irrationality. Some folks are just more elaborate about it.No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Profuse apologies for annoying your sensibilities
Having firmly held beliefs no matter what. Not all religious people believe in deities.What do you mean by 'religious'?There is nothing to apologize for. We are all religious. Some atheists like to equate their lack of belief in a deity with rationality. But that is just one aspect. We are all prone to bouts of irrationality. Some folks are just more elaborate about it.No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Profuse apologies for annoying your sensibilities
kadame and mya88,Indeed, indeed. This is why I personally think that God tells us never to judge. That is, we can say what is right/wrong objectively-speaking, but we should never presume to decide the personal guilt of a person. We humans are simply not perfectly objective beings wherever our "selves" are involved. Plus, suffering plain sucks! :D You can't hate anyone for trying not to suffer more.
The other day a buddy engaged in a debate over divorce and remarriage (don't ask for my views on either yet). Later he told me he was exasperated by the attitudes participants exhibited, some self-righteousness. I told him it is because they was hypothesizing. If they was actually going through it, they opinions would be mighty different. Job was a counsellor but when tragedy struck, he sank into depression....will get u the verse.
On rape and abortion, some Naijas have been going over that especially over the rescued Chibook girls. Many was pregnant. Question was posed to both Muslims and Christians on how to handle the pregnancy. That's a real scenario not hypothesizing.I cannot even imagine going through such a situation, Lord have mercy!
While rape is equally if not more emotive than abortion, I think the difference between a rape pregnancy and consensual sex unplanned/unwanted pregnancy are not quite dissimilar. BOTH are unwanted, unplanned. From a psychological perspective, is a rape pregnancy and parenting more devastating than a normal unplanned one, ama we just assume it scars the mother more?I think the thinking is that the normal unplanned conception involves an element of assumed risk. You have sex as a sexually mature adult, you are consenting to the possibility of conceiving a baby, unless you are brain dead. With rape, it is totally imposed. Therefore, much more empathy is felt for that person. Some other people consider that bearing and raising the child of a rapist is mentally torturing to the woman. I can certainly see both these points as not just "good" points, but true. But since I also see a second victim here in addition to the mother, I do not adopt the same solution others might. For me, I think the mother should not abort but give the baby up for adoption, if she truly cant come to love him/her. However, I think a psycho-spiritual treatment of the mother, helping her to see her baby sympathetically as the rapists' second victim could help. Yaani, not to associate/identify the baby with the rapist (the object of hate) but with the victim's own self (the object of sympathy). Just my thoughts, though... :D
The first part is highly vague. I don't believe Osama died in 2011, am religiousHaving firmly held beliefs no matter what. Not all religious people believe in deities.What do you mean by 'religious'?There is nothing to apologize for. We are all religious. Some atheists like to equate their lack of belief in a deity with rationality. But that is just one aspect. We are all prone to bouts of irrationality. Some folks are just more elaborate about it.No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Profuse apologies for annoying your sensibilities
If you consider that religion does not have to be organized, you might find it easier to understand. Jehovah Wanyonyi could quietly believe he is the father of a man who died 2,000 years ago. That is religious. When he openly proclaims it, creates elaborate rituals around the claim and recruits followers, that is organized religion.The first part is highly vague. I don't believe Osama died in 2011, am religiousHaving firmly held beliefs no matter what. Not all religious people believe in deities.What do you mean by 'religious'?There is nothing to apologize for. We are all religious. Some atheists like to equate their lack of belief in a deity with rationality. But that is just one aspect. We are all prone to bouts of irrationality. Some folks are just more elaborate about it.No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Profuse apologies for annoying your sensibilities
It's so vague as saying 'water is life'If you consider that religion does not have to be organized, you might find it easier to understand. Jehovah Wanyonyi could quietly believe he is the father of a man who died 2,000 years ago. That is religious. When he openly proclaims it, creates elaborate rituals around the claim and recruits followers, that is organized religion.The first part is highly vague. I don't believe Osama died in 2011, am religiousHaving firmly held beliefs no matter what. Not all religious people believe in deities.What do you mean by 'religious'?There is nothing to apologize for. We are all religious. Some atheists like to equate their lack of belief in a deity with rationality. But that is just one aspect. We are all prone to bouts of irrationality. Some folks are just more elaborate about it.No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Profuse apologies for annoying your sensibilities
And untrue, I believe.It's so vague as saying 'water is life'If you consider that religion does not have to be organized, you might find it easier to understand. Jehovah Wanyonyi could quietly believe he is the father of a man who died 2,000 years ago. That is religious. When he openly proclaims it, creates elaborate rituals around the claim and recruits followers, that is organized religion.The first part is highly vague. I don't believe Osama died in 2011, am religiousHaving firmly held beliefs no matter what. Not all religious people believe in deities.What do you mean by 'religious'?There is nothing to apologize for. We are all religious. Some atheists like to equate their lack of belief in a deity with rationality. But that is just one aspect. We are all prone to bouts of irrationality. Some folks are just more elaborate about it.No speeches please, am not even half serious 8)I believe religion is part of us. That is the card evolution has dealt us. Excess CPU cycles. We can do good or evil with it. Just for the record, I don't know why people are religious.A fabrication. While I have said religiosity statistically correlates with low IQ before, I think that is true only in the West. In fact I thought that the converse might be true in places like Africa. Never underestimate the impact that missionaries had on education in Africa.Wewe Termie you are being another Peter, denying your core beliefs where it matters most. Reading your posts, it feels like you have figured the most objective measure of IQ as religion....anyways, it is well
My views on IQ or what it measures remain in flux. I tend to lean towards the notion that it is a measure of how much one can conform to a certain way of life. Homo sapiens is a wild animal with varying adaptations.
When you talk religion, I often get the impression that you contrast it with atheism. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Profuse apologies for annoying your sensibilities
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Wikipedia gives a definition that seems adequate for most "working" purposes:I agree with the qualifier. If you include a set of beliefs that rejects all others, it is safe to say all normal humans, including atheists relate to at least one or more of these collections of beliefs.QuoteA religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
I have a had time imagining people who are not religious. The real difficulties with religion start when it gets organized. Then people decide that theirs is the best one, that their deities are the best ones, that their teachings are the best ones, etc. And, of course, those who don't buy into some organized religion must be pitied as hopelessly lost souls, and, if possible, have one forced on them. For their own good.Adaptability to change is the danger with organized religion. I grew up convinced a good chunk of the world was headed to hell. Something I believe is no longer fashionable this late in the day, even among the more extreme forms of Christianity. Muslims of course believe people like vooke and his adherents are assured of warmth when they die; vooke feels his Bible protects him from the said warm place if Nuff Sed's interpretation guarantees her freedom from worrying about winter shopping for eternity.
Even when there is only one set of teachings, groups will form according to who has the best interpretations, and of those sub-groups will form ... It is such interpretations that led to the "Christian church" to engage in a long history of crimes against humanity: "the Bible tells us that this is right and must be done" etc. And in individual life, even today, there are many who revel in their expert knowledge of teachings and focus on them to the point of forgetting that ultimately one of the key points is that it about humanity and relations between humans.
What's more, these interpretations, even the best and rightest and ***est change over time.
So in matters such as abortion, my view is that (beyond whatever law that is at hand) one's conscience should be as good a guide as "what the church" says. As far as Christianity goes, I will note that a key part in Christ's approach was a reaction against the likes of the Pharisees and their rigid and unhelpful interpretations of religious writings and teachings.
I grew up convinced a good chunk of the world was headed to hell.
I grew up convinced a good chunk of the world was headed to hell.
So did I, except that I probably had it much worse: As a kid, I was totally terrified and in my sleep used to have nightmares of said place. Thanks to some Sunday-School types who were very good with mental images, at that tender age I had a very clear idea of how hot the endless flames would be, how I would eat but never get filled because the food would fall out of holes in my sides, wild animals forever gnawing on your limbs, etc. Not to mention the Old Testament stories of how God had struck down this one or that one, with a very unpleasant disease or led them to a brutal and nasty end at the hands of bloodthirsty enemies. I quickly got the general idea and also learned to treasure my volume of the "Children's Bible Stories" as a great guide (by way of warnings) on how to be a good, little boy.
A plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant.
Is that how you win converts? Is Great Controversy your historical authority?I grew up convinced a good chunk of the world was headed to hell.
So did I, except that I probably had it much worse: As a kid, I was totally terrified and in my sleep used to have nightmares of said place. Thanks to some Sunday-School types who were very good with mental images, at that tender age I had a very clear idea of how hot the endless flames would be, how I would eat but never get filled because the food would fall out of holes in my sides, wild animals forever gnawing on your limbs, etc. Not to mention the Old Testament stories of how God had struck down this one or that one, with a very unpleasant disease or led them to a brutal and nasty end at the hands of bloodthirsty enemies. I quickly got the general idea and also learned to treasure my volume of the "Children's Bible Stories" as a great guide (by way of warnings) on how to be a good, little boy.
Moonki you probably need counseling for real. Thank God the Bible gives ample evidence that these hellish inventions of man are untrue. The pictures you have of hell come directly from Rome's false and unscriptural teachings on purgatory, limbo and the state of the dead. You need to read Ellen G. White's "Great Controversy" to see where it all began. There are plenty other sources that detail the origin of the doctrines of purgatory, Marian worship, indulgences and why (they were designed to instill fear of God rather than love for Him, and thereby created a pretext for extorting money to build St Peter's Basilica in Rome by asking people to pay for dead relatives's sins and their own, even future sins).
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/286800/indulgence
Below is a quote from Prof Bamba's EWTN.
https://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/what.htmQuoteA plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant.
https://carm.org/indulgences
http://www.haciendapub.com/randomnotes/martin-luther-sale-indulgences-and-reformation
The Great Controversy is the history of the controversy between Christ and Satan, with the world and its religions as a manifestation of Satan's wrath against God's people. I cited other historical sources (and Catholic sources just in case) knowing there is an anti-EG White crusader on board. Have you read it?The Great controversy was written in the 1800s, how exactly is that HISTORY?
The Great Controversy is the history of the controversy between Christ and Satan, with the world and its religions as a manifestation of Satan's wrath against God's people. I cited other historical sources (and Catholic sources just in case) knowing there is an anti-EG White crusader on board. Have you read it?Yes I have,
The Great Controversy is the history of the controversy between Christ and Satan, with the world and its religions as a manifestation of Satan's wrath against God's people. I cited other historical sources (and Catholic sources just in case) knowing there is an anti-EG White crusader on board. Have you read it?Yes I have,
It has been revised innumerable times to make up for its errors and it is still full of them. HISTORICAL inaccuracies that can only have been conjured by an illiterate and ignorant mad woman. Can I show you one?
The Great Controversy is the history of the controversy between Christ and Satan, with the world and its religions as a manifestation of Satan's wrath against God's people. I cited other historical sources (and Catholic sources just in case) knowing there is an anti-EG White crusader on board. Have you read it?Yes I have,
It has been revised innumerable times to make up for its errors and it is still full of them. HISTORICAL inaccuracies that can only have been conjured by an illiterate and ignorant mad woman. Can I show you one?
Go ahead.
Through ages of darkness and apostasy there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath.- page 65
I spent several hours searching for an answer in the two scholarly volumes Storia dei Valdesi–(History of the Waldenses), authored by Amedeo Molnar and Augusto Hugon. These two books were published in 1974 by the Claudiana, which is the official Italian Waldensian publishing house. They are regarded as the most comprehensive history of the Waldenses. To my regret I found no allusion whatsoever to Sabbath-keeping among the Waldenses.https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html
The Great Controversy is the history of the controversy between Christ and Satan, with the world and its religions as a manifestation of Satan's wrath against God's people. I cited other historical sources (and Catholic sources just in case) knowing there is an anti-EG White crusader on board. Have you read it?Yes I have,
It has been revised innumerable times to make up for its errors and it is still full of them. HISTORICAL inaccuracies that can only have been conjured by an illiterate and ignorant mad woman. Can I show you one?
Go ahead.QuoteThrough ages of darkness and apostasy there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath.- page 65
The Waldenses NEVER kept sabbath. Samuelle Bachiocchi could find NO evidence of their sabbath keeping despite more resources at his disposal. Let's aks him;QuoteI spent several hours searching for an answer in the two scholarly volumes Storia dei Valdesi–(History of the Waldenses), authored by Amedeo Molnar and Augusto Hugon. These two books were published in 1974 by the Claudiana, which is the official Italian Waldensian publishing house. They are regarded as the most comprehensive history of the Waldenses. To my regret I found no allusion whatsoever to Sabbath-keeping among the Waldenses.https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html
That's one author's opinion against Ellen G. White. You're committing the same mistake as Bella by arguing that because Bacchiochi did not find evidence of Waldensians keeping the Sabbath it means they did not. Don't forget that bacchiochi's writers were Vaticaners who have traditionally opposed Sabbathkeeping to drive people to their pagan Sunday sabbath. One could also cite other sources showing the Waldensians kept the Sabbath. Like J.J. Ignatio von Dollinger or McGoldrick.
By enjoining what the Bible did not forbid, Rome ended up forbidding what the Bible enjoined. I'll cite you a legal example. Lack of evidence does not mean innocence.
That's one author's opinion against Ellen G. White. You're committing the same mistake as Bella by arguing that because Bacchiochi did not find evidence of Waldensians keeping the Sabbath it means they did not. Don't forget that bacchiochi's writers were Vaticaners who have traditionally opposed Sabbathkeeping to drive people to their pagan Sunday sabbath. One could also cite other sources showing the Waldensians kept the Sabbath. Like J.J. Ignatio von Dollinger or McGoldrick.
By enjoining what the Bible did not forbid, Rome ended up forbidding what the Bible enjoined. I'll cite you a legal example. Lack of evidence does not mean innocence.
Yes,
When Bachiocchi points out obvious insanity from EGW, he is a Jesuit sleeper agent. Why don't you do me a favor and give me ANY EVIDENCE of Waldenses keeping sabbath.
The only trick here is mindlessly regurgitating Ellen White. Waldenses history is well known, they never kept sabbath. Because you have disowned your own author, then give us proof that he is wrong. I can't prove a negative. Prove they kept sabbathThat's one author's opinion against Ellen G. White. You're committing the same mistake as Bella by arguing that because Bacchiochi did not find evidence of Waldensians keeping the Sabbath it means they did not. Don't forget that bacchiochi's writers were Vaticaners who have traditionally opposed Sabbathkeeping to drive people to their pagan Sunday sabbath. One could also cite other sources showing the Waldensians kept the Sabbath. Like J.J. Ignatio von Dollinger or McGoldrick.
By enjoining what the Bible did not forbid, Rome ended up forbidding what the Bible enjoined. I'll cite you a legal example. Lack of evidence does not mean innocence.
Yes,
When Bachiocchi points out obvious insanity from EGW, he is a Jesuit sleeper agent. Why don't you do me a favor and give me ANY EVIDENCE of Waldenses keeping sabbath.
It's a famous trick you have employed with Bella and now with me. Making a spurious claim and asking us to back it up. You made the claim and cited Bacchiochi only to realize that particular scholarship on the Sabbath is questionable. Now you want me to give you evidence supporting your claim?
Unnecessary distraction. You quote Great Controversy where Ellen G. White writes the Waldenses kept the Sabbath, build a strawman from Bacchiochi that they didn't and now you ask me to help you demolish the first statement with proof that the Waldenses did not keep the Sabbath. I have often helped you but on this one I politely decline.Nobody has ever claimed they did apart from EGW. If there is, share with me the evidence to support EGW. To the contrary, there is ample evidence they didn't. These were not aliens, their beliefs were and are well known just as their history.
Hell at that impressionable age was always a clear and present danger. My visions of hell were crystallized by the experience of the kids in the Fatima events. When they were shown a vision of hell by Mary.I grew up convinced a good chunk of the world was headed to hell.
So did I, except that I probably had it much worse: As a kid, I was totally terrified and in my sleep used to have nightmares of said place. Thanks to some Sunday-School types who were very good with mental images, at that tender age I had a very clear idea of how hot the endless flames would be, how I would eat but never get filled because the food would fall out of holes in my sides, wild animals forever gnawing on your limbs, etc. Not to mention the Old Testament stories of how God had struck down this one or that one, with a very unpleasant disease or led them to a brutal and nasty end at the hands of bloodthirsty enemies. I quickly got the general idea and also learned to treasure my volume of the "Children's Bible Stories" as a great guide (by way of warnings) on how to be a good, little boy.
At Fatima, the Blessed Virgin Mary told the three child seers that many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray or make sacrifices for them. In her Memoirs, Sister Lucy describes the vision of hell that Our Lady showed the children at Fatima:It was basically a place where you burn but you can't escape from it either by dying or otherwise. The truly troubling part was when it became obvious there is no avoiding it. At least for some time. Purgatory was identical to hell but not eternal.
"She opened Her hands once more, as She had done the two previous months. The rays [of light] appeared to penetrate the earth, and we saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls [of the damned]. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright (it must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons were distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to our good Heavenly Mother, Who at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think that we would have died of terror and fear."
http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/hell.asp (http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/hell.asp)
One of the things seldom talked about in the Message took place during her first visit with the children in May of 1917. It concerns Purgatory. On that occasion Lucy began to question the beautiful Lady to find out who she was. Happy when the Lady said she had come from Heaven, Lucy immediately asked about her own eternal happiness and Our Lady lovingly told her that she would go to Heaven, After being assured that her two companions, Jacinta and Francis, would go to Heaven as well, Lucy further asked about two of her little companions who had recently died: "Is little Maria das Neves in Heaven," "Yes" answered Our Lady, "she is in Heaven." Finally, Lucy asked about another companion, called Amelia, and Our Lady answered: "She will be in Purgatory until the end of the world."
Little Amelia was eighteen years old when she died. She is in Purgatory and will, on the testimony of Our Blessed Mother, stay there until the end of time. Her fate contains a warning for all of us. Let us take to heart and make certain that her fate will not be our own.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/purgatory2.htm (http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/purgatory2.htm)
Moonki you probably need counseling for real.
Why I deeply respect Catholicism? Their stand on abortion is well known and highly controversial. They gladly wear their beliefs with confidence. So much that when a Catholic and an Adventist hospital wears competing to set up one, the public murmured against Catholic because of their pro-life stance. Apparently SDA hospitals perform abortion-on-demand like there is no tomorrow
Why I deeply respect Catholicism? Their stand on abortion is well known and highly controversial. They gladly wear their beliefs with confidence. So much that when a Catholic and an Adventist hospital wears competing to set up one, the public murmured against Catholic because of their pro-life stance. Apparently SDA hospitals perform abortion-on-demand like there is no tomorrow
Seriously Voke? Where do such thoughts come from?
The Waldenses NEVER kept sabbath. Samuelle Bachiocchi could find NO evidence of their sabbath keeping despite more resources at his disposal. Let's aks him;QuoteI spent several hours searching for an answer in the two scholarly volumes Storia dei Valdesi–(History of the Waldenses), authored by Amedeo Molnar and Augusto Hugon. These two books were published in 1974 by the Claudiana, which is the official Italian Waldensian publishing house. They are regarded as the most comprehensive history of the Waldenses. To my regret I found no allusion whatsoever to Sabbath-keeping among the Waldenses.https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html
Another scholar, Bonacursus, also wrote against them: "Not a few, but many know what are the errors of those who are called Pasigini. ... First, they teach that we should obey the sabbath. Furthermore, to increase their error, they condemn and reject all the church Fathers, and the whole Roman Church".[18] In Spain the persecution was directed at the Waldensian Sabbath-keepers.[19]
The Roman Inquisitor Reinerus Sacho writing c. 1230 held the sect of the Vaudois to be of great antiquity, thus long preceding Waldo by centuries. In the Waldensians, Sabbatati or Insabbatati, there was a more or less continuous tradition of Sabbath-keeping from the early church of the Apostles, throughout southern Europe. There are also account of Paulicians, Petrobusians, Pasaginians along with the Waldenses of the Alps, who kept the Saturday for the Lord's day which was in conflict with the change to Sunday held by the Roman Catholic Church. The Sabbatati were known also by the name Pasigini. In reference to the Sabbath-keeping Pasigini, one scholar wrote: "The spread of heresy at this time is almost incredible. From Bulgaria to the Ebro, from Northern France to the Tiber, everywhere we meet them. Whole countries are infested, like Hungary and southern France; they abound in many other countries; in Germany, in Italy, in the Netherlands and even in England they put their efforts."
They held that temporal offices and dignities were not meant for preachers of the Gospel; that relics were simply rotten bones which had belonged to one knew not whom; that to go on pilgrimage served no end, save to empty one's purse; that flesh might be eaten any day if one's appetite served one; that holy water was not a whit more efficacious than rain water; and that prayer in a barn was just as effectual as if offered in a church. They were accused, moreover, of having scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of having spoken blasphemously of the Roman Catholic Church as the harlot of the apocalypse.[3] They rejected the perceived idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church and considered the Papacy as the Antichrist of Rome.
Pope Francis asked forgiveness on Monday for the Roman Catholic Church’s “non-Christian and inhumane” treatment in the past of the Waldensians, a tiny Protestant movement the Vatican tried to exterminate in the 15th century.
The Roman Inquisitor Reinerus Sacho writing c. 1230 held the sect of the Vaudois to be of great antiquity, thus long preceding Waldo by centuries. In the Waldensians, Sabbatati or Insabbatati, there was a more or less continuous tradition of Sabbath-keeping from the early church of the Apostles, throughout southern Europe. There are also account of Paulicians, Petrobusians, Pasaginians along with the Waldenses of the Alps, who kept the Saturday for the Lord's day
The Wikipedia page on Waldensians is more useful than you make it to be. The recent editing only added the pope's apology (like a date stamp on a Nipate update). Now that it's on Wikipedia, one can imagine that authorities on their "not keeping the sabbath" would have noticed and updated the entry appropriately. Wikipedia is still a pretty good source.
The Roman Inquisitor Reinerus Sacho writing c. 1230 held the sect of the Vaudois to be of great antiquity, thus long preceding Waldo by centuries. In the Waldensians, Sabbatati or Insabbatati, there was a more or less continuous tradition of Sabbath-keeping from the early church of the Apostles, throughout southern Europe. There are also account of Paulicians, Petrobusians, Pasaginians along with the Waldenses of the Alps, who kept the Saturday for the Lord's day
The Roman Inquisitor Reinerus Sacho writing c. 1230 held the sect of the Vaudois to be of great antiquity, thus long preceding Waldo by centuries. In the Waldensians, Sabbatati or Insabbatati, there was a more or less continuous tradition of Sabbath-keeping from the early church of the Apostles, throughout southern Europe. There are also account of Paulicians, Petrobusians, Pasaginians along with the Waldenses of the Alps, who kept the Saturday for the Lord's day[16]
The footnote #16 refers to the General History of the Baptist Denomination in America. That volume gives a detailed account of Seventh-Day Baptists who kept Saturday which is what the Wikipedia page is dealing with. The footnote does not refer to Reinerus Sacho directly. http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/A_General_History_of_the_Baptist_Denomination_in_America_and_Other_v2_1000521290/413
Rather than proving Wikipedia false, your Google search does the exact opposite.
In the Waldensians, Sabbatati or Insabbatati, there was a more or less continuous tradition of Sabbath-keeping from the early church of the Apostles, throughout southern Europe
The book makes no mention of Waldensians
Show me where the author dug this statement fromQuoteIn the Waldensians, Sabbatati or Insabbatati, there was a more or less continuous tradition of Sabbath-keeping from the early church of the Apostles, throughout southern Europe
That's a totally baseless claim and you are using it to prove me wrong.
The statement also reeks of Adventist slant. That's what gave away the editor.
Robinson gives an account of some of the Waldenses of the Alps, who were called Salbati, Sabbatali, Insaibatatiy but more frequently[/b]
The writer is not giving a history of Seventh Day Baptists, he is focussing on Waldensians, a group which Ellen White FALSELY claimed they kept sabbath. So somebody sympathetic to Adventism has attempted to mislead simpletons by making a baseless statement.
And for what good reason would a writer of the history of Seventh-Day Baptists take an Adventist slant?
I keep saying school ruined your education and the situation is only made worse by your obsession with anything anti-Adventist, anti-Sabbath. If you did not diddle in class you would have noticed that Waldenses and Waldensians and Vaduois are sometimes used interchangeably. Specifically, the book you loudly proclaim does not mention Waldensians has this sentence in black and white. It is in the right hand column towards the bottom of the page just in case you can't see it.The point remains,
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/A_General_History_of_the_Baptist_Denomination_in_America_and_Other_v2_1000521290/413QuoteRobinson gives an account of some of the Waldenses of the Alps, who were called Salbati, Sabbatali, Insaibatatiy but more frequently[/b]
The goalposts have shifted from the north to the south pole.No they haven't .The Waldensians NEVER kept sabbath and Wikipedia is not helping you at all. By quoting a book with ZERO relation to your point, you are being dishonest.
The goalposts have shifted from the north to the south pole.No they haven't .The Waldensians NEVER kept sabbath and Wikipedia is not helping you at all. By quoting a book with ZERO relation to your point, you are being dishonest.
Waldensians have books as well. Read them. Sabbath keeping in antiquity is certainly no skeletons they keep in a closet. Why are they all unanimously opposed to EGW fantasies?
This is what Bachiocchi grapples with before finally throwing in the towel. He is a wise man, never thawed his brains for a song
The statement EGW makes in The Great Controversy about Wandensians has support from scholars and Rome itself. For you to claim the Waldensians did not keep the Sabbath, you will need a positive statement from them refuting EGW, or evidence that they for example kept Sunday. From their teachings you can easily tell they were opposed to popery and for that reason they were persecuted, hence the recent apology from Rome. The Sabbath law is one of those things that popery has trampled down to the ground and even without documented historical evidence it is not far-fetched to attribute Rome's hatred for Waldensians to Sabbath-keeping. The reason Rome is not persecuting Presbyterians today is because Presbyterians, having long forgotten where Protestantism came from, now bow low at Rome's altar and spend long essays justifying Rome's signal doctrine of Sunday worship.And many rants later you have no such evidence
Beelzebub does not eat its daughters.
Voke are you still concerned about abortion? Or was abortion being used as a thinly veiled device to launch another attack on adventism? I do not support abortion (pro-life to death). Since you started the debate, let me bring this to your attention though I suppose you know already.You are 'pro-life to death', but is Adventism 'pro-life to death?' Do they perform abortion on-demand at Loma Linda? Would the organ hawkers behave differently if they was Adventists?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html