Adventist Today on Abortion as a religious freedom

 Now that Adventist Today has blocked me from seeing their comments section on Facebook, I have decided to start writing more articles on the garbage that this organization posts on their website. It is now almost totally political progressivism and precious little Christianity let alone Adventism.

 The recent article Should Women Have Religious Freedom? By John B. Hoehn, MD is a prime example.

It begins with a seriously unintelligent premise that cells live and die. It has nothing to do with anything other than pretending the guy is talking science. That plant and animal cells grow and divide and die throughout the life of the organism is general knowledge and has nothing to do with his subject.

So beginning  where he gets to the meat of his argument Hoehn writes:

Religious Freedom?

If a woman does not agree with the religious doctrine forbidding “any abortion for any reason at any time,” where is her religious freedom? Why should a woman who lives in Washington State have the right to decide which religious teachings on abortion she will accept, but not if she lives in a state such as Alabama, Arkansas, or Oklahoma, where this dogma is enforced by state laws making her and her doctors criminals?

First of all Religious Freedom has a definition.  Religious Freedom is a synonym for Freedom of Religion:

Legal Definition of freedom of religion

: the right especially as guaranteed under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to practice one's religion or exercise one's beliefs without intervention by the government and to be free of the exercise of authority by a church through the government

— see also FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

NOTE: The freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment can be overcome by a showing by the government of a compelling state interest. On this basis, practices used in some religions, such as bigamy, are prohibited despite the First Amendment guarantee.

To be a free exercise of religion tenant it must be a core belief in your religion. I am pretty sure there is no religion that has a core belief in Abortion as a part of their religion. Even the church of Satan does not list Abortion as a part of their religion though they do say this:

Our position is to be self-centered, with ourselves being the most important person (the “God”) of our subjective universe, so we are sometimes said to worship ourselves. Our current High Priest Gilmore calls this the step moving from being an atheist to being an “I-Theist.” https://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-fundamental-beliefs/

 

It is also noteworthy that there are in fact no laws in any states that put forth the law as “any abortion for any reason at any time,” So if someone disagrees with something that no one is saying is that really in any way restricting their religious freedom?

The American people are not where the left is. Americans do not support any abortion for any reason at any time during any pregnancy.

A January 2015 poll found that only 9% of Americans want abortion available to a woman at any time during a pregnancy, and only another 8% want it any time during the first six months. Over 80% of Americans support some kind of restrictions on abortion (25). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-stake-abortion-debate-connie-marshner

The idea that abortion laws are simply religious doctrines is not at all true and as you can see from Hoehn’s article he does not even try to support his gratuitous assertion.

He writes:

The evangelical churches, then, have formed “an image-to-the-beast” when they use state governments to make laws enforcing their religious teaching that all abortion at any time (one day, one gram, three months) is not merely a sorrow or tragedy, but a murder.

As we see it is far from just evangelical churches that believe in restrictions on abortions. That is again simply an assertion from Hoehn without any backing.

He continues:

But why must dissenters be punished by civil penalties by the state? Why are Seventh-day Adventists not all voting to demand freedom from religious persecution in any state by any civil government? Can we be so fixated on some future “Sunday-law” that we are ignoring the ramification of allowing any state government to punish women and their doctors for a religious opinion?

This is where a little knowledge would help Hoehn. States get their power to make laws through the electoral process where they elect representatives to organize the state with laws and regulations.  It is not necessary for you to agree with all laws and regulations. For example, one may feel that they should not pay taxes for whatever reason. You can claim that you are not paying taxes because you disagree with how the money is spent but by our laws and constitutions (Federal and State) you still have to observe those laws. Just saying you have religious freedom does not change the situation. Nor does it mean that there is an unholy alliance. Very clearly those state laws are not religious persecution because there is no religion that says we must practice abortions, no women saying I must have an abortion as part of my religion, and no doctors saying I must perform abortions to fulfill my religious beliefs

There were a few good comments on the Facebook thread aside from the lick spittle’s with their “this is such a great article”. In his reply to one comment Hoehn writes:

Robert Broyles A moral issue proper for the state would be, thou shalt not murder. But is birth control by any method, or stopping gestation from proceeding at early non-viable stages "murder" is not a moral issue, it is a religious question.

Of course, it is a moral question and it certainly has enough science to support that it is human life; That Hoehn even asserts abortion as “birth control” is a horrible statement. To make it seem like the state has no say in birth control by any method is absurd. Should the state allow gut punch clinics for birth control, should a man be able to take a drugged pregnant woman to the birth control center of any method. “Get ‘em in the door and we will stop that gestation pronto” clinics! It is rather humorous that Hoehn quotes the Bible as the proper moral issue being thou shalt not murder but the question of murder of a fetus is a religious question.

His comment continues with:

Moral people who agree the state should stop murder are disagreeing that abortion at any stage before viability is murder. If I were to come to your home, attack you with a knife cutting off your arm, I would be guilty of assault and the state must deal with me. But if you come to my hospital and to improve or prolong your life, I remove your arm with a cancer, that is not assault, that is a medically necessary destruction, not a crime. The question of is preventing a life (abortion) murder is a religious opinion, not a loss of morality.

Really a rather silly statement as coming to a hospital means that the hospital and the doctors and nurses and lab techs are all operating on hundreds if not thousands of laws and state regulations both State and Federal. Again look at the previously mentioned polls the disagreement about it being murder is very small when the actual viability of the baby is considered. One also has to wonder why he continues to make statements like: “that abortion at any stage before viability” when he seems to be very accepting of even partial birth third-trimester abortions.

All in all, this is a completely fallacious article that makes assertions that are pretty ridiculous, you can tell easily how absurd the arguments are by the fact that the assertions are simply made and not supported with anything. Then the final nail in this coffin is that Hoehn wants in his concluding paragraph:

...I hope that pastor will now, before November 6 elections, remind his congregation of their duty before God to vote against any forms of enforcement of a religious opinion by civil governments in any state.

This is all about getting the political progressive agenda to take over the United States, all this is because everything the leftist wants is good and everything else is bad. Abortion is good and moral, pro-life is bad (not murdering babies) and religious bigotry. The only real religion is political progressive leftism, conservatism and traditional religious ideas are bad because they force; they have moral insights that can impact the decisions of a representative government's legislation.  I have not even gone into the hypocrisy of quoting Ellen White when he most certainly does not believe in her prophecies anyway and certainly not the way they are laid out in the Great Controversy book. You don’t need to believe in Ellen White's prophecies I sure don’t but to use her to make a case even though you don’t believe in her is just pure hypocrisy. But remember hypocrisy is fine, telling untruth is fine as long as it works toward the goals of leftism which is the new religion of Adventist Today.

 

 

Another Aunt Sevvy lie

Adventist Today's Another Aunt Sevvy Purposeful Deception or Illiterate Interpretation?

By Ron Corson

 It never ceases to amaze me how the writers over at Adventist Today lie so often. I suppose they write for a select group of people who will only agree with their writers and who won’t even bother to check out what they say. Take this for example from the anonymous Dear Aunt Sevvy:

If you don’t believe in 1844, why remain Adventist, Aunty?

One General Conference official has written that religious liberty in the church means you can leave if you don’t agree with what it officially stands for. Because he sees it only from the office at the top, he doesn’t understand what a church is. 

Here is what the article by Clifford Goldstein said back in 2013:

All this leads to the gist of what constitutes true religious freedom issues, and why I would, as Liberty editor, often tell those church members who wanted to drag us into their church disputes, "Sorry, wrong department."

Why? Because as already stated, at the most fundamental level, church affiliation is voluntary. You freely choose to be part of that body. The state, and the power of force it wields, has nothing to do with your membership. If something happens that you deem unfair, you are as free to leave that church body, just as you were to join. As long as no state coercion is involved, it's not a religious liberty issue in the classic sense.

So in fact the General Conference official was saying you can leave or join a church that is not the meaning of religious liberty. He states the meaning of religious liberty earlier in the article by saying:

This concept gets to the heart of religious liberty and church-state separation. In essence, people who join churches do so voluntarily. They are there of their own free will. They are not forced to join, and certainly not by the state. By joining a church, one publicly associates oneself, to some degree, with the teachings, mission, and goals of that church. What makes that membership meaningful is, however, the free association with that body. That association, and the public proclamation that comes merely by linking oneself to the name of the church, has potency only because one has freely chosen it. Forced membership would all but denude that proclamation of any public witness, of any testimony, public or private, regarding your convictions. You would be there because you had to be, not because you necessarily believed in what the church stood for.

John Locke, one of the patriarchs of religious freedom, wrote in 1698, in the context of religious liberty, that "I may grow rich by an Art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some Disease by Remedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved by a Religion I distrust, and by a Worship that I abhor."

It is hard to believe any thinking person could produce what the Aunt Sevvy column says. 
There was only one place in the Clifford Goldstein article that actually used the word "leave" and in that same paragraph, it says leaving your church is not religious liberty in the classic sense. Then she continues by saying that he does not understand what church is. To believe that this is just misinterpreting a fairly simple article is hard to believe. It appears that it is meant as an attack on Clifford Goldstein, without actually mentioning his name though he is a constant nemesis for the people at Adventist Today. So the answer is pretty clearly not a simple misinterpretation of the article that Aunt Sevvy linked to. No, it is an attempt to fool people into thinking someone at the General Conference said something very dumb. Of course, the writer who remains anonymous could have given the quote from the article linked to but as that would not work at all with the writer's intentions they only linked to the article hoping that if the reader actually opened the article they would see Goldstein's name and let their bias take over. 

 I am sure though if their comments section worked many would praise the column. But as of now perhaps the Adventist Today site was hacked as when you click on their link to comment it takes you to a page that says

This content isn't available right now When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.

It has been a few days and I don’t think they have even noticed!

 Update: 10-12-22

So it does turn out that I have been blocked from viewing the public posts of Adventist Today. I did not think that was possible but searching the internet led me to an article on how the administrator can do that even though it is not something mentioned on FaceBook's Help Center. It did sound like it would take a bit of time but since they apparently don't edit out errors in their articles they seem to have time to do it. It does appear from the first answer in the comments that the insertion of the false information had its desired effect.

G.W. 

"This is a great reply from Aunt Sevvy!

The flip side to this conversation is, "I don't feel comfortable around the leaders of my church, and those within their circles.

They seem to be looking for ways to exclude me.

I have no problem with doctrinal differences, but being at church doesn't feel comfortable.

Can I ask those people to leave?"

 

anonymous legal expert at AToday

 

By Ron Corson

Adventist Today has gone to a new low. It presents an anonymous article called:

Playing Hopscotch with Our Liberties by Sarah Kay Jones  |  29 July 2022  |

Here is an example of this so thoughtful piece of exposition:

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion. I’ve already heard that the separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, so it’s not legitimate. Included in the new civics training for Florida public school teachers is the statement that it is a “misconception” that “the Founders desired strict separation of church and state.”  

That’s the same argument given over the 2022 abortion ruling, which means that under the current Supremes majority, the establishment of religion is also at risk. That isn’t, however, what the founders of the nation taught, according to Middle Tennessee State University’s Free Speech Center:

The unknown and unintelligent author thinks that the Dobbs decision was the same argument as the rapid teachers training courses in Florida, that the wall of separation between church and state is not in the Constitution. Which of course it is not. At best it is a reference to Jefferson’s Letter: “ The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The separation of church and state suddenly became the argument in the 2022 abortion ruling that found the court had erred in the Roe and Casey decisions. Thus finding no Constitutional authority for the so-called right to an abortion,  that right suddenly appearing a 170 years after the Constitution was ratified and a good while after the 14^th amendment and its mention of liberty and subsequent claim to the right to privacy. The syllabus for the decision shows there was no establishment of Religion application at all in the decision.

Naturally, the comments on the Facebook page praised the article. Just another example of the complete lack of understanding by the Political Progressives. Their reasoning is flawed but always fearful.

Just for clarity, the founders desired strict avoidance of Federal involvement in religion, establishing or the exercise of that religion. What the progressives mean by "strict separation of church and state”  Is always the problem and why they like the term rather than using the Establishment clause as the Constitution does.

 

 

 

ATSS Charles Scriven not posted

 I had wanted to see the youtube version of this: 

ATSS: Charles Scriven – Are Progressive Adventists Deluded?

8 June 2022  |

But it does not appear that the Progressive Adventists even have the courage to post the presentation! I did notice that at the end of the comments on the Facebook page there was this comment from Loren Seibold: 

Loren Seibold

All presentations are recorded on AT's YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/AdventistTodayMedia

YOUTUBE.COM

Adventist Today - YouTube

Adventist Today - YouTube

• 1w
• 
  

Not there still. They even have last weeks presentation up but not this one from June 8. 

Since I was unable to listen to the above presentation I listened to Ted Wilson's Sabbath Sermon at the end of the 2022 GC Sesson. Which is basically the Bible reveals that the Adventist Church is God's remnant and we must "Hold fast what you have" 

 Of course the Bible does not indicate anything about the SDA church but when you read such things into the Bible it really makes a case...add that an a 19th-century prophet and you know the SDA church will not change and cannot change and maintain that prophet. 

Clearly, I am of the opinion that the so-called progressive Adventists are deluded about changing the SDA church and maybe that is what the presentation said. As it looks now I may never know as none of the comments on Facebook appear to even reference what was said at the presentation.

Pride month Adventist Today

 As we move into Pride month I want to point something from a recent ATSS program that is quite disturbing. The video is found at ATSS PRESENTS: Esther Loewen, The Beatitudes in Light of Transgenderism At about the 22 minute mark this former Adventist Pastor goes through some notable Christians and some of their statements on certain Beatitudes. I have transcribed and abridged some of the context and the main point I want to deal with is when the former pastor talks about Franklin Graham:

“At an earlier time in my life I would have enthusiastically absorbed the Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon's teaching about being pure in heart where he essentially equates it to being sanctified or fully before God impurity of the heart says the great, orator is the cause of spiritual blindness our inner nature, must be divinely, renewed, it must be purified.

John Piper's discussion about being a peacemaker. We're right up my alley. The most important peace according to Piper is the peace that made between you and God and secondarily. Once that happens, that we Christians, go out and make peace between other people.

And of course, I can't leave out evangelicalism in Franklin Graham on persecution who speaks a lot about persecution and now I'm tipping my hand to you. Just a bit you know  Franklin Graham who teaches us about persecution, and tweets and Sound bytes who teaches us that persecution is being forced to live in a world where LGBTQ people exist, where black live matter where the patriarchy is dismantled.  Now  As I think about all of these individuals today All of these different teachers, all of these different perspectives, you know, an aspirational lens on the Beatitudes isn't the only thing that they have in common.”**

The important point here is that as the LGBT activist has been speaking about what others have said on the beatitudes, when it comes to Franklin Graham all that goes out the window, admitting “I'm tipping my hand to you”. Pretty much admitting that due to political progressive influences, no truth is needed, no quotes are needed, no context is needed!

Of course there is no need for truth when lying has become a way of life. If one lies to themselves about themselves it is not that hard to lie about other people as well. Assuming that this former pastor is dealing with fellow Progressive Christians they will have no reason to question the fictional statement that Franklin Graham believes that he is having to live in the persecution of living in a world where LGBTQ exists, where Black Lives Matter, and Equity & Justice are words, Or as the statement that goes with the slide says that patriarchy is dismantled. As if Franklin Graham would make any of those statements, when talking about the Bible verse that says:  Matthew 5:8. Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." That would be a seriously limited view of persecution.

But why do the LGBT activists hate Franklin Graham so much?  One does not have to do much searching on the internet to see just how disgusted the left is with Franklin Graham and by extension Evangelicals as well.

The answer could be found in the attempt to redefine American life. At one time the website for BLM listed their desire to destroy the nuclear family. More recently the Progressive community has gone so far as to insist that they can’t even define a woman. A woman is someone that identifies as a woman. That is actually what some say when asked what is a woman. Can they define a woman without using the circular logic of using the word woman? A world where even a Supreme Court nominee herself a woman can’t define the word woman because she is not a biologist. In fact under the Adventist Today link to this Youtube video there are only five comments, Even the politically left population of commenters on Adventist Today are too afraid to make comments about a man claiming to be a trans woman reinterpreting the Beatitudes in the light of something that not one person hearing the Beatitudes would have thought of.

It is far more than just the LGBT segment of the political left that placed them against evangelical Christianity.

There has been an interesting study and book on this subject:

“Here are three surprises from Yancey and Quosigk’s research.

1. Progressive Christians are more likely to establish their identity through politics, while conservative Christians find their identity in theology.

Put simply, progressive Christians see the world through a political lens; conservative Christians, through a religious lens (155). This doesn’t mean that progressives are atheological and conservatives apolitical, but only that the emphasis is wildly disparate between the groups.

For example, progressive Christians

emphasize political values relating to social justice issues as they determine who is part of their in-group; they tend to be less concerned about theological agreement. Conservative Christians, however, do not put strong emphasis on political agreement in order to determine if you are one of them—their major concern is whether you agree with them on core theological points . . . . (4)

For this reason, progressive Christians

tend to be more accepting of groups that are traditionally politically progressive (such as Muslims and atheists) than they are of conservative Christians. . . . By contrast, conservative Christians tend to reject Muslims and atheists as part of an out-group, but they do not necessarily reject political liberals. . . . (14).

The authors aren’t saying progressives are naturally more political in a general sense. Their point is that progressives’ commitment to humanistic values of social justice leads them to political action as the area of causing social change. And prioritizing political alignment over theological agreement leads to the next surprise.” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/research-progressive-conservative-christians/

 

Interestingly enough it is because Franklin Graham is outspoken in his Christianity that has made him the butt of derision of the leftwing. As he took Progressive Christianity head-on he explains:

I would say the exact same warning applies today to the advocates of progressive Christianity. They deceitfully promote and proclaim what I believe is clearly a “different gospel, which is really no Gospel at all.”

Let me say that again—progressive Christianity is not a Gospel at all. It has nothing to do with the Gospel of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. It results in nothing but spiritual confusion and chaos.

Here’s the problem.

Progressive Christianity denies the divinely inspired, authoritative truth of the Bible as it intersects every facet of living. For example, although Scripture clearly says that marriage is between one man and one woman, proponents of progressive Christianity twist and distort the truth of God’s Word on sexuality, focusing on such nonsensical trends as gender identity. They deny God’s distinction of the sexes, and instead invent their own misguided standards, unguided by the Word of God. The degrading cultural influences that embrace such movements as gay marriage have more sway on their beliefs than the Bible does.

When the topic of justice is discussed, progressive Christianity is primarily concerned with the issues of social and racial justice (which the Bible does address), but most often neglects the far more fundamental issue of God’s justice—how a holy and just God deals with sinful and wicked men. https://decisionmagazine.com/franklin-graham-the-eternal-peril-of-progressive-christianity/

 ** Transcription software was limited due to the affected speech pattern of the presenter. At 36:30 a prayer of redefined Beatitudes is given. A good example of why it is unwise to redefine what God blesses.

 

Loren Seibold is jarred but not enough to do any research

  

I am going to do a couple blog posts on the subject of the recent ATSS presentation by Loren Seibold on What makes a Christian. You can view it on Youtube here.

Here is a transcription of the opening remarks.

I'm going to start out with some political quotations. Yet, I don't intend this to be political discussion. As I thought about it, I could have started out with . Quotations from some rap musician. Who had some pretty terrible lyrics in their song and it gets up at the Grammys and says, I think Jesus, for letting me win this award I just happened to stumble across this first quotation. And I thought this quotation really raises the question, you are welcome to have different views of what kind of Leader, you think Donald Trump is, but this one jarred me, Michelle Bachman said of Donald Trump in 2019 she said:

 

“Trump is highly biblical. And I would say to your listeners that we will in all likelihood never see a more Godly Biblical President Again in our lifetime.”

 

Now just in (unintelligible) that just even if it was with Donald Trump, even if any other politician or entertainer or athlete or somebody wouldn’t it cause you pause?  Wouldn’t you stop for a moment and think how you come to that conclusion. And then Donald Trump added himself,

 

“Nobody has done more for Christianity or for evangelicals or for religion itself that I have.”  

 

That's a huge claim more than Billy Graham, more than Pope Francis, More than Martin Luther, if we're going to go back in history. That's an audacious claim. So again, it raises that question, what does it mean to be a Godly biblical person? This is not an easy question to answer.

He then moves on to the idea that John 3:16 is subjective so you can’t really use that for defining a Christian, that will be the next blog post. But for now, I want to point out the kind of research that you get on Adventist today.  Seibold quotes a small section of Michele Bachman’s statement and asks how would not such a statement cause you to pause, and how you would come to such a conclusion. Interestingly enough for about three paragraphs before that quote Bachman explains why she makes the claim. Now you would think that if it raised that question in Loren Seibold’s mind that he might have taken just a few moments to research the quote and come to an understanding of the quote. But no, we find that he was not curious enough to even do that, instead, he just adds a quote from Trump made two years later, even stating it as if it was connected with Bachman’s quote. I won’t deal with Trump’s quote because people should know by now his New York tendency to superlatives. He does the best, his friends are the best, his buildings are the best, his kids are the best, his enemies are the worst etc. It does appear he means as a President he has done more, as you can see here at about 6:16

If you want critical thinking or even facts it seems that Adventist Today and Loren Seibold are definitely not where you want to go. Here Seibold is jarred by a statement and he does not even look into it. He assumes that his political knowledge is great enough that he can just quote a line from CNN and that is all he needs to do. Don’t think that Seibold does not know that he is being political even when he claims he is not being political, that is just one of the lies that leftist use to try and pretend that they are just objective people pointing out facts.  Quotes taken out of their context are not facts they are pretexts that he uses to shore up his very faulty views.

Here is the transcription of what Michele Bachman said, you can hear it here at about minute 33:

“This President has done more to advance with prolife movement and the prolife cause than any other President has ever done. Just this week, Secretary of State Pompeo had announced the Mexico City policy would be enforced even wider than it had before. The Mexico City policy says not one dime out of US tax.Taxpayer money will go to pay for foreign abortions. Well, that should be a given, but that isn't the way it was under Barack Obama. We were paying for foreign abortion to abortions of people in other countries. Not only have we said no to that, but now Mike Pompeo or Secretary of State, has said even those nonprofits that are contracting with other nonprofits.They can't perform abortion so that policy's gone even further. Plus defunding of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in America. Planned Parenthood is being exposed for their deeds of darkness. And we're pulling back money from Planned Parenthood as well through the Trump administration. So that's just on the prolife issue on the area.

On the area of religious freedom. We are doing more to advance religious freedom and to protect Christians who are being murdered and persecuted in the Middle East. Like we have not seen before, [ Host comments: Christians can now flee to America. That's right couldn't under a previous administration], it was very, very hard. Barack Obama, practically. 99% of the people that he allowed in under the refugee resettlement programs were Muslims, certainly nonchristians. Now that has been completely flipped on his head. And President Trump is now allowing in persecuted Christians, people who are literally are being persecuted. And he's offering them protection in the United States and perpetrators, almost all of whom are Muslim are not getting access through the refugee resettlement Program. So this is a complete turnaround. But on so many different areas. We talked about Pastor Andrew Brunson that the President would not relent until this pastor was released out of Turkey. Now I spoke to pastor Brunson myself at the national for Breakfast and he is back. and his ministry has continued so that goes to areas we could go on with the president has done with standing for righteousness in so many areas one being Barack Obama had demanded and commanded that our military services had to literally go out and recruit people who are transgender to come into the military well it costs About a quarter of a million dollars to do sex reassignment surgery. Why would you recruit people who would come in and have sex reassignment surgery and be on the sidelines? It made no sense. So Donald Trump got rid of that mandate and that requirement. He has stood up where most Republicans.

Would dare to stand up. Donald Trump has had the courage in the fortitude. And I will say to your listeners in my lifetime, I have never seen a more biblical President than I have seen in Donald Trump. He is so impressed me what he's done. We haven't even talked about Israel, he is highly Biblical And I would say to your listeners, we will in all likelihood never see a more Godly Biblical President again in our lifetimes. So we need to be not only praying for Him, we need to support Him, in my opinion, in every possible way that we can.”

 

 

 

Protecting Progressive Adventists from truth

 

 

Adventist Today Sabbath School Class has taken its attack on truth to a new level this week. ATSS: “A New Reformation”: Adventist Fundamentalism and the Ku Klux Klan presented by Michael W. Campbell. I zoom attended this program which was going along normally, Campbell had begun with a review of Fundamentalism and had moved on to the KKK. He had actually just commented on the movie “Birth of a Nation” and he had still not acknowledged the fact that the KKK was acting in conjunction with the Democrat party. So I thought that would be a very good time to mention that I thought it should be acknowledged that the KKK was the militant arm of the Democrat Party. I thought this was a point that it should really be noted since the movie Birth of a Nation was: “It was the first motion picture to be screened in the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson, his family, and members of his cabinet.”

That movie was a technical breakthrough for movies but it was also a major turning point for the reinvigoration of the KKK.

After I made my comment in the zoom comment section I received a private message from Loren Seibold with the comment. “Quit making it political, or leave”. Of course, mine was not the first political comment in the chat section. At one point I read one comment that said something to the effect that Trump and the Republicans were doing the same things as the KKK. Someone then directed a question at me, but since I had been messaged by Seibold I told the person No I can’t answer and quoted what Seibold had said to me. I also said I honestly did not know how anyone can talk about the KKK without dealing with the politics of it. Then someone commented that it was a fair point but there had been a flip at some time between the Democrat and Republican positions. I put in my last comment which was that the flip was a myth.

Then I was dumped from the zoom meeting! Not because I continued to talk about the political realities of the KKK era because I did not say anything else about it. I am guessing I was kicked out because I quoted what Seibold had said to me. It is interesting that he did not just say something in the comments to everyone if he was afraid of political comments. If anyone has attended this zoom programs the comments can be pretty wide-ranging and they occur simultaneously with the speaker's presentation, They in no way interfere with the presentation.

I suspect that he did not address his comment to the total group in the chat room because the major emphasis at Adventist Today is Progressive politics. To carry that idea forward he has to attempt to cover up the history of Progressivism. That period of time that Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of a nation was also the time of the beginning of Progressivism (The Progressive Era). As Hillary Clinton once said in 2007: “... I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century…”

I have no idea where the connection of Adventism to the KKK was, one could go look up the presentation on the Atoday YouTube account though. I likely will not as if the presenter is not able to acknowledge the actual history of the KKK and the Democrat party how well is anything going to be.

But if you ever wonder why there is so much wrong information on the Adventist Today articles. I think it is all related to the idea that their new Woke Theology is actual Woke Democrat politics. When politics define your religion then your religion is politics. That is why the website no longer has conservative political or religiously conservative authors anymore and since the tendency is to restrict people’s comments even conservative comments in the Facebook section are few and far between. There is actually a fairly humorous article on Fulcrum7.com How Your Church Can Be More Woke

 

Facebooks laughable fact-checking

 So this is an excerpt from the Facebook Fact check on the Literature Review of the lockdowns on covid-19 mortality. Their claim is that it “Independent fact-checkers reviewed the information and said it was missing context and could mislead people.”

Those so-called independent fact-checkers are mostly supported by Facebook and Tik-Tok and some other Leftwing organizations and private donors who donated in 2016. Yes not too updated there are they and they are not at all objective. For example, here they complain about the use of the word lockdown.

“Another point of contention was the paper’s definition of a lockdown. A lockdown is typically defined as a measure that requires people to stay at home and avoid activity outside the home involving public contact. However, the authors defined a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)”. Non-pharmaceutical interventions are measures apart from taking medicine and vaccination. This means that simply making isolation for infected people mandatory or imposing a mask mandate would count as a lockdown.”

From the original:

[We use “NPI” to describe any government mandate which directly restrict peoples’ possibilities. Our definition does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc. We define lockdown as any policy consisting of at least one NPI as described above.4]

 Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist and professor at Imperial College London, pointed out that “by that definition, the UK has been in permanent lockdown since 16th of March 2021, and remains in lockdown – given it [remains] compulsory for people with diagnosed COVID-19 to self-isolate for at least 5 days.”

 Samir Bhatt, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, likewise expressed similar concerns about the definition used in the paper, saying, “The most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is […] For a meta-analysis using a definition that is at odds with the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access instituted as a security measure) is strange.”

[Actually the dictionary definition is: “b: a temporary condition imposed by governmental authorities (as during the outbreak of an epidemic disease) in which people are required to stay in their homes and refrain from or limit activities outside the home involving public contact (such as dining out or attending large gatherings)”] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown

That being said, when it came to their analysis, the authors applied the usual definition of a lockdown, as Bhatt pointed out: “The authors then further confuse matters when in Table 7 they revert to the more common definition of lockdown.”

So a table that breaks down the studies by NPI suddenly becomes reverting to the more common definition by having a heading that says: Lockdown(complete/partial).  As usual Facebook fact-checks are garbage!

walter Veith flat earth and matthew korpman

 I try so hard not to get involved with the stupidity that has become Adventist Today but it is so hard to leave it alone. But they have sunk to a new low. They have become the sponsor of a new YouTube video series. Here is what they say on Atoday website:

“Walter Veith is many things… but a “Flat Earther” isn’t one of the descriptions we usually associate with the controversial professor. Watch Bible scholar Matthew Korpman react to Veith’s refusal to call the earth round!

PS: Adventist Today is excited to be sponsoring Matthew’s latest YouTube videos. His stuff is thoughtful, informative and funny. We love it!”

This video is called “Walter Veith & the Flat Earth? Bible Scholar Reacts

I was unable to see in the description any evidence that Matthew Korpman is a Yale-trained Bible scholar, but I can say that he is talented at obfuscation. Instead of allowing Walter Veith to explain himself, he interrupts the video to make Matthew Korpman declarations as if they somehow are what Walter Veith is saying. A really poor method of communications, a simple technique to distort people’s opinions though, or to make fairly out-of-context statements by breaking up the statements to appear different than they were actually stated.

In This case, Matthew is attempting to take Walter Veith to task for not answering a question the way Matthew wants the question answered. Something many of us would like to do to other people but we know that is not how the world works. The one asked the question is the one that answers it and to be objective the listener then deals with what the answer actually was rather than complain about it not being answered the way you wanted to answer it.

Walter Veith opens himself open to this a lot of times because he is a long-winded person and thinks that he can take an opportunity to guide the listener into something else Veith wants to talk about. Which is actually the case in this video.

At about the 54 minute mark of the video Veith is asked the question about the flat vs. round earth and he precedes to give a couple of Ellen White quotes. That sets off Matthew, but amazingly enough, Matthew then says nothing about what the quotes actually say. Veith uses 3 or 4 maybe but the first one is all you need.

“Any kind of a theory or hobby that Satan can lead the minds of men to dwell upon he will draw their attention to so that they shall not be engaged in giving the solemn message for this time. Do not, my brother, become entangled with ideas that have no connection with the work for this time. It is better to be teaching the truth as it is in Jesus. Better to be seeking for true godliness, heart holiness, freedom from all selfishness, freedom from all envies and jealousies. It is better to pray and humble the soul before God and let the world, round or flat, be just as God has made it. Try most earnestly, by faithful continuance in well-doing, to seek for a clear title in the inheritance in the earth made new. Better lead the flock of God to drink at the higher streams, better by precept and example seek God while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. There is a revival needed in the church. When the teachers are drinking fresh draughts from the well of Bethlehem, then they can lead the people to the living stream. My soul is weighed down with the burden of the condition of things in New York. May the Lord raise up helpers, men whom He can teach, humble men whom He can lead to bear a clear, sharp testimony in faith.” Letter 43, 1887

I don’t really care that Matthew does not like Veith’s answer but you get no reason for not liking his answer if you ignore the Ellen White quotes he references.

Think about it, if you are being asked in 2020 by someone “is the earth round or is it flat”? You know immediately if someone asks that question they have a hobby horse of a theory that the world is flat. If those folks could be talked out of it, you would think that it would have easily have been done by now. Though with that particular question round does not even help as it could be flat and round as in a disk.

If Matthew had listened to the previous answer which was all about Ellen White as a prophet and would there or could there be another, a perceptive person could see that Veith answered the flat earth question after that to help enforce the wisdom of Ellen White as a telescope to the Bible. I am not here to support Ellen White or Walter Veith but to vilify the very dishonorable method of media manipulation that is used to entertain by presenting half-truths in a format that makes people think they have been given real information. Most people who read AToday sadly don’t pay enough attention to know they are being manipulated with false information Because after all these are good Christians they would not lie to us! Yes, even Christians lie and distort and the only protection is to question everything.

 Update: 2-4-2022

I posted a comment to the youtube page listed above stating that without using any of the information from the Ellen White quote you did not show the reason for Veith's answer and a link to my review above of his video. I checked this morning and my comment was deleted. Truth or conversation even is clearly not something that Matthew Korpman wants.