Adventist Review publishes smear terms.

I may have been too hard on the editors of Liberty Magazine and Adventist Today online. It could be that Adventists are simply incapable of being sensible editors of any publication. Consider this from the March 15 2012 Adventist Review:

No question, Genesis 1 and 2 present challenges. Bible students have been trying to work their way through the Creation account for thousands of years. The issue isn’t that the texts aren’t without difficulties; everyone knows that they are. The issue is the “solution” Seventh-day Darwinians want to impose upon them.

So who are the Seventh-day Darwinians? Is there a definition in the article by Clifford Goldstein? No, no definition. Can we find it in the dictionary or Wikipedia. Not listed there either. Maybe there is an organization called “seventh-day Darwinians” Again no.

But we can search the internet and see that the Adventist Review and Clifford Goldstein has published articles using the term before. In 2003 Goldstein wrote an article entitled Seventh-day Darwinians. No definition there either, in fact the title is the only mention in the article of Seventh-day Darwinians. Then Again in the Adventist Review again in an article by Clifford Goldstein we read another article entitled Seventh-Day Darwinians,Redux. Again I suppose that is what the Redux means, the term Seventh-Day Darwinians is only found in the title of the article, again no definition, no reference to the group known as Seventh-day Darwinians, it appears to be some kind of smear or code language. 

Should the editors be publishing articles with terms that have no definition? Or should opponents of an idea be free to title someone of a different view as with prejudicial terms. For instance should I refer to Goldstein’s articles as information geared toward Seventh-day Totalitarians? 

It is rather sad that in Adventism Darwinian has this biased negative view put forth by people like Goldstein. Darwinism actually has a dictionary definition. And it is perfectly acceptable within the bounds of Christian theology as well as science.

Dictionary.com defines Darwinism as:

the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

 

Or the American Heritage Science Dictionary as:

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified by subsequent researchers, but his theories still form the foundation of the scientific understanding of the evolution of life. Darwinism is often contrasted with another theory of biological evolution called Lamarckism,  based on the now-discredited ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.  See Note at evolution.

The acceptance of natural selection is pretty universal among biologists, not just atheist but also Christians, numerous examples of this type of natural selection have been produced. In fact I know of one Adventist who wrote book on Dinosaurs (though not a scientifically viable opinion on dinosaurs) who uses natural selection (Darwinism) to explain the immense diversity of animal life which he asserted to occur after the world wide flood since clearly that many animals would not fit on the ark of such recorded dimensions. He is a supporter of the six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin creation theory as well. Would a belief in natural selection actually place him in the Seventh-day Darwinian label? I suppose it depends upon who you ask and why do you think you should even respect their answer or ability to define a term that has no definition.

So who is more foolish the writer that uses a prejudicial but meaningless term or the editor that just passes on the prejudicial but meaningless term? They seem to both be doing it multiple times, so it is difficult to say. Perhaps they are equal in their prejudice and poor reasoning capabilities. It seems The Adventist Review editors simply pass on the biases that they agree with. When editors can’t be objective then they fail at their jobs and they fail to maintain a standard of trust of the magazine. This seems to be a theme in Adventism today.

More foolish predictions from AToday colunmist

As some of you know who follow this blog the Atoday Columnist Stephen Foster is one of my favorite targets. He is to me one of the greatest examples of myopic traditional Adventism. He presents false information as if it were true and true information as if it were false. Well yes that later could be said of numerous political leftists but since Foster embodies both myopic traditional Adventism and ill informed political progressivism he strikes just the perfect cord of absolute silliness. Unfortunately absolute silliness is becoming all to common in Adventism.

In the past Foster has declared in his comment section of one of his articles that “arbitrary” means making a decision. Therefore since God makes decisions He is arbitrary. It did not matter if I showed him the dictionary meaning as well as the synonyms for arbitrary he would not be moved. So I said he was being disingenuous and he was a mixed up guy. That got me banned from posting comments on Atoday. Well there is no way to educate the editor/moderator at Atoday, so I don't post there anymore as a columnist or commentor. Actually quite happy to no longer have to try and write articles that the editor has to approve, because frankly it is hard to do when the editor knows so little.

For instance in Stephen Foster's latest article he mentions Rick Santorum's statement about nearly throwing up after reading JFK's speech. Foster then quotes a statement from Santorum the day after he made the throw up comment. Yet Foster ignored the Santorum statement that his throw up comment was an over reaction. So it stands in Foster's article as if Santorum had never corrected himself, even if you don't believe him why would you not offer the reader the facts in the matter. Well the reason is because information is not the purpose of the article it is propaganda. And propaganda cares little for the facts. Propaganda is one of the specialties of the political left. I suppose the right will use it to some extent but it appears not to be used nearly as much as the political left. The Editor at Atoday probably did not even know that Santorum had corrected his statement the next day. Because another unfortunate problem of the Traditional Adventists and the political left is that they are poorly informed about current events. Their sources of information are often restricted to those that agree with their ideology, and they rarely hear anything to the contrary.

So Foster puts forth his opinion and his selected retelling of the facts carefully omitting things that don't work toward his preordained conclusions. Though he did kindly note in the first part of his article that if you don't hold to his view of Traditional Adventist Eschatology you will not likely agree with him. Apparently if you agree with him then you will agree with his article. You see how the myopic views work. Their information is not intended to be persuasive to those who may differ but to be persuasive to those who already agree with them. Again something very common in Traditional Adventism and political progressives.

The main import of his article however was put forth in his opening line: “Does anybody continue to believe that things are not lining up according to prophecy?” Prophecy to Foster being his traditional Adventist Eschatology where in the Roman Catholic church rises up and takes over in both church and state relations. Santorum is a Roman Catholic running for President, and Santorum does not think that Religious people should be silent as to the affairs of state. Thus to fulfill the prediction of the 19^th century Foster produces another prediction for what is happening now, even though Santorum has little chance of becoming the Republican candidate and even though Santorum says he will not enforce his religious ideas in the political realm just as he did not do so when he was a Senator. But the prophecy lines up, because the prediction in each case is the same and to most Traditional Adventists prediction is prophecy. But predictions are not prophecy they are interpretations someone has placed upon a prophecy. They are consistently proven wrong. Yet consistently trotted out again and again, because they are at least to the believer never proven wrong because they can always still happen just around the corner.

Bill Maher, stranger to reason

Here is a good view into the mind of a political liberal. It is sad and disturbing but likely thought of by those with limited thinking capabilities to be funny.  Bill Maher said the following on his HBO show:

BILL MAHER: But I bring up the old tale of the poisoned apple -- no, not "Snow White," that's a fairy tale - because the Adam and Eve story is taken literally by half the country and it's no coincidence that the type of tree which god forbade Adam and Eve eating from was the Tree of Knowledge. Rick Santorum homeschools his children because he does not want them eating that f--king apple. He wants them locked up in the Christian madrassa that is the family living room not out in public where they could be infected by the virus of reason. If you're a kid and the only adults you've ever met are mom and dad, and then they're also the smartest adults you've met, why not keep it that way? Why mess up paradise with a lot knowledge? After all, a mind is a terrible thing to open.

You could read that and think it was just an attempt by a mediocre comedian to make a joke. Until you see he includes reason into the equation and ends with a call for an open mind afterall. For what he thinks is reason is simply misinformation. He begins the account by mentioning a poison apple, no poison apple is in the Biblical story; in fact no specific fruit is mentioned at all. Then he intentionally misnames the name of the tree. The name  of the tree in Genesis being the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To him it is the tree of knowledge. God simply did not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge any knowledge apparently. But of course the story is much more relevant than Maher’s misinformation. God did not want them to eat of the fruit and learn what evil was.

Then Maher moves to Rick Santorum who home schools his children. In Maher’s created world if they go out in public they will be exposed to the virus of reason. Reason really, does he know what reason is. Is reason ever the product of intentional misinformation and lies. Do Santorum’s children never go out in public or hear any other voices? What about the Christian Madrassa? That is clever right, a Christian “Muslim school”, that is what madrassa means a Muslim school. Reasonable?

Possibly to the political liberal it is because they can’t argue from facts so they resort to the type of argument Bill Maher uses. And amazingly enough HBO pays him to produce this kind of material! And even more amazingly people watch him and some people think he has some intelligence. This perhaps is true if one does not look very close at anything he says; but if you actually do use reason. Well he does not do too well.

Prophetic Prognostication

I was prompted to address the subject of the “prophetic prognostication” because of Stephen Foster's recent article The Case Against Secularism - And For Prophecy Here is the line that Stephen wrote that interested me in this topic. “While history is a great teacher, it is difficult to quantify how much better it is, if at all, than is a “prophetic prognostication” on the same topic.”

Is “prophetic prognostication” better then history? Does history repeat itself as we often hear? For some reason this quote from Karl Marx has taken on a meaning that is far from accurate. Marxist.org writes: “Marx never believed that “history repeats itself,” but in a famous quote he said:

“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” [Marx, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonapatre, Chapter 1.]”

In fact history does not repeat itself, Napoleon is not the same as Hitler and Hitler was not the same as Stalin and Pol Pot is different then all the other leaders who created mass killing of people. History can teach us lessons that we can apply to our current conditions or movements, it does not repeat itself, whether in reality or in farce. Certainly people will continue to make the same mistakes, usually because they think they can do it right where the others failed but still history does not repeat itself and when we view history we have to interpret the data and analyze it for the best use we can make of it. History like most information is subject to interpretation.

“Prophetic prognostication” is equally subject to interpretation but unlike history there is no reality of actual experience to help with the interpretation. There is no history involved, no reality observed and no data from the occurrences to help the development of an interpretation. This moves prophetic prognostication into the realm of speculation. Speculation can be used to problem solve or run scenarios, such as making “what if” statements. The more variables in a scenario however means there are more possible “what if” statements that could be envisioned. The answers to those “what if” statements then branch like a tree into multiple possible additional “what if” possibilities of actions and reactions. This fact limits the application of “what if” statements or thought problems (thought experiments) to fairly simple options which are often not found in life's open systems (in terms of multitudes of interactions possible). “Prophetic prognostication” is not even in the useful “what if“ category because there are far too many factors then can be considered.

Adventism has seen the difficulties with “prophetic prognostication” in its application of Biblical predictive prophecy. Most famous in this list of  predictions is the of the end of the world in1844 the so called “Great Disappointment”. Adventists have from their beginning practiced prophetic prognostication on various topics. Most were thought to be fulfillments of some or other Biblical prophecy for example:

-- November 1 1755. The great Lisbon earthquake.

-- 1780 May 19. The unexplained dark day over New England

-- 1798 The Vatican fell because of the French Revolution, temporarily ending 1260 years of religious       and political domination

-- 1833 November 12-13. The great Leonid meteor shower

-- 1838 Josiah Litch used Revelation 9 to predict the fall of the Ottoman Empire around August of 1840

All of the above quoted from an Adventist teaching website.

 Adventists have been totally inaccurate in their “Prophetic prognostication” and interpretation of fulfillments. Earthquakes still happen, with more or less death and destruction then Lisbon, Forest fires and storms occasionally cause dark days, such as when Mt. St. Helens erupted. The Vatican did not fall in 1798 just because a Pope was captured once again, it had lost significant power for several hundred years before 1798, remember in just the area of religion there was the Reformation! There have been greater Leonid meteor showers since 1833 and they still come on their regular cycle. The Ottoman Empire did not fall in 1840 though it had been in decline for a hundred years, still nothing of significance even happened to the Ottoman Empire in 1840. Most of these formerly thought of fulfillments are rarely mentioned today in the Western World. The fact is that not only Adventists have failed with“Prophetic prognostication” but numerous other Christians have been completely unsuccessful with their interpretation and application of predictive prophecy from the Bible. Many have tried and all have failed. (Wikipedia even has a page on unfulfilled Christian predictions)

For Adventists this becomes even a greater problem because many try to use the “prophetic prognostication” of Ellen White as the general Christian community tried to use the Biblical predictive prophecies. Ellen White's predictive prophecies even in her life time also failed. The most famous probably being her statement that some of those at the 1856 conference would be food for worms, some would be subject to the seven last plagues and some would be translated.

"I was shown the company present at the Conference, Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Ellen G. White, 1 Testimonies, p. 131-132. May 27, 1856

When we look at what the Adventist denomination says itself about Ellen White's fulfilled predictions we see that they cannot really find any to point to with specificity. The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe ...  A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (1988) On page 225 writes of Ellen White

  

“2. The accuracy of predictions. Ellen White's writings contain a relatively small number of predictions. Some are in the process of being fulfilled, while others still await fulfillment. But those that can be tested have been fulfilled with an amazing accuracy. Two instances that demonstrate her prophetic insights follow.”

“a. The rise of modern spiritualism...”

“b. A close cooperation between Protestants and Roman Catholics...”

Both are actually very questionable, Ellen White wrote about the "mysterious rapping" as a phenomenon caused by Satan, the quote  appears to be a reference to the Fox sisters spiritualism hoax of her time. In her day Abraham Lincoln held séances in the White House. In other words she wrote about the spiritualism which was already popular. To say that what was popular in her day was a prediction of the  rise of modern spiritualism is not even a prediction of significance but even that has not proved itself true.  If you go by those who say they follow or practice spiritualism there would be a decline just as there is a decline in the Theosophists of her day, another brand of spiritualism. But spiritualism is somewhat vague in meaning and could be held to a wide array of interpretations thus it becomes a vague and meaningless prediction, fulfilled by anyone that wants to say it is being fulfilled any time something becomes popular, such trends as Transcendental Meditation or the New Age Movement for example.

The second supposedly fulfilled prediction is cooperation between Protestants and Roman Catholics, again a prediction based upon the current events of her time. In her time there was such animosity by the Protestants against the Roman Catholics (often reciprocated) it would be hard not to see them either come together and get along or become so divisive that they tore the country apart. As this article reports: “In 1850 Catholics made up only five percent of the total U.S. population. By 1906, they made up seventeen percent of the total population (14 million out of 82 million people)—and constituted the single largest religious denomination in the country.” When Ellen White saw this kind of immigration it would not take some kind of divine imagination to see that the anti-catholic hatred and distrust of 19^th century America was not going to last. But to be fair we can give her partial fulfillment on this issue as Protestants and Roman Catholics get along more as Christian brothers and sisters despite the rift of the Reformation. That Christians could have been that hateful of other Christians is a scar on Christianity. Still  the two are widely separate on many issues and here again the vague nature of the prediction plays a role, allowing who ever wants to interpret it to see some form of fulfillment.

If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that the value of “prophetic prognostication” is very close to nil. The vaguer the prediction the more leeway for the interpreter to see what they want as a fulfillment. But due to the wide range of possible fulfillments we are still usually left with nothing of value. Worse yet when other “prophetic prognostications” are added to our view of current events the speculation simply runs wild. Those speculations though (historically based upon the complete failure of Christians to predict anything) are most likely wrong. The speculative interpretations are artificially upheld as truth because of their claim of a prophetic nature. When such speculation is used to prejudice people against other people or organizations, not upon what they have done or said but upon what they are anticipated to do following a “prophetic prognostication” then we practice a most offensive type of chauvinism and a complete misuse of reason. Speculation should never rule the day!

The politics of emotionalism

In my previous two articles (not counting the fun one on American Pie lyrics) I have pointed out the deceptive practices of the political left in relation to the Adventist publications. Those two listed being Adventist Today and Liberty Magazine. I could and should include Spectrum Magazine (see this pathetic example) in this list as well. The troubling thing about this is that it reflects the puerile thinking of the political liberal/progressive who deal little with reality and heavily manipulate emotions. They assume that their listeners or readers are simply too stupid to think for themselves or question what they say, or they think that the reader/listener is just as prejudiced as the author. So they freely interpret usually incorrectly and with so much prejudice that their interpretations look more like arbitrary hatred then real analytical thought.

Since these gatekeepers of Adventist media have chosen to align with the political left and to use the same techniques of the left it becomes important for this blog to begin to deal with these political distortions. In the past this blog has rarely gone into political matters but it seems that they are too important to ignore since they infiltrate the church and it's leadership...even its alternative Adventist media leadership (in my opinion they have destroyed the Progressive Adventist movement).

As a particular example of the emotional manipulation of the political left here is a section from the Martin Bashir show on MSNBC as recounted by the Huffington Post:

MSNBC's Martin Bashir issued some extremely harsh words for Rick Santorum on Tuesday, comparing the GOP candidate to Joseph Stalin and Big Brother from the novel "1984." 
 
In his "Clear the Air" segment, Bashir said that watching Santorum speak before a crowd reminded him of the dictator in "1984," the classic novel about a totalitarian society under state surveillance. Bashir instructed viewers to "spot the similarities" between a clip of Santorum speaking, and footage from the movie based on the novel. 
 
He replayed clips from the film of "1984" featuring Big Brother proclaiming that "forces of darkness" must be wiped off the Earth and demanding the end of a "catalogue of bestial atrocities." Bashir contrasted them with Santorum's calls to end federal funding for contraception, among other things. "For example, he has asserted that the right to privacy does not exist and has equated same sex relationships with bestiality," Bashir added.
He then made his most severe comparison. He quoted a book reviewer who once dismissed Santorum as "one of the finest minds of the 13th century," and took the remark one step further. "If you listen carefully to Rick Santorum, he sounds more like Stalin than Pope Innocent III," Bashir said.  

You can also see the video of the segment on the Huffington Post site linked above. The similarities between Santorum and the movie 1984 is that the crowd cheers. They cheer in the movie they cheer for Santorum at a speech. Apparently Bashir has never seen any other political speeches or crowds, though you would think with the cheering and chants and fainting that occurred during Barack Obama's campaign he would have seen it at some point. He then says Santorum sounds like a theocrat and the then concludes that Santorum sounds more like Stalin then a Pope. Stalin a rather famous atheist and now I guess a theocrat at least to Bashir.

But what does Bashir report about Santorum? What quotes does he use of Santorum? Answer, none, like the authors referred to in my two previous blogs, no quotes are used, no references given, we are left to accept his interpretation of what someone said, though to Bashir's credit unlike the two previous authors mentioned Bashir at least tells us who he is interpreting, not just giving hints about some candidate running for President. Bashir could have quoted Santorum but he must have felt it was more important to play clips from the movie “1984”. That is emotionalism, and it is childish because it assumes foolish things and simplify complex issues into trite sayings. Is that something that the courts have defined or you can find in the constitution? If I do something in private does that mean I can do anything I want in private? How would you define the right to privacy? You will understand better once you actually see the quote from which Bashir is referring. Then of course you see that it is not as Bashir interprets and that Santorum does not equate homosexuality with Bestiality. Even though they could both be done in private.

From the AP interview with Rick Santorum in 2003:

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Now you may not agree with Santorum's reasoning but at least he is reasoning and not simply trying to manipulate with emotionalism. We can't really allow this kind of journalism or whatever people like Bashir call themselves to continue as it is extremely harmful to thinking people. And even produces a lowering of standards for other media. Of course few people watch MSNBC but Bashir's practices are done just as often in the mainline media and now even in Church media. Maybe not as ham handed as Bashir does on his show but the appeal to emotionalism over honestly dealing with the facts and representing someone else's point of view accurately is all too common.

American Pie The story behind more than meets the ears

 This is interesting, the story behind Don McClean's Song American Pie I think Beck gives some good insights into the song. There is also another version on YouTube which does not give too much of the story but uses more images as the song plays. That video seems more fixated on the Buddy Holly part of the metaphors. In any case it is a wonderful example of the power of poetry and how if you know a bit of backstory the poetry becomes even more powerful.



Here is the song with the images, it covers much the same material as Beck, but it seems a bit light on the sociological changes as being important to the song.If both accounts were put together it would really be a good exposition of the song

The corruption of Adventist media

Recently I decided to stop contributing articles to Atoday.com. This was to some extent based upon the editor’s rejection of my article critical of the politicization in Liberty Magazine. I was critical of the assertions made in the opening paragraph of that article where there were accusations made against certain un-named Republican Presidential candidates, the accusations used no words of the candidates and did not mention or even footnote the candidates or their specific comments. You are just supposed to believe the author's assertions as the starting point for the article even though the writer is a fairly notorious political liberal writing about political conservatives and very evidently biased in his views. The Atoday online editor was incapable of explaining what should be changed in the article, just I should tone it down and rewrite it. Not particularly helpful editorial input and since I was feeling that the editor did not have the intellectual ability for his job or was consistent in how he did his job I quit writing for the column.

My thinking then was that he did not want to embarrass Liberty magazine by pointing out their terribly biased article. Then I saw on the Atoday website an article by Stephen Foster that did exactly the same thing as the editors of the Liberty article did. That is allow an article to publish anonymous accusations against a Presidential candidate without using or footnoting the candidate or the words or context of the statement. This kind of shoddy writing I have come to expect from Stephen Foster who is like the Liberty article a political liberal, writing against a conservative candidate. Here is what Stephen Foster wrote:

If you happen to be somewhat unclear as to what I mean about the religio-political class rhetorically lamenting the civil rejection of religion in order to reverse or undo the practice of conducting public affairs without a religious element; you should know that a well-known politician, who for now shall remain nameless, recently asserted that the United States is not a secular nation.
Now, look at those two definitions of secularism again. Is he right or wrong?

Here he asks for the decision to be made not upon what the candidate actually said but upon what Foster asserts the candidate was saying. With absolutely no context given or even referencing the candidate. Specifically saying: “religio-political class rhetorically lamenting the civil rejection of religion in order to reverse or undo the practice of conducting public affairs without a religious element;” That is a lot to assume, but assuming is what Foster does and apparently the editor finds such assumptions perfectly appropriate.

So as with the Liberty article  I researched and here is what we can ascertain Stephen Foster is referring to. Mitt Romney at a rally said:

“We are not a secular nation. We are a nation that believes in a provident hand.” [Edit: 3-30-23The link is no longer active]

For some reason Traditional Adventists like Foster seem to have a great fear of any political person who actually has religious beliefs even if those beliefs are well founded in the history of the United states. The belief in God is not something unfamiliar to Americans, not just a couple of words on money that say “In God We Trust” In fact 9 out of 10 Americans believe in God. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx

Traditional Adventists it appears have migrated to the atheistic side of politics because they fear people of their own belief system (Christians and theists). Not because of what those Christians have done but because of what they fear they will do based upon their rather silly eschatological beliefs developed in the 19^th century. These people can’t get past their traditions so they align with those raging against Christianity. The logic of their position is so poor that it requires making horrible assumptions which if anyone saw the actual quotes they were referring to they would laugh at their foolishness, as in the two articles mentioned above they hide the information and rely upon their biased assertions.  The people who should know better…the editors of these articles go along with it because they either don’t know the facts, and/or are so politically biased as to not even question this kind of manipulative writing.  

I can’t support these groups any longer, They are not behaving in any kind of accountable way and it is a tragedy to see this happen to Adventist media but it may be the inevitable consequence of having such a broken theological and eschatological system of beliefs where facts must often be ignored to hold to Adventist doctrine and traditions.

See the following quotes from famous American founders and their belief in providence.

George Washington was a spiritual man who recognized the paternal protection of God in not only his own life, but in the life of the country he was fighting to free from tyranny. His own witness of the many miracles that thwarted the victory of Great Britain over the often ill-equipped army he was leading likely inspired the following words he wrote in a letter to General Thomas Nelson in 1778: “The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-16-02-0373

“If it were not for my firm belief in an overruling Providence, it would be difficult for me, in the midst of such complications of affairs, to keep my reason on its seat. But I am confident that the Almighty has His plans, and will work them out; and, whether we see it or not, they will be the best for us.”

President Abraham Lincoln, Speaking to the Christian Commission during the Civil War

[Benjamin]Franklin maintained a firm belief, however, in "a Being of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power" (165) [3], a God who by "providence" [4] acts frequently in the world, a power who could and would suspend deterministic natural laws at will. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0090

Samuel Huntington

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT

It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.⁵⁴

Benjamin Rush

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SURGEON GENERAL OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; “FATHER OF AMERICAN MEDICINE”; TREASURER OF THE U. S. MINT; “FATHER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations! . . . My only hope of salvation is in the infinite tran¬scendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Noth¬ing but His blood will wash away my sins [Acts 22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! [Revelation 22:20]⁹⁸

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.⁹⁹ Wallbuilders website

National Council of churches when politic become Ecumenism

Spectrum magazine online had a recent couple of articles on the National Council of Churches former President's presentation by Dr. Michael Kinnamon he gave a talk entitled, “The Ecumenical Movement and Why You Should Be Involved.”

What I find more interesting is what is the reason behind the NCC, if you read their website you see that though the language is very couched it has an overriding concern for liberal politics. In point 4 listed in the Spectrum article you read the following:

In seeking to manifest the unity we have in Christ, ecumenical churches refuse to separate theological truth from social justice; they integrate theology and justice.

Social Justice has become one of the code words of liberal politics (other such words, Environmental Justice, Economic justice etc). As you read the above sentence why would anyone include “social justice” in the first part of the clause and then theology and justice in the last part? (See my articles on Social Justice and here.) The insertion of “social justice” is to inform the listener/reader that  political aspects are being referred to. This reflects the Rev. Jim Wallis view that social justice is the heart of the gospel. So theology and social justice must be equated and social justice is the political lefts answer to the gospel therefore it is equal with theology, they cannot be separated. Likely no one would have a problem with the statement of justice, justice being doing what is right and fair but the political left is not trying for equal justice thus the favored term social justice.

A good quote on the subject is found from the Christian News Wire. Com:

IRD President James Tonkowich commented,

"Edgar's view of the church's role in society usually involved a more expansive federal government. While some hailed him as a prophetic voice on issues of war, poverty and environment, what he advocated exclusively pointed to liberal politics and human institutions as the answer.

"Edgar placed the council on a firmer financial footing by seeking funding from secular liberal foundations that were interested in a leftist political agenda, not the spread of the gospel.

"The NCC's ever-reluctant member communions were unconvinced by Edgar that they needed to further bear the financial burden of the activities done in their name. Clearly, the NCC's increasingly political agenda did not appeal to many of the member denominations, many of whom declined to contribute any financial support to the organization.

"Edgar often dismissed the precipitous membership plunge of many of the NCC member communions, saying that influence was more important than numbers. Both however seemed equally in decline as the national media, policymakers and everyday churchgoers increasingly directed their attentions toward mainstream Evangelical voices and away from older mainline leadership and tired institutional ecumenism.

"During Edgar's tenure, the NCC continued to prove unappealing to more orthodox faith groups, with evangelicals wary of the NCC's agenda and one member denomination choosing to permanently disassociate itself from the council.

"Bob Edgar's legacy is a financially sound council, but unfortunately not a strengthened ecumenism."

The Institute on Religion and Democracy is an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches' social witness in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings.

In 2005 in reply to such charges as the above Edgar responded:

“There are those who try to dilute our witness and mislead our friends by suggesting that the National Council of Churches is a partisan, left-leaning organization,” said Rev. Edgar. “But you know who it is that calls us to pursue peace, fight poverty and injustice, and care for the earth. It is the Prince of Peace who each day of his life showed his bias for the poor and prayed to the Creator who gave us this beautiful world,” he said.”

This always sounds good, as if right leaning organization don't want peace, don't fight poverty and injustice or care about the earth. It seems that only the political left uses this kind of logic. As most people of good will would agree with those goals the question is always how to arrive at them. Only when you start to think that your politics are the will of God do you become intolerant and become obsessed with seeing things only one way. Edgar went from his NCC position to the political liberal organization Common Cause.

During the recent so called budget debate (The US Senate has not passed a budget in over 1000 days) over the rise in the debt ceiling the leaders of the NCC took it upon themselves to protest:

The National Council of Churches out-radicalized even Jim Wallis, boasting about arrests of its officials in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in protest against budget "cuts." "Our elected officials are protecting corporations and wealthy individuals while shredding the safety net for millions of the most vulnerable people in our nation and abroad," hyperventilated the NCC's former president after his arrest. Another arrested NCC official explained, "We are citizens first and foremost of the realm of God," When steps Congress is taking contradicts our call as followers of Jesus Christ, we must take action." Interestingly, Wallis, despite many arrests in his colorful past, declined to join the civil disobedience this time.

It may, in the short run seem that the way to protect the poor is to keep devaluing money or borrowing money from China but that may not be correct. But it does point out that there are differences in how people respond to problems. To claim that your way is the only way or the way that Jesus would do it is most often simply a gratuitous assertion, but it becomes even worse when it becomes attached to theology.

Unfortunately for Adventism, Spectrum and Adventist Today magazine and online have become havens for this kind of politics as theology. Thinking that Progressive Adventist is more about politics then theology and then equating the politics with theology has left them with with little momentum to deal with the actual theological problems in the Adventist church.

The Misuse of Liberty Magazine

Over the past decade I have felt that Liberty Magazine was not really supporting liberty but anti-religious propaganda. Though most Seventh-day Adventists are religiously conservative (and many socially and politically conservative as well), Liberty Magazine has in recent years presented such conservatism as the enemy of religious liberty. I thought things had improved in the last couple years, but then I read the following from January/Febuary 2012 issue in the article entitled Religion on the Campaign Trail The Third-Party Interest by Jonathan Turley:

“With the rhetoric and rancor rising in the campaign for the White House, the election has increasingly become a call to the faithful, with candidates attempting to outdo one another in appealing to religious voters. Indeed, listening to these candidates, one could easily think this is a campaign for ecclesiastical rather than presidential office. One leading candidate recently invoked "supernatural" events guiding him and suggested that God predestined him for this office. Another candidate trumped that implied divine selection with an express promise to discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation.”

Of course the author, a Liberal Law professor (so characterized by “Politico” is alluding to Republican candidates so we should not expect him to be particularly fair or even reasonable. But I do expect more from Liberty magazine then such veiled allusions to candidates without even giving their names. How are we to know if his claims are even true if he won't even address who supposedly invoked supernatural events and suggested that God predestined him for “this office”? The reason is that he is not telling the truth and Liberty is publishing his falsehoods. You can search the Internet to see who suggests that supernatural events have lead in their lives. That is probably a reference to Rick Perry. Salon.com reports:

“Perry said then that “all through [my] life there have been these supernatural events.” He spoke in particular of an incident in 1978 when it rained 30 inches in his hometown following a drought, an episode he took as a sign that he should continue farming rather than becoming a commercial pilot.”

While someone seeing a divine sign in unusual rainfall should not scare us at all. Someone who saw something as a sign from God is not really that concerning if the sign is directed at them and what they as one person should do. It is not good to see our own Adventist publication making fun of a personal interpretation of God's messages to that person. Especially when our own former Mission Quarterly, and our current Junior Guide, if not many sermons, routinely demonstrate the same world view I was unable to find any reference that Rick Perry suggested that God predestined him for any office. But the editors of Liberty would not need to know the truth or the facts of a statement if no identity is given by the author. This is extremely sloppy journalism.

The second unnamed candidate is apparently Michele Bachmann who Turney misinterprets as “trumped that implied divine selection with an express promise to discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation.” What is that based on? Besides being a literary nightmare of a sentence “trumped”, “implied divine selection”? Go ahead look up the definition of “trumped”. What did Michael Bachmann actually say? You can read it in the transcript of Michele Bachmann’s speech at the Twin Cities megachurch Living Word Christian Center in 2006:

“Twenty-two months ago, He called me to run for United States Congress. And my husband thought, you need to do this. This is a big deal to do something like this. So we set aside three days where we fasted and we prayed, and long about the afternoon of day two, we knew. We knew that we knew that we knew. This was it. And so we jumped in, and little did we know that out of 435 seats for Congress, this race would turn in to being one of the top three in the country. And that how this race turns will probably determine what majority is in Congress this fall. [sic]

We are sitting right now at a time in our history when we’re going to be dealing with some of the most important issues of our time. Number one being, which your pastor is going to be talking about in the next few weeks, radical Islam. How will our nation deal with this threat of radical Islam? There’s so much at stake, but we listen to the Lord and we decide we’re going to suit up, we’re going to sign up, we’re going to be hot for God, and we’re going to do what He is calling us to do! And we’re going to watch out and see what He is going to perform in our midst.

And that’s what it’s all about when He makes our calling sure. It isn’t about us. It’s about Him. And it’s about freeing each one of us up to do His will for His glory so that He will be magnified! And that’s His calling. It’s sure. I commend to you to listen carefully to the truth of His word that He will bless you with as your pastor comes and speaks to you this morning.”

Her Description of what it means to be hot can also be read in the transcript:

“I’m 50 years old. I came to know Him when I was 16. For 34 years, I’ve been hot! And you want to be hot! Because when you are hot for Jesus Christ, there is nothing that is like that life! It is the most exciting life! When you are praying in the spirit, when you are meditating on his word, when you are fellowshipping with white-hot believers, He turns your life around. And it isn’t just for you. It’s for the world! He changes the world through hot people!” 
 
Bachmann's reference to “Radical Islam” to Turley and by extension Liberty magazine becomes discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation. Sure it is not what she said, not even implied but when one is a confirmed political liberal it may not be worth their time to be accurate or truthful. Time is better spent upon propaganda. I understand Jonathan Turley's misuse of information I accept it as the animus of the partisanship of the political liberal against the conservative. But why is it included a religious liberty magazine of the Adventist church?

My guess is the reason is the same as we see here on the Adventist today Website by certain columnists: Prophetic Prognostication. The fear based upon the belief that Christianity will rise against Seventh-day Adventism. That non Adventist Christians will soon act as the Beast of the book of Revelation. A fear 200 hundred years out of date. But with implications as current as today, where fear and prejudice engender defamation of fellow Christians not because of what they say or do but because they are simply Christians of a different tribe.

Luke and the Census

As it is Christmas season we often think about the story of the birth of Christ. It having more importance then either the birth of Frosty or Rudolph the red nosed reindeer even during the Christmas season...at least for now. Most of us have realized by now that the two birth accounts of Jesus, those of the book of Matthew and the book of Luke are not really reconcilable (see the article Matthew Chapter 2 Immanuel Context and Substance). Most of us also simply ignore this and conflate the two stories together but that really does not work if one thinks critically.

John Ankerberg presents some of his answers to the problem of the census in the book of Luke in his article “Was Luke Wrong About the Census under Quirinius?” He does well in laying out the problems when he writes:

So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.          

1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?    2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine . 3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born. 4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.    5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.

The answers he gives to the above problems could briefly be summed up as:

1. No evidence but it could have happened.
2. Quirinius might have ordered a census before that of A.D. 6
3. There is a reference to “A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."

I am going to deal mainly with this last statement about Vivius Maximus. Because I can agree that something in the ancient world was not recorded or the record lost so there could have been a census, after all ancient history is not all that complete. Thus it is also possible that Quirinius also may have ordered a prior rather then first census a couple of years after Jesus' birth. I think that strains the meaning of the word within it's context which is apparently the consensus view of most Bible translators, but I can see the possibility. What I don't see is any logic to the idea of a having a census where someone returns to the home of their ancestors. It would be a logistical nightmare and why would the Romans even care about the ancestral homes of anyone in the Roman territory?

You can read the proclamation of Vivius Maximus and see that it says nothing about returning to ancestral homes. The English translation is: The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. (the footnote is that "nome" was an Egyptian administrative district Vivius Maximus being the Governor of Egypt.) In the case of Joseph that would have been Nazareth (Luke 1:26). There are not too many ways to stretch that Vivius Maximus quote to encompass a return to ancestral homes. Certainly even harder once you read the exceptions for the people living in the countryside who were needed in the city.

When all the evidence is put together however it is difficult to accept the historical truth of various aspects of the book of Matthew and the book of Luke's accounts. The book of Matthew clearly had an agenda the writer was trying to get across, he took Old Testament texts out of context and applied them to Jesus to attempt to have Jesus recapitulate the history of Israel. As you read Micah chapter 5-6 you see two of those examples in one section. Matthew uses them in Matthew 2:6 using Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:15 using Micah 6:4.

I don't want you to think that just because a Bible writer misuses facts or takes things out of context that such things are intentional lies. Usually they are methods of the writer to try and get across something of more spiritual importance. Just as I frequently hear in pastor's sermons. They frequently misuse facts and take things out of context to try and build a case. I don't think they are being purposefully deceptive but they are intent upon creating a particular spiritual point. Many Bible writers introduced that technique and it was once probably more useful in an age when knowledge was rather difficult to come by and facts often depended upon who you listened to. But I think we must be a little wiser than that today. A story may be a story and may contribute to a worthy application to ones life without the story being true, literally or historically. But we do ourselves a disservice if we try and pretend that things that very likely did not happen must have happened and happened in a specific way.

It is scary to think that we have to rethink things, but it really is the nature of life. Manipulation of information is no longer acceptable. There are a lot of things in the Bible that are cultural and no longer anything we would want to associate with. But we are not stuck in their times we can progress and we must; even if it is scary to some.