Adding to the Word?

[tall73]

Well, I had to go look up the phrase base crime in EGW writings. The two word phrase appears only six times. Four of those in reference to Joseph being charged with a base crime in regards to the incident with Potiphar's wife.

So it seems that the "base crime" is something of a sexual nature. The Bible tells us that they were marrying and giving in marriage right up until the flood.

If a man rapes a woman does he not deface the image of God with his act?

Yes, I think producing amalgamated offspring would involve sex. Now please explain why she drew it along RACIAL lines.

 

[tall73]

If a man rapes a woman does he not deface the image of God with his act?
If I commit sexual sins do I not deface the image of God by my acts?

Ah, this was edited in afterwards.

Does she say there were people raped? Or does she make it a racial issue?

How would rape change the species so that it was evident today by sight?

Where were sexual sins mentioned? It was amalgamation of RACES that was mentioned. But again, there must be evidence of the two groups in today's races. So which race is the one degraded by sexual sins, and therefore amalgamated, and which is the one that is not?

 

[NightEternal]

The critical point that is being missed is this:

What was the prevailing understanding of some in the 1800's on this matter?

Uriah Smith makes it abundantly clear what that was:

Ellen White's statement provoked instant controversy and stinging criticism of her in the 1860s forced church leaders to attempt to defend their prophet. In 1868, four years after the amalgamation statements first appeared in print, Adventist leader Uriah Smith5 published his defense of Ellen White. In that book he conjectured that the union of man with beast had created "[SIZE=+1]such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country[/SIZE]".

Neither EGW nor James corrected him or clarified anything different. Indeed, they seemed to support and endorse his view.

Case closed for me.

 

[mva1985]

Ah, this was edited in afterwards.

Does she say there were people raped? Or does she make it a racial issue?

How would rape change the species so that it was evident today by sight?

Where were sexual sins mentioned? It was amalgamation of RACES that was mentioned. But again, there must be evidence of the two groups in today's races. So which race is the one degraded by sexual sins, and therefore amalgamated, and which is the one that is not?

Well, she does not mention races until after the flood. I do not know exactly how they came about but I believe it all started at the Tower of Babel when the language was confused and everyone separated.

The only reason I mention rape was an example of sexual sin. It seems from her writings and the way she used the term "base crime" that it does indeed refer to sexual sins.

 

[mva1985]

Neither EGW nor James corrected him or clarified anything different. Indeed, they seemed to support and endorse his view.

Case closed for me.

Solid.

 

[mva1985]

Where were sexual sins mentioned? It was amalgamation of RACES that was mentioned. But again, there must be evidence of the two groups in today's races. So which race is the one degraded by sexual sins, and therefore amalgamated, and which is the one that is not?

How would we know?

 

[Adventtruth]

...The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."

1) So the confused species where distroyed by the flood.

2) But after the flood, the confused species came again as a result of amalgamation between man and beast.

3) This is a species that God did not create.

4) Its possible to see the amalagation of man and beast in certain animals (suggesting that less human genetics where in certain animals)

5) and certain men. (suggesting less animal genetics where in humans.)

Its clear as a clear sunny day. How can any body not see this, unless they are bias towards her?


AT

 

[NightEternal]

Solid.

Prove, then, that they did not endorse his view. They helped circulate his statements around at camp meetings. Does that sound to you like they did not agree?

Unbelievable.

 

[mva1985]

Prove, then, that they did not endorse his view. They helped circulate his statements around at camp meetings. Does that sound to you like they did not agree?

Unbelievable.

That wasn't the only thing in the pamphlet was it?

 

[NightEternal]

Have a nice day MVA.

 

[mva1985]

Have a nice day MVA.

You do the same Night.

 

[StormyOne]

perhaps it would help to remember that egw was a product of her times..... what did society at the time belief about "certain races of men?"

 

[tall73]

How would we know?

She seems to think it is obvious, and that we "see" it.

But apart from that, I think you would acknowledge that no ethnic group is free from sexual sins. So how could there be one race which shows traces of this and others that do not?

 

[moicherie]

first... there is ONE race... it is human... so explain how there can be "cross-breeding" between humans?

Its impossible but if one does not see the human race as one race then to such a mindset a black person marrying a white person or an asian person marrying a caucasian or people with different melanin contents marrying each other would be equated the same as if a poodle mated with a German Shepherd or a horse with a donkey or a siamese cat with a burmese cat. And we know the average 19th century white american and european mind (yes even the Adventist/Christian ones) had strange views on race there were down right racist we can probably excuse such ignorance for then but not in this day and age.

 

[moicherie]

That would be one reason not to marry outside of our faith.

Back in the 1800's do you think it would have been a good idea to marry someone of a different ethic background? Would it have made life more difficult for the couple, and possibly any offspring?

Yes it would have been but she was not talking about that she mentioned certained races of men were the results of 'amalgamation' so which races was she refering to? It appears her husband and Uriah Smith had their ideas which she never refuted. This is the pink elephant in the room Adventism is trying to ignore or run rings around.

 

[moicherie]

How would we know?

The fact is there is no race that is the result of a base crime of sexual sin. This is pure 19th century racial ignorance probably based on the false premise that white people are the default human entity when chances are they are not......

 

[moicherie]

perhaps it would help to remember that egw was a product of her times..... what did society at the time belief about "certain races of men?"

Exactly just like Paul was a product of his time with his advice on women behaviour in the church based on established and well known cultural practises of gendars not sitting together in public. EGW was a 19th century white (arguable but probably) American now even tho she and others in the church were antislavery etc it did not mean they were racially enlightened when it came to such matters. America was still a new state, imperialism and the attitude of the white man's burden (Rudyard Kipling) and Manifest Destiny based on white racial superiority and white racial purity were common views so take that into consideration and see how God uses people where they are and does not force them out of their known social and cultural constructs. (If you don't believe me find the biblical text where He orders Jacob, David and Solomon to give up polygamy.......)

For me this does not lessen His ability to inspire EGW but it shows she was not infallible when she put pen to paper.

 

[StormyOne]

good points Moi.... how many will read and understand is the question...

 

[mva1985]

"One more point, of course, deserves absolute clarification in this context. Nowhere, in any statement whatsoever, do the writings of Ellen White identify any particular race of humans as the product of amalgamation with animals, nor is there the slightest hint in those writings that because of such origins, certain races should be treated as subhuman. Bradford’s implication that because it was commonly held in Ellen White’s day that such races as the African Bushmen were a mixture of animal and human genes, that Ellen White probably held this view also (p. 65), is completely groundless. Whatever races of humanity might contain such elements, on the basis of the statement in question, was either not revealed to Ellen White by the Lord, or was deliberately left unsaid through divinely imparted wisdom. To reveal such a fact would have only created confusion—much like the pre-flood amalgamation itself (64)—very likely conveying the notion that different races were therefore deserving of different treatment. For anyone to even remotely imply Ellen White’s support of such a concept is to fly in the face of her uniformly-consistent declarations that all races of men stand equal before God, equally entitled to the blessings of the gospel and to just treatment by the laws of society."

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php

 

[mva1985]

(If you don't believe me find the biblical text where He orders Jacob, David and Solomon to give up polygamy.......)

Is the absence of a direct Biblical text for these to give up polygamy God's way of condoning it?

I don't think so.....