To perform a search, click on ==> Search  

      

Jumping Through the Loop in the

Kingdom of the Blind

by Nic Samojluk

Warning: In the event you have a hard time figuring out the meaning of some of the terms used in this posting, you might want to read Erv Taylor's parable listed below first, as well as the lively exchange of comments that it generated from many individuals, before you read this posting. The Internet link for it is listed below:

THE ROPE PEOPLE OF THE KINGDOM OF THE BLIND

http://sdaforum.com/page181.html

Jumping Through the Loop in the Kingdom of the Blind

Breaking news coming from the offices of the National Geographic magazine reveal that recent archaeological findings resulting from the search for Sitnalta have yielded some surprising results. Extinct language experts are currently working on some stone carvings found underwater in the Atlantic Ocean in an attempt to decipher this enigmatic archaeological treasure. Work is in progress, and the following incredible story seem to be emerging:

A remote island once located in the Atlantic Ocean seems to have been inhabited by people who, due to probably some genetic mutation, inherited a defect that caused severe blindness in everyone. With the passage of time, and thanks to the medically inclined trial and error work by one of their members, it was discovered that this blindness could be cured my means of a unique ritual which they called htrib.

In order to restore their normal eyesight, the victims of blindness had to jump through a loop while those present at the ceremony engaged in the chanting of a prescribed giberish described as hsup, hsup, hsup. The lucky ones who were allowed to participate in this ritual were cured of their blindness, except for a minor inconvenience. They all preserved a blind spot in their otherwise normal eyesight.

The news of this magic cure spread to adjacent islands in Sitnalta, the name of the conglomerate of islands once situated near tne Strait of Gibraltar, and those who had been cursed by blindness started to emigrate to said island in the hope of finding a cure for their handycapp. This island's terrain was extremely rough, and rather deserted except for the highest valleys where most of the population had chosen to dwell.

There were no good highways nor roads, and travelers had no choice but to slowly advance towards their objective through rivers and jungle territory infested with poisonous snakes and all kinds of predator animals. A normal trip to reach the people of the Kingdom of the Blind was nine shtnom, but under special circumstances it could be accomplished in seven. Getting a chance to jump through the magic loop was not easy, and many were torn to pieces by beasts of prey or else died es a result of poisonous snake bites before gaining the privilege of jumping through the loop.

The interesting detail is that for centuries there had been a highway, marked with Ten Highpost Signs, that meandered through the high hills and valleys which had eased travel for newcomers and provided considerable safety for them, but decades of neglect had eroded this highway to the point that it became no longer usable. Signpost number Six and Seven were no longer visible, and nearly half of signpost number One had been destroyed.

A group of people identified as orp-srefil suggested to the king of the Island that an effort be made to repair the road for foreign newcomers, but a leading citizen of said tribe argued that the island was already overcrowded and that terrible hunger would result since the number of newcomers had been increasing at an alarming rate. Others insisted that the highest priority was to restore the signposts, especially the first one. If travelers failed to see the first signpost, the highway was no use for them.

Those supporting the first initiative insisted that some help be provided to the newcomers, but under strict guidelines to make sure that no assistance be offered to those cursed with certain genetic abnormalities, and those who had been sent to the Island without the consent of the victims. They identified those cases as being the result of epar and tsecni. Other leading members of the community proposed that no newcomer be allowed to go through the magic loop ceremony unless he/she was wanted by a permanent resident of the island.

After some time, one of the orp-efil members suggested that the new Senilediug fo Noitroba set of rules be replaced with a Senilediug fo Noitpoda, coupled with a complete restoration of the eroded highway, so that all newcomers be allowed to have a chance to be cured from their blindness by being allowed to jump through the magic htrib loop. No matter how hard he tried, his calls for compassion fell on deaf ears. Finally, in desperation, he invited the support of two members of the Island.

Since one of them lived on another section of the island, he sent a homing pigeon with a message to him begging for his support. After some time he received the following response: "I can understand your concern, but it happens that I disagree with your solution to the problem. I do not want any epar and tsecni newcomer on this island! We are not even sure whether they really belong to the human species, and we need to take into account the goals of the family that would need to provide temporary shelter to such individuals. I am with you in the case of those who have overcome the first three shtnom of travel but not before!

Besides, I am more concerned about another problem facing the future of our island community: How do we get rid of those who, influenced by Niwrad, are teaching our kids that we share a common ancestor with the Sepa tribe? We must preserve our geneaology clean. Our true ancestor is Mada, and we should never compromise on this. I am ready to put a big fight on this issue, and if ever the evidence would point in the opposite direction indicating that I am wrong, I would be ready to leave the island community!"

While this was taking place, the older men of the island continued to have their on-and-off discussions with the objective of reaching a concensus about the identity of the newcomers: Did they really belong to the human race. All the newcomers surely bore human features and shared the same AND. Could it be that they had not reached the noble and privileged status of humanity in their slow adaptation to the human environment? One of their orp-efil members argued that in the event we had any doubt, common sense dictated that they should err on the side of caution, but his pleas for mercy toward the newcomers fell on deaf ears.

It doesn't look like this dilema was solved in a satisfactory manner, because this is as far as the archaeological record findings can take us. The story ends there, and we all know the fate suffered by Sitnalta: It sank to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. All we have relative to the history of the Island is the inscription on this stone found in the dephts of the ocean. Hopefully, additional expeditions will perhaps unearth other archaeological remains that might reveal other pieces of this intriguing historical puzzle.

*********

Important disclaimer

The quotations listed in this allegory are really composite paraphrases of statement that have been made by several individuals over the years in the last four decades. If they seem to match something that you have expressed, do not be alarmed, since this must be a mere coincidence. If you want to find out what real people have stated regarding this issue, you need to locate their actual verbatim quotations, most of whom are in this forum. And remember that this is a parable and not an actual report of what people you know have stated.

*********

In order to better understand what has taken place in this forum regarding the issues alluded to here, you may want to read also the following topics:

THE ROPE PEOPLE OF THE KINGDOM OF THE BLIND

http://sdaforum.com/page181.html

How Fundamental is the Literal Six-Day Creation Week?

http://sdaforum.com/page61.html

The Puzzling SDA Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn

http://sdaforum.com/page90.html

Employment, Church policy & Women's Ordination

http://sdaforum.com/page89.html

Diversity and the Teaching of Evolution in SDA Schools

http://sdaforum.com/page182.html

The Alarming SDA Shift Regarding Origins

http://sdaforum.com/page172.html

Is Charles Darwin Moving to Loma Linda?

http://sdaforum.com/page66.html 

 

 

When is "Humanity" Achieved?

by Sean Pitman

Hey Nic,

I read through your own parable on abortion. I don't mind if you reference my own views on this issue, but at least don't mischaracterize my position. You make it seem like I'm against trying to save children conceived by rape or incest. Yet, I never said that. Why put words in my mouth that you know I never said? It would be best to quote me directly rather than trying to re-interpret what you think I'm trying to say from now on . . .

For me it doesn't matter if a human life was created by rape or incest. Humanity itself has its own value. The only question is, when is "humanity" achieved? For me, that is when the human mind is created to the level of consciousness. I don't believe that DNA alone, the mere potential for a human, reaches the level of humanity. I don't believe a single fertilized cell is a human either - and neither is a small collection of cells. There is no brain, no thinking, no feeling, no potential for suffering, nothing but a collection of cells with the potential to be human - someday. At this point, there is no murder of an actual human with the destruction of a pre-thinking pre-conscious cell or collection of cells. There is only the potential to terminate what might one day become a human. That's a huge difference in my book.

You argue "for the benefit of the doubt" in favor of the unborn fetus - regardless of the degree of development. That's fine for your own personal decision. I happen to agree with you when it comes to what I would do personally. However, there's a difference for me between what I would do personally and what I would feel right forcing someone else to do. For me, if a woman wanted to abort for any reason within the first few weeks of pregnancy, I would not feel it within my rights to force her to continue against her will. You may feel that this is your right. I do not. In fact, I would fight to support the woman in her decision at this point in her pregnancy even though I may not personally agree with her decision. It isn't murder in my book, to terminate a pregnancy during the first few weeks of pregnancy. It is nothing more than the prevention of the development of what will become, but is not yet, a human life.

Therefore, at this point, which way should the benefit of the doubt turn? - toward the mother or toward the maintaining the potential of a new human life, the fulfillment of which would cause a great deal of distress to those who are already clearly human? Have you no feeling for the position of the potential mother and father at all? - only the potential of another human life?

One more thing . . .

Consider that even the Mosaic laws seem to distinguish between the life of the mother versus the life of her unborn baby. Read Exodus 21:22-25:

Quote:
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage [i.e., the baby dies] but there is no serious injury [to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Notice how the life and physical well being of the mother is considered much more valuable than that of her unborn child.

Sean

 

Is the Life of the Pregnant Woman worth More

than the Life of her Baby?

by Nic Samojluk

Hi Sean,

Thanks for responding to my new thread. I do value your input, because it helps me clarify my own position, and I hope it may help someone else who might read what we say in this forum.

The Role of Quotations and Assumptions

First, let me answer your comments in your first paragraph:

Quote:
I don't mind if you reference my own views on this issue, but at least don't mischaracterize my position. You make it seem like I'm against trying to save children conceived by rape or incest. Yet, I never said that. Why put words in my mouth that you know I never said? It would be best to quote me directly rather than trying to re-interpret what you think I'm trying to say from now on . . .
I believe that quotations and assumptions derived from those quotations play different roles in any exchange of ideas. The purpose of quotations needs no comments, but the role of assumptions derived from those quotations are quite often overlooked. Their objective is to give a chance to the other person to clarify his/her position. This is exactly what happened here. I made an assumption, which gave you the opportunity to further clarify your position. Trying to avoid this would tend to impede this process.

Notice that I could yield to the temptation of suggesting that you also did exactly what you are asking me to avoid:

Quote:
For me, if a woman wanted to abort for any reason within the first few weeks of pregnancy, I would not feel it within my rights to force her to continue against her will. You may feel that this is your right.
Here, like in your case, you did assume that I was defendding "my right to force" a pregnant woman to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term. I could ask you not to make unwarranted assumptions on my behalf, but rather limit yourself to quote me verbatim. I will not do that, because this assumption of yours gives me a chance to clarify my position. I will not deprive myself of this benefit.

The Distinction Between a Moral and a Political Question

The context of this exchange of ideas about abortion is a moral one. The parable appearing at the beginning of this thread deals with the Adventist Church proper role in this controversy. The church has no power fo "force" anyone to carry an abortion to term. Its role is to help our church members to distinguish between good and evil. If you are interested in finding my political opinion on this matter, that would be another issue.

The Morality of Abortion

I believe that choosing the abortion alternative is a morally flawed decision. Why? Because there is a better option: Adoption. The Bible has many definitions for sin, and one of them is "missing the mark." If you accept this definition, and if you accept that an embryo is a human being, then you need to conclude that the woman who opts for an abortion has missed the mark. She has failed to opt for the best alternative, or if you prefer, she has sinned against the Creator.

The Value of Human Life

You wonder whether I have read the biblical passage found in Exodus 21:22-24. My answer is: Yes, I have read that passage not once, but rather numerous times. From it I draw a totally different conclusion, and it looks like I am not alone on this. Please, read how the NIV renders the same passage:

Quote:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury [the baby lives] the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, [the baby dies] you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
This means that if you are pro-abortion, you stick to the version you used; but if you are pro-life, you choose the NIV. My question to you is: Which translation better agrees with the Commandment that reads:

Quote:
"You shall not murder"?]
and the other one that forbids the shedding of innocent blood?

The Humanity of the Human Embryo

You seem to wonder whether the human embryo is really human:

Quote:
For me it doesn't matter if a human life was created by rape or incest. Humanity itself has its own value. The only question is, when is "humanity" achieved? For me, that is when the human mind is created to the level of consciousness. I don't believe that DNA alone, the mere potential for a human, reaches the level of humanity. I don't believe a single fertilized cell is a human either - and neither is a small collection of cells. There is no brain, no thinking, no feeling, no potential for suffering, nothing but a collection of cells with the potential to be human - someday. At this point, there is no murder of an actual human with the destruction of a pre-thinking pre-conscious cell or collection of cells. There is only the potential to terminate what might one day become a human.
In the previous thread dealing with evolution, we seemed to agree that teaching the theory of evolution as factual is totally out of place in our SDA educational institutions, because it tends to deny the basic dogma of the Christian church, and because the role of God as the Creator runs like a golden thread from Genesis through Revelation--which the theory of evolution contradicts. In that thread you stated to me that abortion is a separate issue from the teaching of evolution. Let me try to persuade you that this is not the case.

If you think hard, you might realize that your argument that a human being in its embryonic stage is not a human being yet, because it has not reached the stage of consciousness, is precisely the philosophical reasoning that gave us abortion. By coincidence, in his Sabbath School lesson this morning Paul Giem dealt precisely with this. The book he is using is "Icons of Evolution," and there is a chapter in it dealing with the view of evolutionists who seem to argue precisely the way you do. Their theory is that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," and that in its embryonic stage there is hardly any difference between a human embryo and that of a frog, fish, or any other creature.

As you can see, the theory of evolution tends to deny the humanity of the unborn in its embryonic stage of development. I do not believe that this reasoning can stand the biblical test. Exodus 21 provides no exception for the "first few weeks of pregnancy:" The mother of Jesus was "with child" at the moment of conception:

Quote:
For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived.
Notice that Mary conceived a "child"--not a "collection of cells," neither a "potential human being." You further state:

Quote:
It isn't murder in my book, to terminate a pregnancy during the first few weeks of pregnancy. It is nothing more than the prevention of the development of what will become, but is not yet, a human life.
If you think this through, you might realize that given the correctness of your position, it would imply that Mary, the mother of Jesus, could have opted for aborting her baby in the "first few weeks of pregnancy." The same could be said about Samson, Samuel, and so on.

What to do in Case of Doubt

You also state the following:

Quote:
You argue "for the benefit of the doubt" in favor of the unborn fetus - regardless of the degree of development. That's fine for your own personal decision. I happen to agree with you when it comes to what I would do personally. However, there's a difference for me between what I would do personally and what I would feel right forcing someone else to do.
True, and you seem to agree that you would also "personally" err on the side of caution. When we do part company is when you suggest that "I would feel right forcing someone else" to carry the pregnancy to term. I already clarified the difference between a moral and a political dilemma. We have been discussing the role of the Adventist Church, which does not have the authority to "force" anyone to remain pregnant.

My Political Opinion Regarding Abortion

Now that I have established the difference between our moral and our political duty, let me tell you what my civil duty is: My duty as a citizen of our country is to vote for candidates that would come as close as possible to the ideal moral duty I have towards God and the sanctity of human life.

In most of the Latin countries there is no legal abortion alternative for women, and our SDA members in those countries are happy with this situation, and our evangelistic program is quite successful. God does bless our mission efforts whenever we seek to do his will. The only option pregnant women have in those countries is whether to keep the baby or else give it up for adoption. Couples who can't procreate are spending up to $25,000 for the privilege of adopting a child in the U.S. This could be avoided.

The Best Alternative for Pregnant Women in Crisis

I believe that adoption is a better alternative than abortion. You seem to think otherwise:

Quote:
Therefore, at this point, which way should the benefit of the doubt turn? - toward the mother or toward the maintaining the potential of a new human life, the fulfillment of which would cause a great deal of distress to those who are already clearly human?
Think this way. Choosing the best alternative will make a childless couple happy, and the pregnant woman will not have to deal with the psychological pain and guilt for the rest of her life.

The Question of Fairness and Justice

In addition, I would like to address the question of fairness and justice. Justice demands that the guilty be punished, and not the innocent. Abortion turns this fairness rule upside down. The guilty of rape or incest usually goes free, and the unborn is executed.

The Impact of Abortion on the Church's Mission

Finally the legalization of abortion tends to make it easier for people to engage in deviant behavior which is forbidden by the Seventh Commandment: They see no big harm in the practice of adultery and fornication, since an abortion seems to solve the unwanted pregnancy problem.

When the church justifies abortion, the mission of the church is compromised. The SDA church should never have defended the practice of abortion, which it did even before the legalization of abortion, and I am talking about elective abortion--not the therapeutic type. If you need documentation, I am willing to provide.

The practice of abortion was condemned by the early Christian church and the Hyppocratic Oak was in force in the West for thousand of years. Abortion is a new morality influenced by the theory of evolution which teaches that a human embryo is not really human. On this issue, the SDA church has developed a blind spot. This needs to be corrected.

Nic

 

The Opinion of Jewish Scholars

by Sean Pitman

Hey Nic,

You presented me as actually saying what I never said. I do not suggest that you actually said something you never said. I do suggest and still believe that your views, as they are actually stated by direct quote, would have the effect of putting undue guilt on parents who may wish or have already aborted a pregnancy in the first few weeks following conception.

Beyond this, one shouldn't have to defend ones self against unnecessary misrepresentation of his/her position simply to stimulate discussion or to essentially require "clarification". In any case, I'm asking you to reword your parable so as to remove the false suggestion that my position is something that it isn't. If you do not do this, I will remove you from being part of my E-mail list. It means that much to me. Thanks . . .

As far as Exodus 21:22-25, it seems to me that it should be read in the most likely context; i.e., the most likely intent of the author of this account. It is very telling, then, what modern and ancient Jewish scholars thought this passage meant.

It is notable that no rabbinic commentator has seen the possibility of a live-birth reading in Exodus 21, including such careful readers of the text as Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra. All assume a miscarriage here and find no difficulty in this reading. Likewise, the Evangelical reading of this text has not convinced any major commentator on the text. Contextual uses of the terms in this chapter have led most translators and commentators on the Hebrew text to understand a miscarriage in Exodus 21:22-25. Also, similar laws may be found in Akkadian law codes, laws which speak of miscarriage, not premature birth. This is how ancient writers would write a law about causing a miscarriage.

Jerome's Commentary, a highly respected source explains: "If a pregnant women should suffer a miscarriage as a result of a blow, the guilty party need only make a monetary compensation demanded by her husband; however should the woman die, capital punishment is proscribed for the offender." This is confirmed by the Jewish teachings that abortion is never considered murder. If the fetus had been considered an independent entity, there would have been an life for a life penalty for murder. The same interpetation is favored by the SDA Bible Commentary.

The Talmud says that a fetus is its mothers thigh (Hulin 58a and Gittin 23b), and it has no legal rights. Even once the birth process starts the fetus can be destroyed to save the women from physical or mental harm. In order for a fetus to be considered a nefesh adam (a living person), its head must have emerged from the birth canal. Sanhedrin 72b states: it (the fetus) is not a person and therefore its life is inferior to its mothers life.

If it was a live birth the verse would have said something like "Tinoch ha' nolad" ("tinoch" being the word for baby or infant). The verse is generally translated by Jewish scholars to mean miscarriage.

Another more direct abortion example in the Sanhedrin is a discussion of what to do with a pregnant women who has been sentenced to death. They conclude she should be beat on the stomach prior to the execution; thereby preventing her from going into labor. It makes no difference how far along she is, the fetus dies with the mother. "I cite this Halacha because it puts the status of the fetus into a Halachic perspective. Even if it could be viable it has no rights unto itself." - Norman Slurzberg

In Exodus the lost fetus was a property offense only. The fine was required since it deprived the Husband the property rights and value of a future child (to work in fields if boy, or marriage price if girl). Since no life taken, no life for a life penalty only to compensate husband for potential property loss.

Also, though "a life for a life" would make sense in the Greek--"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot," it makes no sense in reference to a miscarried fetus. Not only does a fetus lack teeth, but the other body parts are not lost individually in a usual miscarriage.

Today modern Evangelicals have attempted another reading of the Hebrew text which could remove it from the topic of abortion. The terminology used in Exodus 21 is odd for miscarriage. Literally, "her children go forth." But the terminology is not common for live birth as well, unless twins are presupposed. For, "her (singular) children (plural) go forth (plural)." The plural indicates a figure of speech rather than a direct description of birth. Evangelicals wish to understand this text as describing a live, premature birth rather than a miscarriage; and "harm" would refer to the newborn child. Though such a reading might give the fetus full value as a human, it removes the mother from the equation of lex talionis, which means this text cannot be used to prove that the woman has equal value to men under Mosaic law. On multiple layers, the abortion question pits the value of the fetus against the value of the woman.

But, you argue that humanness begins at conception because of texts that point out that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Sure He was! But, that doesn't mean that he became a thinking feeling human being at conception - regardless of how He was conceived. That means that Mary could indeed have opted for abortion without committing murder. Of course, she would still have been guilty of trying to subvert the Divine plan for her role in the birth of Jesus, but an abortion would not have somehow destroyed the soul of Jesus or ruined the whole plan of salvation. That's just not a reasonable extrapolation of the text.

The whole process of tying in the sole with the chemicals of DNA and cellular development is a mystery that we cannot understand. Certainly though, there is nothing of what we would call valuable about humanness in a single cell or small collection of cells. It doesn't think, feel, understand . . . nothing that we consider unique about humans. It has no advantage over any other type of cell except in potential. God's ability to predict or know what that cell will turn into is not limited to the genetics of the cell. God can easily give the proper Spirit to any collection of molecules - that is how Jesus could be both human and God at the same time. Do you think the Spirit of Jesus had to have Mary's DNA in order for the incarnation of Christ to be successful? I personally don't think so. I think Jesus could have been incarnated with the use of anyone's DNA. The incarnation wasn't dependent upon Mary's cooperation.

Sean

Reference:

http://www.atoday.com/412.0.html

 

Your View of Humannes Differs from that

of the Early SDA Pioneers!

by Nic Samojluk

Sean,

Thanks for giving me an incentive for editing my parable. I did edit it and I deleted all the hidden references to individual names, including mine. If you discover that I have left any of them undeleted, please let me know. This way readers can only guess the identity of the characters referred to, and you probably noticed that the parable includes things that were said outside this thread and this forum. This is why I inserted the following disclaimer at the end of the parable:

Quote:
Important disclaimer

The quotations listed in this allegory are really composite paraphrases of statement that have been made by several individuals over the years in the last four decades. If they seem to match something that you have expressed, do not be alarmed, since this must be a mere coincidence. If you want to find out what real people have stated regarding this issue, you need to locate their actual verbatim quotations, most of whom are in this forum. And remember that this is a parable and not an actual report of what people you know have stated.
I do appreciate the valuable and challenging material you have been sending my way, and would consider loosing this privilege a real loss to me. And you might be aware that I have not included a special invitation to read this parable in my mass mailing yet. When I do, they will read the edited version of it instead of the original unedited one. I hope the changes I have made in my parable satisfies your demands. We do agree on the need to oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution in our schools as factual instead of a mere theory, and I believe that you are a valuable asset to the church in this respect. I hope, though, that you might see the close connection between evolution and abortion.

When I initially wrote said allegory, I made an honest attempt not to misrepresent what others had once stated over the years. In my paraphrase, I did try to stick to what I interpreted to be the position of several individuals. You may notice that I deleted the last two paragraphs and replaced them with a disclaimer. I have been faithfully posting the comments you have been sending to me. For any future mailings, if you have any comments which you do not want me to include in the forum, please label them as STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. Otherwise I will assume that anything that comes my way is intended to be posted.

By the way, do you know what the main characteristic of an allegory is? An allegory or a parable is like a caricature where some of the features are intentionally distorted for the sake of effect, and they might represent what several individuals have stated in the past. This is true about most parables, including the one that Erv Taylor wrote. Evidently you took this quite seriously, and I do not blame you. I probably would have reacted in a similar fashion had I been the object of a caricature. Although, I have seen people who dismiss the temptation to get offended and laugh at themselves with everybody else.

Nevertheless, as I was writing it, I did make a serious attempt to avoid distorting what I had understood other people had stated, and if I did misinterpret anything, you did have a chance of making the proper correction, and you did take advantage of this by posting a clarification. This is what a forum is for. Making corrections in the original posting has its own problems, since the postings that follow may not make very much sense, because readers have no idea why certain comments that followed were made. If I had chosen to quote people verbatim in a parable, the literary piece would have ceased to be what it is. It would have become an actual report instead of being an allegory. I hope you can see the difference.

The Value of the Unborn

Evidently you assign a lot of credit to your favourite interpretation of Exodus 21. I don't, and I will tell you why:

First Reason. I believe that the authors of the New International Version of the Bible must have had good reasons for having chosen the "premature birth" option when translating said passage instead of "miscarriage." The Hebrew is inconclusive and the original term can be rendered either way. You have chosen the translation that tends to justify abortion, I prefer the one that condemns it and which reads:

Quote:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury [the baby lives] the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, [the baby dies] you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Second Reason. The Christian church condemened the practice of abortion. The early church fathers condemned the practice of abortion and supported the adoption of the Hyppocratic Oath which read:

Quote:
"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. " [ http://sdaforum.com/page183.html ]
Third Reason. Christianity condemned the practice of abortion for two millenia. The legalization of abortion is the result of the introduction of a new morality regarding the practice of abortion, and it was the evil fruit of the sexual revolution of the sixties which justified both adultery and fornication.

Fourth Reason. The early SDA pioneers condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest possible terms.

Quote:
James White: Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.

 

Quote:
J.N. Andrews: One of the most shocking, and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation, is the murder of unborn infants. Let those who think this a small sin, read Ps. 139:16. They will see that even the unborn child is written in God’s book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children. [ J.N. Andrews, Editor. “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Nov. 30, 1869): 184.]

 

Quote:
Ellen G. White: If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. [ White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.]
In their efforts to justify the practice of abortion, some have argued that Ellen White was silent on abortion. That is true, but she was not silent on the almost murder of the unborn. If she condemned the almost murder of the unborn, just think what she would have said about the actual murder of the same. Besides, considering the strong words of condemnation of the practice by her husband, who held the highest position in the early SDA church as editor of the church paper and president of the General conference, do you think there was a need for her to say anything about this issue? She certainly could have criticized her husband opinion on the matter. She didn't!

Now notice the stark contrast between the opinion of the SDA pioneers, and that of a modern president of the General Conference. Do you detect the 180 degree turn of the church regarding abortion? And do not forget that this declaration was made immediately prior to the time when our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii authorized the provision of elective abortions to women who didn't want to carry their babies to term--not for therapeutic reasons, but rather for convenience.

Quote:
Neal Wilson:
Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation,[1] we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population. [ George B. Gainer, “Abortion: History of Adventist guidelines” Ministry (Aug. 1991): 11-17. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1991-08/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11 on 25 Oct. 2006.]
This is amazing; the president of the SDA church, the church claiming to be God’s “Remnant Church” keeping God’s commandments, declaring in the richest country of the world that killing the unborn is justified because there is hunger and overpopulation in the world!

Fifth Reason. The SDA church states that the unborn should be protected from the time a pregnancy has been detected.

Quote:
Gerald Winslow: "What we have said is that we take every stage of prenatal life very seriously. It should be protected," explains Winslow. "But the prenatal life we're protecting exists once an 'established pregnancy' can be ascertained." [ http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en ]
Sixth Reason. The Old Testament can't be normative for us today, otherwise it would be OK for me to take a second wife, to hold a few slaves, and to engage in genocide. Those practices the Lord tolerated then, but the church doesn't condone them today.

You state:

Quote:
In Exodus the lost fetus was a property offense only.
Right! What does this prove? Haven't you considered that women were also considered men's property in the Old Testament? Can you conclude that murdering one's wife would be acceptable today?

Seventh Reason: The argument that the human embryo is not really human in the early stages of development, which you seem to defend, is actually a truly evolutionists tenet. I suggest that you read the book authored by Jonathan Wells entitled "Icons of Evolution." In it he has an entire chapter dealing with this issue. My question to you is: How can you feel so strong about the need to dismiss those SDA teachers who believe in evolution and at the same time adamantly defend a basic premise of evolutionists regarding the non-humanity of the human embryo?

My friend, I would like you to reconsider your position on abortion. I have invested thousands of hours--that I could have employed in my business--to this topic, and my doctoral dissertation deals with the dramatic shift of the SDA church regarding this issue. The more I study this, the more convinced I get that the church needs to repent and alter its course and practice. Our hospitals should stop offering abortion services and follow the lead of those operated by the Catholic church. They will not perform abortions. They remain faithful to the Christian tradition in this respect, a tradition that goes all the way to the early Christian church.

You stated:

Quote:
I don't believe that DNA alone, the mere potential for a human, reaches the level of humanity. I don't believe a single fertilized cell is a human either - and neither is a small collection of cells. There is no brain, no thinking, no feeling, no potential for suffering, nothing but a collection of cells with the potential to be human - someday. At this point, there is no murder of an actual human with the destruction of a pre-thinking pre-conscious cell or collection of cells.

 

Quote:
But, you argue that humanness begins at conception because of texts that point out that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Sure He was! But, that doesn't mean that he became a thinking feeling human being at conception - regardless of how He was conceived. That means that Mary could indeed have opted for abortion without committing murder.
Compare your view on abortion with the views expressed by the founders of the SDA church I quoted above. Can you see the contrast? How can you expect SDA Darwinists to take you seriously, if you concede one of their basic tenets: that the human embryo is not really human, and that the humanity of the unborn start when you can see evidence of the ability to think. Can you tell me when such a stage is achieved? You well know that abortion was the corollary of the sexual revolution of the sixties. The mass violation of the Commandment that says "You shall not commit adultery" preceded the legalization of the killing of the unborn.

The twins sins of adultery and fornication are at the root of the abortion business. How can we continue to label ourselves as the "Remnant Church" having the last message to a perishing world while ignoring two of God's Commandments: the Sixth and the Seventh one. This blows my mind! Our Washington hospital was decribed by a GC official as an "Abortion Mill." And we have labelled the Pope--who defends the life of the unborn--as the "Beast of Revelation." Who is really the beast, the one who protects the innocent, the weak and vulnerable or the one who destroys, or condones the destruction of the innocent?

There is much more I could say, but I will rather stop with reason number seven--the number representing perfection!

Nic

 

The Bible is Ambiguous Regarding Abortion

by Sean Pitman

Nic,

I appreciate your efforts and your motives regarding the issue of abortion. I also thank you for modifying your parable. However, at the very least it seems that the Bible itself is rather ambiguous with regard to the issue of abortion. The available texts dealing with the issue are few and can be easily interpreted to mean completely opposite things. That is why I think it is best to leave this issue as a personal decision between the individual and God without any official SDA Church stand. There simply isn't enough Biblical support to take a fundamental position as a Church Body - in my opinion. The arguments on both sides have reasonable support.

Personally, I'm convinced by the pro-choice arguments when it comes to the first few weeks after conception while you wish to "give the benefit of the doubt", in an official way as stated Church doctrine, to the fetus at all stages of development regardless of the position of the parents.

There you have it. There is too much doubt here for the Church to take any definite stand to the degree you are promoting. The Church's definite stands on right and wrong, with the resulting implication of guilt on contrary parties, should be only on those issues which seem to have overwhelmingly clear Biblical support. I'm afraid that your position, at least in degree, does not have adequate Biblical or even traditional support.

Again though, I admire your motive and your efforts to do what you think is right. I also thank you for the very good job you are doing in maintaining your own website dealing with such issues.

Sean

 

There is no Condemnation of Slavery

in the Bible Either!

by Nic Samojluk

Sean,

Thanks for your prompt response. You stated the following:

Quote:
The Bible itself is rather ambiguous with regard to the issue of abortion. The available texts dealing with the issue are few and can be easily interpreted to mean completely opposite things.
It is true that the Exodus passage both you and I cited is ambiguous and can be interpreted to favor either position on the issue of abortion. Does it follow though that whenever the Bible is inconclusive on a certain point we are at liberty to take any position we fancy is permissible? How about slavery. There is no outright condemnation of slavery in the Bible. Does this mean that--if this were legal--it would be morally acceptable for Adventists to own a few slaves?

In your response to Erv Taylor in another thread in this forum, you quoted extensively from Ellen G. White, which would indicate that you consider her to be a recognized moral authority for Adventists. If her statements regarding the "Alpha and Omega" deceptions are authoritative for you, how about her statement regarding the sanctity of human life? Aren't those pertinent for SDA's today as well? And how about the opinions of her husband, James White, who was for many decades the editor of our official magazine, and who also occupied the presidency of the General Conference of SDA's? Should those be ignored and set aside in order to compromise with the liberal attitude towards this issue?

Should I ignore what Mr. White said about the sacredness of human life:

Quote:
Ellen G. White:
If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. [ White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.]
Here is my question to you: If Mrs. White condemned the "almost murder" of the unborn, can we conclude that she would have excused the actual murder of the same? How about the opinion of James White?

Quote:
James White:
Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.
How can you brush aside such strong condemnation of the practice of abortion? Can you cite any statement from Ellen White, James White, or any of the early SDA pioneers in defense of abortion--either therapeutic, elective, or in the first trimester of pregnancy. How can we as a church ignore these, as well as many others, direct and unmistakable condemnation of such practice and look the other way while millions of unborn babies are sacrificed on the altar of convenience, in direct violation of two Commandments of the Decalogue?

How can we tolerate and permit that elective abortion services be offered in at least two SDA hospitals? Doesn't this bother you? How can we ignore what a recent president of the GC stated asserting that abortions were a proper response of the SDA church due to the hunger and overpopulation in the world?

Quote:
Neal Wilson:
Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation,[1] we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population. [ George B. Gainer, “Abortion: History of Adventist guidelines” Ministry (Aug. 1991): 11-17. Accessed from http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1991-08/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11 on 25 Oct. 2006.]
It is important to notice that this statement was issued just prior to the decision of the Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii to offer elective abortion services to any woman requesting them. And we are not talking about therapeutic abortions!

You feel strong about the need to do something about the teachers that are teaching the theory of evolution as factual in our schools. I feel strong about the need for our church to stop offering abortion services in our hospitals. Can we join hands on both of these issues? Both are important, and the church needs to do what is right about them regardless of the consequences!

Nic

 

No Revelation from God on this Issue!

by Sean Pitman

Nic,

Ellen White often wrote on the basis of her own personal opinion on a topic - without any sort of revelation from God on the topic. James White often became frustrated by Ellen constantly telling him what to do with regard to matters of her own opinion. At least one time James told Ellen to leave him alone unless she had a direct message from God.

As far as the issue of abortion is concerned, I think the early SDA Church leaders were speaking of their own opinion on the topic, as you are, without clear Biblical support or any direct revelation from God. I haven't been able to find where any of them were directed by God in their statements concerning abortion. Given this, their knowledge of fetal development was also extremely limited. They simply had no idea of the stages of development involved, that for several weeks there simply is no internal or external morphologic or functional features that anyone would call "human".

For me, there is no human until there is a brain that can sense and appreciate external stimuli. At least until this point is reached, no official recommendation should be given to the parents outside of their own convictions.

Sean
www.DetectingDesign.com

 

No Revelation from God on the Issue

of Slavery Either!

by Nic Samojluk

Sean,

You did surprise me with your reason for ignoring both what Ellen White and her husband, James White, had stated about the sacredness of human life which I quoted above. Here is your argument for setting aside the counsel of these SDA pioneers, one of them a recognized prophetess, and the other a lifelong editor of the church's paper and president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:

Quote:
Ellen White often wrote on the basis of her own personal opinion on a topic - without any sort of revelation from God on the topic. James White often became frustrated by Ellen constantly telling him what to do with regard to matters of her own opinion. At least one time James told Ellen to leave him alone unless she had a direct message from God.
Based on your argument, would it be safe for me to ignore from now on everything Mrs. White has written, and heed only those portions where she had specifically claimed to have received the information as a result of a direct revelation from above?

Should I also set aside all the biblical passages where the writer failed to claim to have received the information from heaven? Is divine inspiration limited to those instances where there is a direct allusion to a vision or special revelation from God? Can I from now on set aside what I find in Generis 1 and 2, since we have no idea where the author got his information from and there is no reference to its source?

Notice that Moses had the habit of atributing to God everytime he had specific instructions from above. This is evident and clearly patent from Exodus through Deuteronomy. Such a claim is missing from the story of Creation. Am I free to treat this story anyway I fancy because it doesn't contain a claim to a visionary experience or a direct revelation from above.

As you can see, I am a bit perturbed, because you assign great value to the Creation story, but if you reject what Ellen White and James White, and the early SDA pioneers stated about abortion, then I am at a losss as to how to interpret the double standard you seem to be using when dealing with the inspired writings.

 

A Personal Opinion from

the NARLA Director

by James Standish

The following Pro-life comments by the North American Religious Associacion Executive Director were sent to me by Hugo Schmidt:

Quote:
Thank you so much for your note.

I am a firm believer in the right to life and have been outspoken to this effect on a number of occasions. It is my prayer that one day our church will speak in one accord on behalf of the most innocent, the most defenseless, and the most vulnerable in our society. Until that happens, I encourage all of those who feel strongly on this issue to follow their conscience and speak up in our individual capacity, as I do.

May God bless you,

James Standish

To access the NARLA website, click on the following Internet link:

http://www.religiousliberty.info/article.php?id=7

 

The Opinion of a Well-known SDA

Former Religious Leader

by Nic Samojluk

Notice the contrast between James Standish' opinion on abortion and that of John V. Stevens, Sr., who was also a Religious Liberty Director of the SDA Church. Here is a portion of what I reported some time ago:

*********
The Background. On August 20, 1990, The Pacific Union Recorder published an article written by John V. Stevens Sr., the Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director, titled Abortion Answers and Attitudes, in which he adamantly defended the women's right to abortion. His arguments were mainly based on human freedom. I will insert here a few quotes to illustrate his position:
Quote:
The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life ...

Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person ...

Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ ...

From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position. ...
Notice that he argues that the humanity of the baby begins at birth, which means that he is defending not merely therapeutic abortion, but elective abortion as well. No wonder two SDA hospitals have been offering elective--non-therapeutic abortions--services to their clients.

For more on John Stevens and Abortion, click on the following Internet link:

http://sdaforum.com/page67.html

 

What John V. Stevens Recently Wrote

About Abortion

by Nic Samojluk

Again, compare James Standish' Pro-life statement cited above with John V. Stevens' recent defense of abortion. Notice that both of these men have had extensive experience as Religious Liberty Directors.

*********

Sixteen Years Later. Sixteen years later, John Stevens is still defending the practice of abortion with the same arguments; and in doing this, he reflects the thinking of many leaders, as well as lay people, in the SDA Church, as evidenced by the official document titled, Guidelines on Abortion. Recently, in the March 1, 2006 of the same SDA publication, he stated the following under the Title:

Quote:
Abortion Commandment?

Having served the Pacific Union Conference for 20 years as PARL director, I naturally was interested in the Ten Commandments being written in the heart. Ten Commandments issues mentioned were “abortion, marriage, divorce and homosexuality.”

Many people view abortion as killing, therefore a Ten Commandments issue. However, nowhere in Scripture are we told that abortion is a crime, or killing, or even a sin.

We have been subtly conditioned by religious propaganda from the fundamentalists. The abortion issue is the catalyst that will establish religion in our nation and then everything else will follow. Only two passages in the Scriptures deal with an induced miscarriage.

Exodus chapter 21 treats the fetus as property and one causing the accidental miscarriage is required to pay a fine. If a fetus were a person, it would be a manslaughter charge.

The other passage is the trial of jealousy in Numbers chapter 5. In that passage, the husband suspects his wife is pregnant by infidelity and God gave a law requiring the suspected wife to go through a procedure that causes an abortion if she is guilty and pregnant. If she is innocent, nothing happens to her.

E.G. White never touched the subject in spite of the raging controversy on abortion in the latter 19th century. We need to guard against letting our national religious culture change us, for a day is coming when Sunday worship and Sabbath desecration will be national religious culture with heavy penalties for non-conformists.

John V. Stevens, Sr.
To access the full article dealing with Stevens' defense of abortion, click the following Internet link:

http://sdaforum.com/page67.html

 

Readers' Strong Reaction to Stevens'

Defense of Abortion

by Nic Samojluk

In the same report I wrote sometime ago, I quoted a couple of readers' strong reaction to Stevens' defense of abortion. Here they are:

*********
A Strong Reader's Response Such a statement by a renowned and widely respected former leader of the SDA church generated the following response by a church member who had a hard time believing what she was reading, plus the reaction of another SDA member who left the church as a result of Steven's comments:

Quote:
Abortion Letter

I cannot begin to tell you how horrified I am that a man on the Adventist Church payroll for 20 years, and no doubt receiving retirement benefits, would be so bold as to endorse abortion in a church paper! ["Abortion Commandment" by John V. Stevens, Sr., Letters to the Editor, March 2006]

How he can make the nexus between right to life and freedom of worship based on two of the 10 Commandments? "Thou shalt not kill" being the undoing of the right to keep the seventh-day Sabbath is a stretch.

Mr. Stevens mentioned two places in the Bible that abortions are referenced. I don’t know how Mr. Stevens was able to construe abortion from these Bible references (Exodus 21 and Numbers 5). One can deduct from these Bible references that wrong deeds would break the law.

Kathleen Jones

 

Quote:
I left the Seventh-day Adventist Church almost 20 years ago and one of the troubling issues, then, was the position of the church on abortion ... The fact that the Recorder published John Steven's letter in 2006 is an indication that the church still hasn't taken a position to defend life in the womb.

Jim Sconza
To access the rest of my report, click on the following Internet link:
http://sdaforum.com/page67.html

 

My Response to Stevens' Defense

of Abortion

by Nic Samojluk

Following the publication of Steven's article in defense of abortion, I wrote my response in defense of the Pro-life position on the issue. The Pacific Union Recorder refused to publish my comments. The editor explained that the magazine's mission was not to engage in controversial issues like abortion. I fully agree with this reasoning, but then why did they include John V. Stevens defense of the practice of abortion--and we are not talking about therapeutic abortion, but rather elective abortions. Stevens' argument is that the unborn do not become human until they are born.

Of course, this response should not have surprised me, since it was a repeat of what had taken place in the 90's when the editor of the local Loma Linda University church paper published an article critical of the activities of Pro-lifers. I asked for the privilege of being granted equal time for presenting a defense of the right to life of the unborn. The response I received was: "Sorry. We do not engage in controversial issues." The editor had ample space to criticize Pro-lifers, but no space for anybody desiring to act in defense of the unborn.

Following this experience, I decided to write to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and I accompanied my message with a donation for the Pro-life cause of the church. My donation was returned with the following explanation: "The church does not have a Pro-life program." This seemed to imply that the church was interested in abortion, as evidenced by the fact that some of our hospitals have been offering abortion services--therapeutic and no therapeutic-- but not time or interest in protecting the life of those destined to the execution chamber.

If you are interested in my response to John V. Stevens' arguments favoring abortion, which the Pacific Union Recorder refused to publish in their paper, click on the following Internet link and scroll down halfway to the bottom:

http://sdaforum.com/page67.html 

 

Were Ellen White's Personal

Opinions Inspired?

by Sean Pitman

Nic,

There are many things Ellen White and the other early church founders said that were simply their own opinion. While these should be considered with at least some weight in light of their individual experiences, they are not to be given the same weight as those statements that we believe were inspired by directly by God beyond personal opinion. For example, consider that St. Paul pointed out that several of the things he wrote were simply his own opinion; not from God. I personally don't agree with several of Paul's opinions - especially those regarding the roles of women or advice to avoid marriage. Yet, I still believe that Paul was a prophet directly inspired by God in many things that he wrote.

It is interesting to me that you use this argument both ways when it suits you. On the one hand you have argued that the Genesis account need not necessarily be taken literally because Moses didn't directly say that it was an inspired account (even though Ellen White says that she was shown, in vision, that Moses wrote Genesis under direct revelation). On the other hand, you argue that the personal opinions of prophets should be binding when it comes to the topic of abortion? How can you have it both ways?

Beyond this, you fail to provide any convincing reasons why an embryo in the first few weeks of life should be classified as "human" vs. a non-human collection of cells with the potential of becoming human. In my view, a potential human is no the same thing as being human. Again, Ellen White did not know or comment about how such a collection of cells should be treated. She never said, under inspiration or otherwise, that human-type life begins at conception. That notion simply doesn't make sense to me and I see no inspired guidance that says otherwise.

Given that there is no clear logical or inspired reason to go one way or the other, the SDA Church should not take an official stand on this issue when it comes to the first few weeks of pregnancy. I really don't think there is much more I can say on this topic. And, I'm not out to convince you here. I think this issue is a personal one that should best be left to the individual, not the Church. In those issues where there is clearly room for doubt, when it comes to what has been revealed by inspiration, the "benefit of the doubt" should be a matter of personal decision.

Sean

Back to the Editorial Index? Click Here ==>

How to Interpret Inspired Writings?

by Nic Samojluk

Sean,

You stated the following:

Quote:
There are many things Ellen White and the other early church founders said that were simply their own opinion. ...
Yes, this is true about biblical and Ellen White's writings. According to Mrs. White God is not revealed in the Bible as the author. He rather inspired men and they expressed these inspired ideas using their own words and modes of expression.

Quote:
For example, consider that St. Paul pointed out that several of the things he wrote were simply his own opinion; ...
Granted, but I recall only one instance when he stated that he was expressing his own opinion. Do you have other examples?

Quote:
I personally don't agree with several of Paul's opinions - especially those regarding the roles of women or advice to avoid marriage. ...
I don't either! His advice regarding avoiding marriage might have been good for those times when persecution would have complicated the life of people like Paul . Can you imagine Paul having to care for a wife and a family while being stoned, beaten and jailed.

Quote:
It is interesting to me that you use this argument both ways when it suits you. On the one hand you have argued that the Genesis account need not necessarily be taken literally because Moses didn't directly say that it was an inspired account (even though Ellen White says that she was shown, in vision, that Moses wrote Genesis under direct revelation). ...
Yes! But I do it for a logical reason, I believe. Ellen White told us to give priority to the Bible over her own writings. I think I consistently follow her advice on this. Common sense tells me that if Moses took extra care to credit the Lord as the source of the laws that he received from God, but failed to do the same when writing the two Genesis accounts of creation, then it seems logical to conclude that he must have inherited this information from his ancestors, going all the way to Adam and Eve, who must have received it from the Lord.

By the way, can you cite the White's reference to a vision in this case? I hope you do not equate all the expression "I was shown" with visionary experience!

Quote:
Beyond this, you fail to provide any convincing reasons why an embryo in the first few weeks of life should be classified as "human" vs. a non-human collection of cells with the potential of becoming human. In my view, a potential human is no the same thing as being human. Again, Ellen White did not know or comment about how such a collection of cells should be treated. She never said, under inspiration or otherwise, that human-type life begins at conception. ...
I have a question for you: Is that collection of cells human or not? If it is not human, then what is it? It cannot be part of the woman's body because it does not match the DNA of the mother. It you grant that it is human life indeed, then consider what Mrs. White said about human life:

Quote:
Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded.[Ellen G. White. Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1958), 516.]

 

Quote:
Given that there is no clear logical or inspired reason to go one way or the other, the SDA Church should not take an official stand on this issue when it comes to the first few weeks of pregnancy.
If the church, according to you, should not take a stand regarding abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy, then why does the church have an official Guidelines on Abortion? Said document clearly takes a stand justifying abortion when the baby is defective, when the baby is the result of rape or incest, and when the pregnant female is a minor. This official position on abortion goes directly in opposition to what the SDA pioneers stated about the evils of abortion. I did cite the views of James White, and J.N. Andrews in a previous posting located above on this thread. Let me add now the opinion of others:

Quote:
The willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence, is murder. It is quenching immortal existence, it is destroying what, in a few months or weeks, would bear God’s image: and if anyone thinks she can do it without the guilt of murder, she is greatly mistaken. [John Todd. “Fashionable Murder” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (25 June 1867): 29-30.]
Notice John Todd's emphasis on the following: "The willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence, is murder." There is no exception here for t