"Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

don · 01-05-10 11:47 pm

There is absolutely no evidence to support it, Except, there is that story passed down from generation to generation. Even from a secular viewpoint, the actual existence of the story is some sort of evidence; to be interpreted variously by whoever... Less than a hundred years ago a man was ploughing some land in Syria. "As he was working, his plough struck something hard just under the surface. That evening, he returned to the site with some companions, and they began to clear away a thin layer of top soil. They very quickly came across some man-made paving stones, and on lifting these, they discovered a chambered tomb full of pottery. When archaeologists were sent in to investigate, they discovered a palace and an entire royal port city buried beneath the tell. Within these ruins were hundreds of cuneiform tablets. It was not until 1932 that it was determined that the name of this <a href="http://biblicalarcheology.net/?p=160" target="_blank">lost city was Ugarit</a>. " It should be humbling, for all sides of the debate, to realize that this amazing discovery and others like it, took place within the last century. What will the next discovery reveal? We have come through the Biblical Archaeology era; a time when those who considered the Bible no help in history had to back track considerably. Now, archaeologists want to do their work without reference to the Bible, at all. I think I understand such a stance. But, there is enough evidence to convince me that the Bible has something "real" to say about ancient history. <a href="http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes275/studentproj/jpn27/The_Baal_Cycle.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2411.jpg" alt=""></a> Ugarit ruins <a href="http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2008/02/cyprus_points_to_it.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2412.jpg" alt=""></a> .

jag · 01-06-10 5:04 am

Don, That was "less than a hundred years ago". Archeology has advanced since then. Millions of people can't pass without a trace. I am not denying that there is a grain of truth in the story. some Semitic tribes did indeed live in Egypt, and may well have eventually settled in Canaan. Who knows, perhaps one of them was even called Moses. But the literary story from the book of Exodus is certainly fictionalised. There were no Egyptian plagues, Israelites were not slaves in Egypt, there was no passing through the sea, there weren't millions departing, there was no 40 years in the wilderness and no conquest of Canaan. This is a sacred story, a mythical beginning, not history. And we can realise it ans still appreciate the story.

elaine · 01-06-10 1:19 pm

Don, have you read Israel Finklestein's The Bible Unearthed? That would be the place to start learning of biblical archeology. Allbright was nearly a century ago and much has been discovered and interpreted since that time. He went with the idea to "prove" the Bible stories; Finklestein had no agenda, merely to discover any evidence not formerly found. After extensive excavations during the past century, there is not one shred of evidence that either the Israelites were once in Egypt or that they ever encamped in the Sinai desert for 40 years. It is impossible for the millions described in the Bible to have lived in one small location and leave absolutely nothing revealing their long stay.

bob_2 · 01-06-10 3:29 pm

Elaine, then you have to throw away everything you have debated, here and in Spectrum. Christ's sacrifice, a shadow of which, was created in the desert wandering. The Temple, and it's rent curtain takes on less significance. In fact, you have to throw out the whole OT and create your own salvation story. I will follow your posting it with interest. Mean while, here is something to counter your myth idea: <a href="http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route.htm" target=_top>http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-ex odus-route.htm</a>

elaine · 01-06-10 9:10 pm

Bob, the site you furnished, clearly states: Proving the exodus route from the Bible: A scriptural proof. Of course, the Bible is the only account of the Exodus, so it's circular reasoning to say that the Bible account of the Exodus can be proved from the Bible!! Where on Spectrum, or here, have I claimed that Christ's sacrifice was a shadow which was created by the desert wandering? Have I ever claimed a salvation story? where?

jag · 01-07-10 7:15 am

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the Exodus: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus</a> The basics are as follows: it is doubtful that it happened, we do not know the route (we can't pinpont a single location, including Mt Horeb and Mt Sinai!), we do not know it it was the Red Sea or Sea of Reeds, we don't know if the Bible indicates 2 million refugees or just 20,000; we do not know when it happened, and for some reason the alleged author of the Pentateuch, Moses, conveniently even forgot the name of the Pharaoh whom he had served! There is one thing certain about the Exodus: that there is absolutely no evidence of it and that it is not mentioned by a single extrabiblical source. Under the circumstances, wouldn't it be reasonable to request that we focus on the theological/spiritual meaning of the Exodus myth rather than trying to prove it literally happened?

don · 01-07-10 7:56 am

Under the circumstances, wouldn't it be reasonable to request that we focus on the theological/spiritual meaning of the Exodus myth rather than trying to prove it literally happened? For a stronger consensus, it would be better to use the term Exodus "story" rather than Exodus "myth". The term "myth" does not always mean "fiction" but for some it implies that. The theological/sprititual meaning is far more important than the "facts of history". In one of my classes I had a student with a Roman Catholic background but with a mainly secular viewpoint. One day, he asked a fellow student about animals that talk in the Bible. Right away, the students mentioned the talking donkey. "That's ridiculous," he said. A discussion followed. Several of the students kindly explained why they believed such a thing could happen. I listened for a while. He wasn't buying their explanations. He made it clear that he accepted the inspiration of the Bible, just not such stories as being fact. I entered the dialogue and explained that some people read the Bible and accept these "miraculous" stories and other don't. If he didn't accept the "talking donkey" story as fact then he should look for lessons to be learned. Balaam was going against what he knew was right and problems developed in his life. (There are several personal lessons which can be derived from the Balaam story.) My "doubting" student then offered a lesson of his own. I agree that if we focus on the theological/spiritual meaning of any Biblical account, we find more of the blessing intended and a strong common ground from which to work. The anti-god squad has been cited as one of the newsmakers of 2009; kind of a militant anti-religion group; the new unbelieving "fundamentalists". They seem intent on chasing off religionists and people of faith from the "public square." The "in your face" attitude is unnecessary on either side. .

john8verse32 · 01-07-10 9:30 am

The theological/spiritual meaning is far more important than the "facts of history" is this why one (but not all) of the Gospel writers may have "found" a story about Jesus family "escaping" to egypt, and returning....somehow to tie His story in with ancient Hebrew stories of Moses and the Exodus? and what is the spiritual implication of God's becoming so sorry that He made man that he tries to kill them all with a flood...for which we find only evidence which denies the factuality of such a world wide divine massacre? what is the implication of teaching our kids a story that claims God told Moses to take their neighbors land, and kill all the people...even little boys, even women who had had sex...but save the virgins to use...without understanding the implications of how that would dilute His favorite tribes genetic uniqueness? doesn't that mean even God was ignorant of how conception works? or was the ignorance limited to the writers of the "story"? and they were only creating in advance the perfect Nazi excuse: "I was only doing what I was told". so there are more than literal problems with parts of the Bible... there are "implications" which need to be explained whether or not some of the "stories" are taken as literal..... why, in a book supposedly said to be divinely designed to lead us from the dark into the light, why do we find so many stories where the "blessing" is much more difficult to find than so many horrible instances of terrible example? and your reference to the "story" of Baalaam suggesting that he went against Gods will.... read the pin-the-tale-on-the-donkey again.... Brother B said over and over that he would NOT go against Gods command....but God kept changing His mind!!! so a confused Brother B didn't know what to do!!! no wonder he didn't seem overly surprised at his donkey trying to reason with him, presumably speaking Hebrew?. we had quite a discussion over here: <a href="http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/sabbath_school/2009/11/29/brother_balaam_casts_long_shadow" target=_top>http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/sabbath_s chool/2009/11/29/brother_balaam_casts_long_shadow</a>

cadge · 01-07-10 10:13 am

You know what I was thinking? I used to be appalled to think that the Roman Church thought that they could place their traditions above the bible. However, after seeing that they had to come to terms with the scientific facts brought forth by Copernicus and Galileo on the planetary order, and that the earth is not flat and covered by a dome with an ocean above, with windows to let out the rains, it makes sense that they had to adjust their understanding and teachings. In order to maintain unity and authority upon the church they had to come to the conclusion that they needed traditions set forth by the church fathers to deal with the correction of contradictions of the past biblical understandings and any future ones to come about. I believe this is why the NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) teaching ( <a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html" target=_top>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma. html</a> )that Maggie Bockmann shared with us, became necessary. So, this would bring us to conclude that in order to understand what being faithful is in the biblical perspective is to believe the spiritual import and apply it to our lives. Treat the stories as true for the understanding of the path to eternity, yet at the same time realizing that they were written at a time when the ways of God, history and science were seen "through a glass darkly". That's the only way that I can reconcile the presence of the Holy Spirit as I envelope myself into the scriptures, and yet at the same time realize that there are many things in there that do not hold true today as they were held by the faithful at the times they were written.

don · 01-07-10 12:01 pm

Are we serious about the lesson gathering life-style? Difficult, seemingly impossible, issues are good for the mind and the soul. But, to derive lessons it seems that a person needs to lay down their attack mode. Either a person is on board seeking for positive understanding, or they are in opposition and no amount of rapprochement will suffice. As we look back over 2000+ years of textual accounts we would do well to attempt to put ourselves in the sandals of those ancients. I submit that we will discern a people not unlike ourselves. I can't imagine that these texts were written so carelessly that fools could do a better job. When it seems so, something is missing on my part, not theirs. .

elaine · 01-07-10 4:36 pm

Why is it impossible to clarify the term "myth"? It is a legend intended to present "truths" just as Aesop's Fables should never be considered "true" but simple tales presenting timeless principles. Jesus used this form in the parables. He never claimed they happened, but the listeners understood the meaning. Myths are very important in presenting principles. We use these with our children and adults also frequently use myths in illustration. The Bible does not require belief in the literality of stories, but the concepts should be made clear. Unfortunately, too many Christians have been taught, or accepted all the Bible as literally and factually true and often overlook the principles. In effect: throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This does not need to happen if the Bible is taught for its timeless rules for living encapsulated in the Golden Rule and the two great commandments: Love God and your neighbor as yourself; on these hang all the Law and Prophets.

don · 01-07-10 9:24 pm

Elaine, on a side note: A "myth" can be factual. Notice this definition of "myth":<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth" target=_top>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Regarding considering the stories of the Bible to be literal or not, I agree that people of faith can have meaningful dialogue about the Bible even if they disagree about the nature of the story they are discussing. .

elaine · 01-07-10 10:09 pm

Don, we agree that that a myth may or may not be based on fact. But its importance does not lie on its literality, but the principles and morals that are easily understood; i.e., our pastor is beginning a series on Jacob and will, no doubt, draw on many ways we can compare ourselves today with his problems.

george · 01-08-10 8:03 am

Whatever the dictionary references say, the average person does not immediately think - "true story" - when they hear the word "myth". This is where education comes in handy. The scholarly crowd uses these words in one way, but the lay person hears something else. This is not the only example of this problem when two classes of people try to have a conversation. This becomes even more problematic when we try to reach over generations of writers to try to understand what was meant. This is why it's incredibly important to know what was originally meant meant by the writer - his culture and his beliefs (CONTEXT) - before we try to apply the writings to our own experiences.

don · 01-08-10 8:55 am

This is why it's incredibly important to know what was originally meant meant by the writer - his culture and his beliefs (CONTEXT) - before we try to apply the writings to our own experiences. I agree, up to a certain point. Many times the ancient authors don't tell us their intent. The context helps considerably; the culture also. Except. Take the stories in Genesis. If Genesis describes life when Noah and Abraham actually lived, the Elba tablets shed light on their culture. However, if Genesis was written by a priest around the time of the Babylonian exile, a different culture becomes relevant. My point, in part, is to submit that we can't always know for sure the culture as we need to know. This calls for a humble, tentative approach to the meaning rather than a dogmatic one. .

john8verse32 · 01-08-10 10:23 am

This calls for a humble, tentative approach to the meaning rather than a dogmatic one. so should the church place more emphasis on the carrot than the stick? more promises of mansions God is hammering out just beyond the hole in Orion? where we can go live with some of those "tall majestic people living without sin"? and where the lamb will lie down with the lion, because presumably God will genetically modify lions teeth so they can munch grass instead of lamb? Then after we re-emphasize the good stuff, we de-emphasize the bad ? less use of the threat that our Loving God will kill everybody in a Lake-o-fire who does not believe the way we interpret some of the ancient texts?

don · 01-08-10 1:42 pm

John, even though your post seems to be "tongue in cheek" mixed with poking fun and serious concerns, here are my "understandings" that come to mind: so should the church place more emphasis on the carrot than the stick? Any carrot and stick approach I view as designed to alert everyone to eternal issues (natural issues) to rescue as many as possible. For a rescue to be needed, there must be a crisis or problem. As we examine the way people often treat each other, the problem becomes evident. more promises of mansions God is hammering out You probably are aware that the "mansions" of John 14:1-3 is best understood as rooms in one house. I view this as a metaphor. God desires to live with his creation in community. This is where we are heading, IMO. just beyond the hole in Orion? A reference to Ellen White's report of a vision. I am OK viewing Orion as a literal door to heaven but I don't view it as necessarily literal. I do believe that heaven is the place where God dwells and manages the universe with angels attending there and here. where we can go live with some of those "tall majestic people living without sin"? Another reference to Ellen White's visionary report. What she saw in vision and what is accurate re: the solar system, etc. do not match up. I do believe there are other worlds where sinless beings of God's creation dwell. Are they tall and majestic? Perhaps? and where the lamb will lie down with the lion, This is a prophecy of Isaiah. I believe that animals in the perfect world of the future will be peaceful and peace loving. This prophecy can also be viewed metaphorically where human lions and human lambs get along; unlike today. because presumably God will genetically modify lions teeth so they can munch grass instead of lamb? I do believe that God's original creation did not include the violent death cycle we see in nature today. I also believe that some day that cycle will be replaced with something akin to how life was in Eden before the fall. Not only will lions be peaceful, but so will humans. Can a leopard change his "spots" or his "teeth"? Even so, humans cannot change their evil hearts to good hearts on their own. Then after we re-emphasize the good stuff, we de-emphasize the bad ? We certainly need to emphasize both. Evil is to be dealt with. Those who hurt others have a day of reckoning in their future. It is our task today to interrupt evil whereever it occurs. And, there is coming what the Bible calls the great judgment day. less use of the threat that our Loving God will kill everybody in a Lake-o-fire who does not believe the way we interpret some of the ancient texts? The "threat" of destruction was never about how the ancient texts were/are interpreted. The issue is about good and evil. eg. Those who treat children properly and those who molest and abuse them. Our world of humanity is in a mess. My heart, your heart and everyone's heart needs converting. We need a new peaceful generous way of looking at things. I believe that Jesus brings the possibility of such change to our lives. I believe that all the raw proclamations of arbitrary divine justice merely provide a shadowed glimpse of how God will deal with evil before he remakes the world. But, this does not call for a playing down of divine concern for evil and the inhumanity so prevalent in our world. .

george · 01-08-10 4:23 pm

Don, any carrot and stick approach I view as designed to alert everyone to eternal issues (natural issues) to rescue as many as possible. It is our task to interrupt evil where ever it occurs. Therein lies our problem. We (SDAs) see ourselves as God's policemen cleaning up the evil and lawlessness that surrounds us. We can't rescue anyone. Our mission is not to clean up the world, as the population multiplies faster than we can publish books and pamphlets; nor do we have any carrots to present. Our mission is as witnesses to what Christ has done for US. That is all we can speak about. Of course, if He hasn't done anything for us then we have nothing to witness. To think of ourselves as presenting a specific interpretation of the Bible and a lifestyle that brings people to salvation is just plain wrong. Salvation comes to individuals as they respond to the person of Christ; and that response can't be dictated by any organization. The Bible has the same function, for those of us who can read, - to present individual experiences with God. It's up to us to evaluate those reports and apply them to ourselves if possible. In order to do that, we have to understand as much as possible what the writers are saying about their experiences - and that is all about context. Naturally, the more education and general knowledge, the more understanding. But our salvation doesn't even depend on our understanding, or lot's of people with diminished capacity would be left out. Christ's message gives the hopeless hope - period. That is our function - to give that message of hope based on our own experience, not a list of behaviors and prohibitions. All those people whom the religious establishment had written off, Jesus accepted. I doubt it's any different today.

don · 01-08-10 5:36 pm

Our mission is as witnesses to what Christ has done for US. I agree with this. However, recall where Jesus tells of the separation of the sheep and the goats and the "as much as you have done it unto the least of these... you have done it unto me." Our mission is not simply a relaying of spiritual insight. It is also, and mainly, to alleviate suffering. (Of course, the message of Jesus has alleviated "my" suffering and now I seek to help "others".) We (SDAs) see ourselves as God's policemen cleaning up the evil and lawlessness that surrounds us. We can't rescue anyone. Our mission is not to clean up the world, as the population multiplies faster than we can publish books and pamphlets; I don't view myself as God's policeman in matters of minor issues. I do believe that I have a responsibility to stand between the innocent and the evil doers, if I am in a position to do so. We should not stand idly by and watch evil being inflicted on the innocent. We need to be clear on how we define evil. For example, drinking wine at a meal, or even in a bar, is not evil; drunk-driving and alcohol addiction that ruins families and livelihood is. Many other examples can be given showing the difference between "minor" issues and issues of societal evil. I believe it is our duty to protect the innocent and helpless from evil doers whereever we can. If I see someone about to be beat up on the street; certainly I am duty bound to call the police and, perhaps, immediately intervene to save a life. That is our function - to give that message of hope based on our own experience, not a list of behaviors and prohibitions. I am in full agreement with the trend of your statement. .

john8verse32 · 01-08-10 6:56 pm

I do believe that God's original creation did not include the violent death cycle we see in nature today makes one wonder where all the fossil lions are, with their originally created molars in place, as originally "designed", to chew grass and twigs. another issue: why would a loving God let the devil change how the animals eat...changed from eating veggies, to killing each other? is that possibly related to why God rejected Cains offering of veggies, and instead, praised Abels killing of an animal to please God....which might have instigated the jealousy which caused the worlds alleged first murder? and why would God allow this to happen to the animals ...the devil changing both their teeth, intestines, claws, and eating habits...just because Eve was deceived? by a magical, conniving, but convincing talking snake God never warned her about. why inflict all the pain of dog-eat-dog tearing and ripping of flesh for the innocent animals, just because Eve got tricked? God is sposed to be a Loving God, right? so why create animals, and then allow the devil to disrupt His original plan for eating veggies, and allow the change to painful, evolutionary style dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2416.jpg" alt=""> and was it as a result of the "fall" that the fish and the marine mammals diverged? didn't all of them used to eat sea weed prior to the "fall' we presume? but after Eve's mis-take of the apple or fig, since apples are a more recent invention, the devil changed all the fish to learn to eat each other....and while the fish moved by flapping side to side, the marine mammals flapped up and down, just like their ancestors, according to evolutionists, who claim that the land animals had skeletons which were designed for up and down motion, so when some of them evol, ah, er, where changed by God/or the devil to eat flesh, some of them were banished to the oceans, lost their legs which became flippers, and they kept the up and down flapping motion, but never learned to breath under water.... wow!!! its all so upgemished that it would be amazing that anybody could understand it all!!! no wonder we should just have faith and accept what they tell us. reminds me of the time I went on vacation in the USSR.... and saw there was only one paper... Pravda (the "truth")...I asked people I met, why only one? their common response was that in the West, we had multiple papers, motivated by rich people who owned them, all with different stories and financial biases...so we in the West would never know what the truth was, or even if any of the sources carried the "truth". while in the USSR, with only ONE source of information, named, the "truth", you only had to worry about ONE source being right or wrong!!! and of course, like the Bible, Pravda was self proving, it claimed to always be right. and therefore, in the West, any source which differed, had to be wrong!!!

george · 01-08-10 7:05 pm

I do believe that I have a responsibility to stand between the innocent and the evil doers, if I am in a position to do so. We should not stand idly by and watch evil being inflicted on the innocent. I completely agree. That is not what I meant by us being a policemen for God. Evil should be confronted. My reference was about the fantastic idea that we should ferret out sin in ourselves and others. The traditional SDA message is, CLEAN UP YOUR LIFE or suffer the consequences in the judgment. This is not our function, but that of the HS. All we can do is introduce others to the God we worship. The HS has to take it from there.

don · 01-08-10 7:24 pm

another issue: why would a loving God let the devil change how the animals eat...changed from eating veggies, to killing each other? Where in the Bible does it say that the "devil changed how the animals eat"? The Bible clearly teaches a vegetarian beginning before sin and a vegetarian ending after all is made new. It does not explain how? No should we attempt such an explanation, IMO. The world we know, the only world we know, is that of the violent life-death cycle. .

elaine · 01-08-10 7:28 pm

If we aren't to police the world, shouldn't the administration of the SDA church "police" its representatives: "}The Ugandan government is considering a bill which states that a person who "commits the offence of homosexuality. . .shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life." In addition, the bill states "a person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death." In the context, aggravated homosexuality includes "serial offender." The Ugandan bill also extends existing laws to make it illegal to promote homosexuality by talking or writing about it, and threatens imprisonment to those who do not reveal the identities of homosexuals. According to a report by Uganda's New Vision, Seventh Day Adventist’s John Kakembo noted that homosexuality has been in Uganda since the 19960s. He called on Parliament to quickly enact the Bill into law, so as to curb the vice (sic).} John Kakembo is the president (executive director) of the Uganda Union Mission. According to this transcript, during a recent meeting between religious leaders and Ugandan government officials John Kakembo shared his "discomfort" with the death penalty aspect, but provided attendees with the 1999 official church statement on homosexuality justifying his support for the bill. Elder Kakembo then said, "Seventh-day Adventists don’t recognize homosexual unions. Foreigners running a gymnastic company victimized young boys and I was almost a victim. Thank god I escaped. The actions of these people are predatory. . . ." In addition to making the Ugandan papers with his Adventist support for this bill criminalizing gays and lesbians, sites like Box Turtle Bulletin in the U.S. have picked up the story and asked, "what does the Seventh Day Adventist Church parent denomination in America have to say about this?" This is interesting in light of Adventist World's report that John Kakembo and John Graz, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director at the General Conference attended a conference on ecumenism and religious understanding. In the report on the conference, William Johnsson notes that "for some 80 years the Working Policy of our church has stated. . .Where possible, we make common cause in endeavors such as religious liberty and aid to the needy." As the New York Times reports, this common cause legislation grew out of recent visits by conservative evangelicals to Uganda. But these three men, including a self-described "ex-gay" who leads an "orientation change" ministry, one from Exodus International, and another, Scott Lively, wrote 7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child, are so divorced from the Christian mainstream that even Rick Warren has distanced himself from this legislation. He called it, "unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals." It appears that the close relationship between many politicians in Uganda and these conservative Christians led to this theology-driven legislation. Given this attempt to mix church and state, it is particularly troubling that the highest ranking Adventist leader in Uganda would support this law. Furthermore, the law states that, Where the offender is a corporate body or a business or an association or a non-governmental organization, on conviction its certificate of registration shall be cancelled and the director or proprietor or promoter shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years. Thus, if, as has happened in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a church administrator turns out to be gay, John Kakembo's support for this bill could actually threaten the work of the church in Uganda. Given the parameters outlined in the Working Policy of the church, John Kakembo's common cause on the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 lies outside our religious liberty principles, breaks church policy, and is opposite the goal of following Christ in helping, not jailing, the least of these.

don · 01-09-10 8:53 am

Here is the source for the news item provided by Elaine: <a href="http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/01/07/ugandan_union_president_supports_antigay_bill" target=_top>http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/01/07/ug andan_union_president_supports_antigay_bill</a>

don · 01-09-10 9:09 am

Elaine wrote: If we aren't to police the world, shouldn't the administration of the SDA church "police" its representatives: Here is an official SDA response to the news item above:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In response to this story, Ugandan Union President Supports Anti-Gay Bill, Spectrum received the following statement this morning<blockquote>Statement from the Communication Department of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists "Church leadership noted with concern some statements reportedly made by the Uganda Union Mission Executive Director in connection with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill under consideration in Uganda. These views do not reflect the values of the Church as expressed in published statements on same sex conduct." "Seventh-day Adventists continue to affirm the equal dignity and rights of every person as articulated in the relevant international human rights declarations and Covenants." --Rajmund Dabrowski, Communication Director</blockquote><a href="http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/01/08/statement_communication_department_general_conference_seventhday_adventists" target=_top>http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/01/08/statem ent_communication_department_general_conference_se venthday_adventists</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Observations Have the Adventist Church leaders sought to rein in this SDA leader in Uganda? If they are wise, a private dialogue has already taken place with John Kakembo. This communication through East-Central Africa Division is likely taking place on an ongoing basis. In the past, the church has shown strong will in facing perceived problems, eg. their dealing with Des Ford. They can act when they choose to. Of course, most of us are unaware of any behind the scenes dialogue, or actions. Spectrum is to be commended for addressing this matter to the wider audience of Adventists. (Message edited by Don on January 09, 2010)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 01-05-10 11:47 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#52 01-06-10 5:04 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#53 01-06-10 1:19 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#54 01-06-10 3:29 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#55 01-06-10 9:10 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#56 01-07-10 7:15 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#57 01-07-10 7:56 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#58 01-07-10 9:30 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#59 01-07-10 10:13 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#60 01-07-10 12:01 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#61 01-07-10 4:36 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#62 01-07-10 9:24 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#63 01-07-10 10:09 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#64 01-08-10 8:03 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#65 01-08-10 8:55 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#66 01-08-10 10:23 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#67 01-08-10 1:42 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#68 01-08-10 4:23 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#69 01-08-10 5:36 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#70 01-08-10 6:56 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#71 01-08-10 7:05 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#72 01-08-10 7:24 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#73 01-08-10 7:28 pm

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#74 01-09-10 8:53 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

#75 01-09-10 9:09 am

Re: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?"

Board footer