Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

bob_2 · 09-22-09 9:36 pm

Recently, Ryan Bell, Pastor of West Hollywood SDA Church reviewed these remarks by Jan Paulsen, President of the SDA World Church: <a href="http://www.adventistworld.org/article.php?id=612" target=_top>http://www.adventistworld.org/article.php?id=612</a> He labelled his review, "Adventism I can believe in." I asked in the first post how he reconciled that statement in his headline with his participation in this YouTube piece on Prop 8. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0" target=_top>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0</a> Since that question, Spectrum has again blocked me from participating in discussion on their board. I would ask, are Paulsen's remarks rhetoric to Pastor Bell, because President Paulsen would certainly not agree with his position on Gay Marriage. Does Pastor Bell consider Paulsen to have liberalized his position to his about Homosexuality and Religious liberty?? Jan Paulsen recently took a firm stand on La Sierra teaching Evolution. How about that position Pastor Bell. Are we to loosen that standard or do you want to pick and choose what you as an Adventist Pastor agrees or disagrees with Paulsen on? That's OK Alexander Carpenter, I know you are behind this block. It does not surprise me, but I would have thought better of Chuck Scriven to allow you to do it.

elaine · 09-22-09 10:48 pm

You know their rules. If you want to play in their sandbox you obey their rules. Simple. We have rules here. It is always up to the forum moderator to decide who can post--and there's usually a good reason. Maybe you don't understand, but as long as they do, it's their sand box.

bob_2 · 09-22-09 11:42 pm

Elaine, the question isn't about whose sandbox it is, but whether the questions asked are too sensitive for guys like Bell, Carpenter, Dwyer and Scriven. They want openness in the church until it offends there sensitivities. Alex ought to be removed from his role there.

elaine · 09-23-09 9:04 am

Go back to my first statement: the forum moderator(s) make the decisions. They have allowed numerous ex-SDAs to post, but a few people (like you?) have been ejected. Some were very uncivil, coarse and rude. If they told you why you were being rejected, do you care to put it here for use to judge? It is not what is said, but the manner and ad hominem arguments are usually deleted if too strong. I don't know what you posted, but having been a reader and contributor for a long time, no one has questioned by "openness."

bob_2 · 09-23-09 9:13 am

No courtesy shown, telling me why. Alex Carpenter usually doesn't tell you why. Probably doesn't want to be quoted. As far aa your last point, I am surprised, because your remarks have been a lot more caustic than anything I said. I think Ryan Bell is big enough to speak for himself.

john8verse32 · 09-23-09 10:14 am

give us your post that you think got you canned... maybe we can suggest why..... I'm surprised that the controversy was framed as religious liberty!!! what if my religion tells me that I should sacrifice my first born.... you know, like God told olde Abe... or to have multiple wives, like Abe and most of the patriarchs did.... like the LDS believe... should all that also be allowed as "religious liberty"?????? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1889.jpg" alt="">

bob_2 · 09-23-09 1:21 pm

My original post above is how it was put to Ryan Bell and hijacked by Alexander Carpenter. Carpenter actually deleted, without notice to my email, which you have to give to post even under a pseudo, two posts that were asking Bell further questions. I have invited Pastor Bell here to answer the question posed. Will he show??? I have mentioned numorous times either here or on Spectrum, that if we are trying to build a secular civil society, I have no problem as long as others aren't hurt or hindered in their pursuit of happiness and public health is not endangered if homosexuality is allowed, or for that matter evolution is "taught" in our SDA schools, as long as the student, is lead by the SDA professor back to what SDAs believe, since it is an SDA education. To teach otherwise IS risking their jobs, and JUSTIFIABLY so. As far as civil contracts for homosexuals, it is just that a civil matter not religious rights. In the YOUTUBE piece Ryan Bell confuses this issue. He likes the sermon given by Paulsen, because it is one of those general rhetorical speeches, that Bell can draw in all his liberal views including his civil views on homosexual rights. Religious liberty is not the issue, because he states he would protect churches from being forced to marry and I assume make members. Do we want homosexuals in the pew, sure, how else can they learn the truth of salvation and it's formula, or at least one of the ways if the preaching is Biblical. (Romans 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?) Professor Chartier of La Sierra insults our intelligence by comparing our unique keeping of the Sabbath, and being minorities in that regard, to justifying a minority position of homosexual marriage because it is a minority position. That is comparable to comparing the Civil Rights Black Movement to Homosexuality rights, which a lot of blacks are insulted with the comparison. We as SDAs should be just as insulted comparing our minority Sabbath position to homosexual rights, just because it is a minority position. Mr. Chartier there is such a thing as Religious Truth, even if you are a Business Teacher.

john8verse32 · 09-24-09 11:54 am

I wonder if I'll be bounced next for this!!!! <a href="http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/09/07/god_good#comment-35220#comment-35220" target=_top>http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/09/07/go d_good#comment-35220#comment-35220</a>

bob_2 · 09-24-09 1:31 pm

Sorry Alfke, you'll have to copy and paste if you want my opinion, at least until I get to my computer geek.

bob_2 · 10-12-09 9:23 pm

Check out this response I gave to Ryan Bell on <a href="http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/09/21/adventism_i_can_believe" target=_top>http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/09/21/ad ventism_i_can_believe</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:gwalter said: (I'm a little confused as to why people can't correlate this post with your stance on Prop8? Recognizing theology is one thing, accepting sinners into the fold is quite another. We don't shun the prideful, the hateful, or the others - why are we shunning homosexuals?) The point gwalter is, Homosexuality is not a Religious Right as so many LSU and LLU faculty and now Senior Pastor at LSU point out in the Prop 8 YouTube piece. One could argue maybe a "Civil Right" to keep peace in a secular society, but to argue for church membership with doctrine against Homosexuality is diluting the Bible message and opens the door for every "comfortable" sin that someone wants to argue is genetically based or a condition one is born with that can not be overcome with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and brings into question the "form of godliness but denying it's power" in the SDA church. Look at the Evolutionary doctrine that LSU wants to loosen up on. Go Common Ancestry and Salvation is done away with. Adaption is used in God's creation as a fact, but to extrapolate it using flawed dating mechanisms that have proven faulty and hoax producing only makes LSU a laughing stock. My additional point is, Ryan Bell, IMO, accepts the rhetorical sermon offer in Geneva by Paulsen, because just about anything can be fit into that sermon as a belief. Ryan has a population he caters to, but to stand for something, empowerment of the Holy Spirit, appears to be lacking in his position in the YouTube piece, and saying, it Paulsen really is this liberal I could accept that, says volumns of Bell ministry. Nothing personal, hope I don't get blocked again for saying what is on my heart. Posted by: Rondo (not verified) | 12 October 2009 at 6:35 reply.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

bob_2 · 10-12-09 9:26 pm

Yes, Elaine, I am Rondo, if you haven't guessed by now. Spectrum knows because they force you to give them your email to post. Mine is <a href="mailto:bsands88@charter.net">bsands88@charter.net</a>. They know, at least this time they didn't block me, but I noticed that even you, and Ryan Bell himself aren't brave enough to respond to my point.

don · 10-13-09 7:01 am

Go Common Ancestry and Salvation is done away with. I agree with this concern. This marks one of the points where historical-grammatical (literal) Biblical theology and "deep time" science meet, of necessity. Adaption is used in God's creation as a fact, Again, I agree. I will go somewhat further and use the term "evolution" without meaning "common ancestry". but to extrapolate it using flawed dating mechanisms that have proven faulty and hoax producing It seems that the dating mechanisms are really quite reliable for scientific inquiry. I think Biblical theology should avoid denouncing these scientific dating mechanisms. It is better to live in an unexplained world than to denounce reasonable methods for secular inquiry. only makes LSU a laughing stock. I don't think this is happening. Greer et al. seem to reflect the thinking of the other evolutionary biologists in secular institutions. Well thought out evolutionary science and radiometric dating is by no means a laughing stock in the scientific world. But, an Adventist institution cannot fulfil its historic mission if it affirms a "common ancestry". Two other principles come into play:<ol><li>Adventism seeks to follow truth whereever it should lead... AND <LI>Ellen White advocated a corporate unity in the decision to accept new "light". An individual with new "light" must be patient with the body and its delayed acceptance of the "truth". So, professors such as Greer, if they want to teach in our universities should acknowledge the present Adventist stance and not cross it. If they present as an Adventist position something that isn't, they are out of step with the organization. If they present challenging thoughts, I am all in favor of that. If they present the "deep time" common ancestry evolutionary mindset as their own, they are in the wrong institution.</li></ol> (Message edited by Don on October 13, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-13-09 8:35 am

Two other principles seem to create discord while they come into play: 1. Adventism seeks to follow truth whereever it should lead... AND 2. ... If they present the "deep time" common ancestry evolutionary mindset as their own, they are in the wrong institution. so which is it? new light and truth are what we seek? or the old ways are the best ways, and God, the scientifically uneducated and the hiredarky require us to relegate new ways to the high way? on pain of job dismemberment?

don · 10-13-09 10:12 am

so which is it? new light and truth are what we seek? or the old ways are the best ways, I recall reading Cottrell's notes on the Glacier View meeting with Des Ford. He reports that Dr. Ford was willing to cease teaching his ideas. The principle that the church moves forward with some kind of consensus seems to have been understood by him. (The administrators dealing with him did not address this offer, as far as I know.) I believe that if the church and its "body politic" understand the concept of moving forward with consensus then more freedom of thought could be encouraged at least around the decision making discussion tables. In other words, if we understand the "forward to consensus" model, our professors will not promote "offensive" concepts to the youth of the body politic. Yet, they will be encouraged to shape the thinking of the church through thought papers, etc. I don't think our church rank and file are ready for such an approach, but maybe we need to teach this concept of unity first before seeking to resolve such a major point of division. We need a full scale debate in our church thought papers such as Ministry and Seminary Studies (without recrimination). Then, eventually it will come before a GC Session. But, until then, it is inappropriate for a professor who speaks for the church (we all do, as teachers) to promote something in the classroom that is so seriously offensive to a large segment of the membership. We did have a series of Faith and Science Conferences with the presentations made available online, but for reasons unannounced, these forward actions have been silenced. .

elaine · 10-13-09 11:25 am

"Truth by Consensus" equals "Truth by Committee." Is that the best way to arrive at "Truth"? IOW, truth is a mutually agreed upon decision made by some committee. Opinions may be consensual; also, decisions made by committee. But to define "Truth" as an agreed-upon decision, prostitutes the definition of Truth. Are you comfortable with this way to define truth?

elaine · 10-13-09 11:27 am

even you, and Ryan Bell himself aren't brave enough to respond to my point. All comments are not worth responding to.

don · 10-13-09 12:53 pm

Is that the best way to arrive at "Truth"? No. It is no way to arrive at "Truth". As an example, Professor Greer has already arrived at his understanding of "deep time" evolution as "truth". I suppose he would like the church to adopt the "truth" as he understands it. But, there is a process, hopefully a consensus process, for the organization. The early Adventists did not accept the Sabbath "truth" immediately. They had to study, discuss and then arrive at the new understanding. The Shut Door doctrine was abandoned in similar fashion; as was the use of pork, tithing, etc. As the X-files proclaimed, "The Truth is out there." Agreeing to that truth is a work of consensus within the SDA organization, or any organization. .

elaine · 10-13-09 2:58 pm

It seems somewhat disingeuous to define "truth" as such, when it really is simply the current position of the church. History has shown that "truth" is a moveable object. There should be a better term: position. Isn't this the preamble to the 27 Fundamentals: It is the current position of the church, but may be changed?

don · 10-13-09 4:43 pm

It is the current position of the church, but may be changed? I am okay with that. But, that "position" is developed by consensus and made church doctrine by a world session vote. Adventists, like other Christians, believe that there is a "truth" of God. History has shown that Church "positions" are a moveable object. For the Christian, Jesus is "Truth"; His statements, His principles, the Word. The Word of God is "Truth". This relates to the closed canon. The canon provides the parameters for "truth". It is viewed as the "Word of God". Thus, we have a basis for "truth". Adventists believe that nature observation (science) yields "truth" as well. There is no scientific canon. The parameters of scientific "truth" are less defined and more defined. Less defined because the understanding of scientific truth develops and modifies. More defined, because the rules for arriving at scientific "truth" are clearly set out. .

elaine · 10-13-09 5:51 pm

While there is no scientific "canon" there are certain definite rules which guides the scientist: they must be falsified and replicated. For those limited to the Bible for their scientific knowledge,speculation, miracles, and other supernatural events are given equal belief. In science, previous understanding may be radically altered when the evidence is overwhelming. That cannot be said by those who rely on the Bible for all their scientific understanding. While the canon is closed, there is no reason to study further unless there are new interpretations and changes that may be made depending on a newer hermeneutic. That this is true, is self-evident in the short period of the Adventist church: it has both changed and evolved, and should never be thought of as having the "Truth" that is unchangeable. Accepting that God is unchangeable, does not imply that man is also. Humans have used their reasoning ability to change their concepts and it is hoped that they will continue to do so. Some move faster than others and it is usually the slowest denominator that tends to constrain all the others. (See women's ordination.)

bob_2 · 10-14-09 3:03 am

Elaine, the "Shut Door" was eliminated as a belief but what changed in the Canon/Bible. Nothing. It was a human error of belief and exigesis. You mix up the Bible and Science. Science is man's observation as far as it goes, eliminating reality created by transcendant sources or miracles produced by God/Jesus. Science should include reality created by transcendant sources, then they would be scientifically accurate. Why eliminate transcendant events from scientific record???

bob_2 · 10-14-09 3:08 am

Elaine, Ryan Bell can believe in the Adventism presented by a single sermon by Paulsen, but I guarantee Bell agrees because of the rhetoric in that sermon and it's liberal open generalization that allows Bell to drive his "Truck" of poor logic through the undefined loopholes of that speech. Have you read how open and general, and nonspecific Paulsen is in that particular speech then look at Bell's position in the YOUTUBE piece on Homosexuality. You can not make sense of the two, you can not correlate the two.

john8verse32 · 10-14-09 10:16 am

Why eliminate transcendant events from scientific record??? ..if by transcendEnt events you mean miracles.... if Jesus walked on the water...science cannot explain that, unless, of course, there was an underwater stone wall only He knew about... and there is no other record than the writings of His followers...which is how Mao seTung nearly entered the Olympic record books with his 80th birthday swim across the Yellow River...as "recorded" by his genuflecting followers. so the event is not able to be scientifically explained nor studied, and the record is not exactly without question. now, if Jesus wanted to prove it all, if He came back today and walked on water, then you would have an event which could be verified. Religion accepts the unbelievable by faith, while science asks for verification. but you already knew this, right?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 09-22-09 9:36 pm

Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#2 09-22-09 10:48 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#3 09-22-09 11:42 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#4 09-23-09 9:04 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#5 09-23-09 9:13 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#6 09-23-09 10:14 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#7 09-23-09 1:21 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#8 09-24-09 11:54 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#9 09-24-09 1:31 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#10 10-12-09 9:23 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#11 10-12-09 9:26 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#12 10-13-09 7:01 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#13 10-13-09 8:35 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#14 10-13-09 10:12 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#15 10-13-09 11:25 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#16 10-13-09 11:27 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#17 10-13-09 12:53 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#18 10-13-09 2:58 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#19 10-13-09 4:43 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#20 10-13-09 5:51 pm

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#21 10-14-09 3:03 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#22 10-14-09 3:08 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

#23 10-14-09 10:16 am

Re: Spectrum, an Open Forum, or Biased

Board footer