Hi Alex!
Is this video a spoof of the religious right or the real thing?
Dave

I do not believe "the Catholic Church's support for "a given piece of legislation should sway the Adventist mind one waqy or another. Nevertheless, I do believe Prop. 8 does compares unfavorably to the ideologies driving a future National Sunday Law, to the embarassment of the very wings of the Adventist Church endorsing it:

http://sda2rc.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-sunday.html

I am glad Adventists are supporting Prop. 8 however; I certainly do.

Dave, it is the real thing off the official site for Prop. 8.

Hugo, I like what you wrote on your blog: "many of the same arguments used by NARLA in that article could easily be used to defend a national Sunday law framed in secular language."

I hope folks click over and read your short example.

Wow--I can see why you were confused, Dave--that video looks like it should be a spoof. Just the narrator's voice made me think it was overtly over-the-top at first. I'm afraid it's not though. I find it disturbing that the Adventists for 8 website seems to be so closely tied to the same religious right that has long been promoting programs that would undermine our traditional church/state separation. I do hope people read up on the actual cases behind the scare tactics--it's really not anything like what the ads would like us to believe.

From today's LA Times:

Yes: $25 million; No: $15.75 million.

This is leading to the growing imbalance in the TV ad war, the reason for the apparent shift toward passing Prop. 8, according to recent polls.

Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on 8. . .said his forces are being outspent in part because of a surge in contributions from Mormon Church members.

"I don't think we have ever seen a single religion in the state . . . so significantly participate in one political campaign," Smith said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage8-2008oc...

I experience the above video as ignorant and repulsive demagoguery that SDAs can appreciate only if they know nothing about our community of faith.

Martha Nussbaum's Lecture on "Equality of Conscience: Roger Williams and the Roots of a Constitutional Tradition" is much more appropriate, in my view. It is at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oir5YC3NW8.

The entire lecture is 58 minutes long. The first 42 are background information about the life and thought of Roger Williams.

At about minute 43 or 44 she starts to outline his religious political philosophy and how in some respects it differs from the "strict separation" model.

She starts to summarize everything at minute 52 or 53.

I think that this is as good as the first video is bad. Thanks!

Dave

The SDA interest in religious liberty has always seemed very narrow to me, mostly confined to assuring Sabbath priviliges for Adventists.

Throughout SDA history, there has been little concern for religious liberty and free speach as a principle. Before Glacier View, Richard Hamill told Christianity Today or Newsweek (I forget which) that the Adventist church had a history of dealing gently with its creative thinkers. I'm sure he was hoping that that might happen, but the church's first instinct has always been to resort to authoritarian measures to stop free speech in a misguided attempt to preserve orthodoxy.

Dyre Dyresen, an Andrews University administrator, told me how embarrassed he he had been he returned to his native Norway around 1957 to cover, for Liberty Magazine, the Norwegian parliament's debate whether to amend the Norwegian constitution, which still banned Jesuits from entering the kingdom of Norway (the ban against Jews had been removed 100 years earlier). He was embarrassed, because he discovered that the SDA church had petitioned the parliament NOT to remove this piece of bigotry from the constitution. When I would bring up the subject in Norway late on, church leaders still defended that stand.

Another example. In the 1970s the General Conference, under the leadership of Neal Wilson and Alf Lohne (another countryman) established contacts with the Soviet authorities in order obtain privileges for the state-endorsed SDA church, which had been emasculated by the communists (non-combatant status not granted, sabbath as day off not granted, evangelism not allowed, ministers reporting to KGB, etc). Some progress was apparently achieved, such as allowing a Soviet Adventist delegation to go to the Vienna GC session), but altogether very modest results followed.

In 1979 I had begun to take an interest in the fate of the underground Adventists in the Soviet Union, those who viewed the official church as a fatally compromised state church. Their leader, Vladimir Sholkov, died in 1978. This was a heroic character who had spent altogether 27 years in the Gulag for having refused the compromises offered by the Soviet leaders in the 1920s. He had written numerous works that circulated as zamisdat, illegal and privately printed or copied manuscripts.

At the time I was the editor of the Norwegian Signs of the Times magazine, and in the spring of 1979, before going on vacation to the US, I left a finished magazine ready for the printshop. It was an issue dedicated to the Christians of the Soviet Union, including an article about Sholkov, whose death had been widely reported in the Western media (but not in the SDA press-which in fact had been instructed to deny any knowledge of the man). The front page was a photo of Red Square.

When I returned from the States that summer, I was handed a magazine that was completely different from the one I had left. The front page had been replaced. The article about Sholkov had been removed and an interview with a Norwegian organization working to assist Christians behind the Iron Curtain had also been tossed out. What had happened?

Alf Lohne, General Conference vice president, had crossed my path in the other direction, and when the magazine had been brought to his attention while visiting the publishing house, he instructed the staff to do to the magazine what the Soviets had done to Russian SDA church.

All too often the SDA church has been all about promoting its own perceived interests, and principles be damned.

Aage, what a sad and disillusioning story you tell. But I'm afraid this is not an isolated example, as evidenced in the current religious liberty/gay marriage debate. Unfortunately, Adventists are just fallible humans like everyone else.

Here's another alternative for thinking about the issues.

California Council of Churches
http://www.calchurches.org/

The California Council of Churches represents 4,000 congregations throughout California.

The have a downloadable voters guide on _all_ the Propositions, with helpful explanations of the issues.

-- Tim

Speaking of thinking about the issues, my cartoon on this issue was apparently too hot for publication. A few angry comments later, and the cartoon doesn't get to see the light of day.

I don't think it's THAT bad. Is it?

Alex, I loved it! Apparently it was too "close" to reality (isn't that what cartoons are supposed to do?) for comfort. Ah--censorship! On Spectrum?? How safe are we who merely verbally spar?

Hey, I'm Adventist Caric..., not Alex

:D :] :P

I didn't try pawning it off on Spectrum. Hey Spectrum, you guys want it? Sometimes making waves only causes seasickness, and that's not much fun for anybody.

I understand the concern and argument on both sides. Now lets enter reality, business/commerce, that's me, I want the right to hire or fire whom I choose. And I want the right to refuse business or services to whom I choose, right now at this very moment, there is a wedding photographer that refused to photograph a gay wedding in San Diego, and is being sued.... Our church rents out the church and facility for weddings, so what happens when we refuse to rent it to a gay couple? How about the limo driver?? It goes on and on.... you better believe its about freedom!! Is that the world you liberals want to live in???

Sam, good question. That is another case that the Church State Council has been using.

The Alliance Defense Fund, the Religious Right's legal arm has been hyping this case without sharing an essential detail.

The women who owns the photography shop could have refused for any reason, but instead of moving on, she sent an email to the lesbian couple just trying to find a photographer detailing why she thinks that they are sinners and does not approve of their identity.

The woman was not forced against her will to take their picture, but she was fined for breaking the state's law that protects people from being refused over religion, gender, race - just like what used to happen during segregation. The exception to this Civil Rights Law is actually that denominations get to discriminate in hiring according to their conscience. This is existing law and same-sex marriage won't change that. It looks like businesses are fine as long as they don't go out of their way to personalize the process of refusing service.

Here's the Photo Business Blog discussing this case.

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/02/rights-yours-mine-and-the...

Churches are welcome to "discriminate" now and say who can and can't use their facilities. (For example, I was denied the right to use a church I wanted to get marry in because I was an Adventist not an Episcopalian.) This right won't change at all if Prop 8 does not pass.

The Supreme Court ruling specifically says that churches and pastors will maintain their rights--"no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

You can read the full opinion here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi

Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By SHARON OTTERMAN (NYTimes, 10 Oct.)

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, reversing a lower court decision that had concluded that the civil unions legalized in the state three years ago had offered the same rights and benefits as marriage.

With the 4-to-3 ruling, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. California legalized gay marriage in May 2008, and Massachusetts in 2004.

“Today is really a great day for equality in Connecticut,” said Bennett Klein, senior lawyer at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which argued the case before the Supreme Court. “Today’s decision really fulfills the hopes and dreams of gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut to live as full and equal citizens.”

In his majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that the court found that the “segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm,” in light of “the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody.”

The court also found that “the state had failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.”

Well you guys finally spurred me to write on this issue.
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2008/10/same-sex-marriage-and-roman-empire.h...

Sam Said: "I want the right to hire or fire whom I choose. And I want the right to refuse business or services to whom I choose... Is that the world you liberals want to live in???"

There's a flip side to your argument against anti-discrimination laws Sam in that they also protect you and me as consumers from being discriminated against based on our religion (among other things).

But to answer your question directly, yes, this is the world that "us liberals" want - one in which anyone (including you and me) can go to the store, restaurant, or hotel and know we'll not be turned away based on our religious beliefs or geographical heritage.

Don't you want to live in that kind of world too?

I am an Adventist.

I supported prop. 8.

I didn't get the Adventists who didn't!

It is about Religious Freedom...but unless it's a National Sunday Law it's unfortunate SDA's don't know their freedoms are being taken away even if it came up and punched them in the face.

Dannie

I'm an Adventist citizen of another country where over eighty percent of the population is Catholic. There divorce is illegal and terminating pregnancies for reasons other than when a mother's life may be risk is subject for criminal prosecution. Needless to say, recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships is way, way far from the horizon.

So far in regard to marriage and abortion, Adventist official teachings seem fully in line with the ruling Catholic majority's thinking. Interestingly enough, there has been some serious conversation among a significant minority of the Catholic intelligentsia towards relaxing regulations, for the purpose of changing the conservative status quo.

Anyways, briefly, in case propositions in regard to divorce and abortion were placed before my country's legislature (instead of a grassroots ballot initiative for a referendum, a practice that is still virtually unheard of in a post-colonial democracy that ironically was patterned after the U.S.A.), would our Adventist denomination view such liberalizing movement as a threat to our church members' Religious Liberty? Just wondering.

Let's criminalize divorce now.
(Oh dear, Reinach has been divorced twice. What to do?)

Let's criminalize Sunday keeping.

Let's criminalize the eating of unclean meat.

Let's criminalize teaching the OT because it teaches our children about polygamy.

Right on, John!

It gets quite tiring to constantly read about the biblical ideal (read OT laws) that should be followed today. That being the case, we would have polygamy (even God gave instructions not to favor one wife over another); slavery (again God gave commands on treatment of slaves); adultery (any stonings in the U.S. lately?) and many more which are deemed outdated by rules and criteria that no one can explain.

Why, for example, does the SDA church no longer disfellowship a married couple who divorce and remarry other partners as they once did? Why is the Sabbath command so ridiculously construed to "approve" certain work and condemn others? Where are the rules for such decisions to be found and were they made by a committee?

Such abuse of the Bible has always been around and will continue as long as there are people who use it as a wedge or hammer or pitchfork for other people. To be free from this, one must sever relations with such an autocratic and religious institution to enjoy the freedom Christ meant for us that Paul so eloquently expains.

Sunday law regulates worship to God. My right to serve my God is taken away.

Prop 8 regulates what marriage is, an institution of God. Defending this is not an issue of homosexual rights.

Sin is not separation from God. God is our source of morality--all that is good. What God has condemned he has condemned for a good reason, because it destroys.

Do we really want to legitimize behaviors that destroy? No. But when it comes to homosexuality, some have decided this is one behavior that will be acceptable.

The truth is that homosexuality is an abomination to God and to let an abomination of God be called marriage is a desecration of a holy institution. So in essence, homosexuals attempting to take marriage as their own infringe on my faith and what God has given to me.

Shane...

I'm gay!

1. I am a whole and healthy human being. And you are not in a position to tell me otherwise. Sorry, Shane. I'm not destroyed, contrary to you "opinion".

2. I am not broken.

3. I am not separated from God. Judge not, Shane!

4. I have learned from the Bible that God loves and accepts me. Wise Adventist administrators, editors, pastors and leaders have befriended me and helped to assure me of this. I cannot name their names for fear of the damage you might try to do to them. But many of these people are prominent.

5. I am whole and informed enough to know that no one "owns" marriage. You don't! I don't. I can't hurt your marriage. And no one "owns" marriage.

Why do you feel so threatened? Thou doest protest so loudly. It makes me wonder why.

Take time to become acquainted with the Adventists who are gay and still go to church every Sabbath in spite of the ugliness from people like you. Listen to them as Jesus listened to those who in His day who were considered "broken".

Your unkind, "quick-to-judge" words here made me weep. They hurt the core of my soul.

On the positive side, I know you do not represent all of Adventism. Last Sabbath I was visiting at a large, prominent, traditional Adventist church out of state. I attended reluctantly for fear of judgmental people like you. But I went. After church the pastor made it a point to greet me. He knows I'm gay. Not only did he shake my hand. He hugged me! Then he invited me to "be on the platform" when I visit his church again over Christmas. I asked him if I was really "permitted" to do that and he said, "of course you are".

What a beautiful man of God. He melted my heart. He gave me hope and offered me the extravagant welcome of my God and Father.

Shane, I urge you to spend some time thinking about whether that pastor's approach is more Christlike or whether your approach is! WWJD! What would Jesus do?

John

WDJD?
What did Jesus do?
Go and sin no more.
Thats not hate speech. Thats what he said.
For people of faith, the only question is if it is a sin or not according to scripture.
Some have determined that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Some just take the texts at their word.
In fact after hearing all the arguements made over the last 6 months I personally would say, Go get Warraiged. Come up with your own unique name to discribe what you want. No problem. I just had the idea to turn the M upside down because its apropo.
You want to have a loving relationship with a same sex partner, go ahead. Just dont lay with another man in the same bed and you wont be crossing the biblical line.
If you do want to, then what do you really expect me/us anyone to do?
Tell you its ok? That its just a suggestion? Who are we to give rulings on what is clearly written? You cant expect our blessing. And when you dont get it, it doesnt mean we are homophobes and haters no matter how Alex likes to frame it.
Who are you to ask or expect someone to violate their conscience?

John,

>1. I am a whole and healthy human being. And you are not in a position to tell me otherwise. Sorry, Shane. I'm not destroyed, contrary to you "opinion".

I don't recall talking about health issues. No, you're not destroyed. Not anymore than I am. We're both sinners.

>Sorry, Shane. I'm not destroyed, contrary to you "opinion".

I said nothing about you being destroyed. My statement about homosexuality being condemned by God is not my opinion; it's what God said.

>2. I am not broken.

We're all broken.

>3. I am not separated from God. Judge not, Shane!

When we harbor sin in our lives we do begin to separate ourselves from God. The Bible says so and I have personally experienced it. Please don't make this into a better than thou issue. I'm not judging you or any homosexual. God's made that judgment, not me. It's not any different than if we were talking about fornication and I was relating what God says about fornicating. Sin is sin. Homosexuality, fornication, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting. Many of us has committed at least one of these, but when we do sin we have an advocate who is ready to forgive us and change us when we ask him.

>I have learned from the Bible that God loves and accepts me.

God loves us all! I've done some terrible things in my life. I've asked forgiveness and God has forgiven me; however I still live with some of the consequences. God loved me through all that stuff. He loved me. Did he like what I was doing? No, but he loved me.

Of course God accepts you. God does not accept homosexuality.

> I am whole and informed enough to know that no one "owns" marriage. You don't! I don't. I can't hurt your marriage. And no one "owns" marriage.

God owns marriage. He created. We are not our own either because we have been bought with a price.

My mother is homosexual. She knows I love her very much, but she also knows I don't approve of her lifestyle and she knows why. Just because she's homosexual doesn't mean I love her any less.

I'm not perfect, but I try my best to treat her as Christ would. Christ loved everyone, but he didn't except their sin. He encouraged them to change, to go and sin no more. I attempt to that in my life.

Thoughts:

How did Christ relate to those who were in sin and did not think they were?

I believe that gay or straight, people are born with it. It's in the gene, not by a choice. Anyone should enjoy the basic right of being able to marry the one he/she loves. And that is a civil right. This should never have been an issue for debating. I am very concerned that since the 80's, it appears that our younger SDA church members have gone so far to the right, many church members, especially those 50 and under, seems to have the same agenda as the Religious Right . . .

Rachel:

The "Religious Right" are those who take the biblical stance that homosexuality is condemned?

The Bible says nothing about not being able to overcome any particular sin. There is no plan to save those who say they can't change.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Genetics, environment, prenatal, it doesn't matter to God. There is hope for us all. If I was born with a tendency toward alcohol I can still over come through the power of Christ. Notice what Paul says in verse 11: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).

No where in scripture does it say there are certain sins that are impossible for God to take out of our lives.

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." 1 Cor. 10:13

Why are we so keen on preaching a message: you can't change, you can't change! Where is the hope of the gospel? What happened to the sacrifice Christ made for us all?

We are showing a "form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Tim 3:5

We're supposed to be giving hope to the world, not a message of doom. NO ONE is stuck in their sin!

Joselito,

Your statement dated 05 November 2008 at 7:25 surprised me a great deal. This is what you said: “So far in regard to marriage and abortion, Adventist official teachings seem fully in line with the ruling Catholic majority's thinking.” You were probably referring to your local Adventist community instead of the official General Conference position on abortion.

You probably are aware that there is an official SDA document entitled “Guidelines on Abortion” where all kinds abortion are justified, including incest, rape, when the pregnant female is as minor, and even when the pregnancy has an adverse impact on the mental condition on the pregnant woman. Some leading Adventists even go so far as to insist that a baby has no right to life until it has taken its first breath.

One respectable Adventist physician told me that he would have had no problem providing his abortion services to Mary, the mother of Jesus; and another former Adventist, a graduate from Loma Linda University, owns over twenty abortion clinics in California. When asked whether he has a moral problem with being engaged in the killing of innocent babies, he responded: “If I were to stop doing this, someone else will do it.”

A few years ago, a survey revealed that five Adventist hospitals were offering elective abortion services to their patients. My question is: How do you reconcile all this with our claim to be the “Remnant Church of God which keeps God Commandments”? Doesn’t the Bible condemn the shedding of innocent blood? Is there any other group of human beings more innocent than the unborn?

In the event this topic is of interest to you, I suggest you read my doctoral dissertation entitled: “From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitudes Towards Abortion.” It is online, and the Internet link is: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html

John,

On 05 November 2008 at 7:35 you suggested: “Let's criminalize divorce now.” I say, “Amen,” let’s do it. And let’s outlaw adultery, fornication, and serial monogamy as well. They are a curse for the family institution and the welfare of our society.

Rachel,

I agree with the statement you made on 06 November 2008 at 6:15. Many homosexuals were born with a predilection for the same gender. This does not mean, though, they should be entitled to marriage. Marriage is for those who were born with a normal sexual preference. It is unscientific to suggest that gays have normal sexual desires.

If you apply a bell curve to the general population, you will discover that homosexuals will be several standards deviation from normality. Scientific observation tells us that homosexuality is a deviant form of sexuality. They deviate from what is normal. Elevating homosexuality to normality will confuse those children born with normal sexual inclinations.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic,

The concept of "normal" is an illusion. People are outside of "normal" in all kinds of features. Height, weight, skin color, intelligence, artistic ability, etc. This does not mean that normal is good or bad. I really like when I am several standard deviations above the center of the bell curve when I take a test.

Same sex sexuality is completely natural and seen all over the animal kingdom as a natural variation of sexual orientation. Humans are animals after all.

Carlitas:

I disagree with your assertion that homosexuality is natural based on incidents in the animal kindom. I have posted a partial essay by Richard Umbers, who lectures in philosophy in Sydney.

"Homo sapiens is an animal, but not merely an animal. We have a lot in common with parasitic worms, but there are some differences, too. Our bodily nature is subject to intellectual direction. A human being unites the intellectual and the corporeal, what is rational and what is animal. We get a distorted picture of man when we focus on one aspect to the exclusion of the other. They can never be separated.

Interpersonal relations which are truly human cannot be reduced to physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Anyone who chooses to behave in that way is rightly called an animal. When he acts like a sex-obsessed parasitic worm, he becomes less than human. This is the fallacy underpinning the Norwegian exhibition. Its logic can be expressed as follows:

Homosexual behaviour is observable in animals.
Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
Man is an animal and therefore homosexuality is in accordance with human nature.

Now try extending this argument to other aspects of human life. Animals don't take care of the elderly -- should that lead us to close down nursing homes? Cannibalism can be observed among animals -- should we sell unwanted babies as sausage filling? Most people would say that we shouldn't. Humans are different.

And let's take a closer look at the word "unnatural". Are homosexual acts an intrinsic part of an animal’s nature? The Museum’s zoologists are prepared to stick their neck out and say they are, at least for giraffes. The reasons why male giraffes behave this way are not well understood, but they are certainly not the fruit of conscious, rational decisions. The behaviour of animals is largely governed by stimuli and instinct; they lack the human linguistic ability to be able to "talk through" their emotions. But humans can keep their desires in check and even train them into virtues.

Amongst animals, stimuli can lead to unusual behaviour. Tomcats kill their kittens after receiving “mixed signals”. The hunting instinct is so strong and so hard to switch off that dismemberment and even snacking on their own kittens may ensue. Similarly, the strength of the sexual instinct leads to some quite odd behaviour if it does not have a normal outlet. However zoologists may decide to classify such stray behaviour in animals, human reaction to sexual stimuli involves a good deal of channelling and self-control.

Amongst animals, sex can serve a purpose other than reproduction, such as diffusing tension in social situations. Humans accomplish the same thing with handshakes and smiles. If they were to behave like bonobos in their workplace, there would be a torrent of sexual harassment suits. According to some zoologist, dolphins pack rape. Is that "Against Nature?" Not for dolphins maybe, but it sure is for rational beings.

Due to our rational nature comparisons with non-rational animals collapse at the level of interpersonal relationships. Even at the level of biology, human rationality must be taken into consideration. Humans choose to follow hormonally fuelled drives; sheep have no choice about it. Martina Navratilova and her Norwegian fellow travellers are on shaky philosophical ground if they want to use animals as human role models."

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_gay_old_time_in_the_animal_ki...

The thing to keep in mind is that the Pacific Union Conference officially requested that the Church State Council take a neutral position on Prop 8. The Church State Council went ahead and took an active stance and deliberately published misinformation knowing that it was false and convinced people who would otherwise have voted against Prop 8 to vote for Prop 8 using this method.

The Church State Council acted outside its limited authority and still continues to publish misinformation on its web page.

Frank:

Where did you get the information the Pacific Union Conference officially requested that the Church State Council take a neutral position on Prop 8?

Carlitas,

Did you notice that your argument posted on 06 November 2008 at 6:33 breaks down if you were scoring several standard deviations at the other end of the bell curve? Would you insist that someone scoring 70 on an IQ tests is as desirable as someone scoring 130? Would you suggest that morons who are refused admission to a university are being unfairly discriminated against?

Humans are not merely animals. They were created in God’s image; animals were not! And don’t forget that the Declaration of Independence makes reference to human being as “created equal;” and that even our money bears the following inscription: “In God we trust.” We are not the result of evolutionary forces, but rather of special creation.

Frank,

I cannot agree with the argument you exhibited in your 06 November 2008 at 9:02 posting. When dealing with morality, there is no neutrality. You cannot say: “I am neutral regarding stealing, killing, or perjuring myself.” Jesus exemplified this principle when he stated: “He who is not with me, is against me; and he who does not gather with me scatters.”

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums