>and please try to bear with me a little cause I probably dont have the same level of education as you and might get things mixed up from time to time, and you seem to be very resourceful when I (or somebody else) have mixed up a word, used it in a different context (but thats just my observation or I am just not intelligent enough to have a discussion with you)
I once made an observation while in the seminary that our profs were pretty smart. Another student noted that it was because they've read more than we had. By then (over a dozen years ago) I calculated that i had read about a million pages. OTOH, I've met people who tell me that they've never read a single book in their entire life.
wow,about a million pages, guess that must have doubled by now, what are you gonna do with all that knowledge... its just amazing... I am happy not to carry that burden
[/quote]
>SO I understand that there are doctrines and guidelines in the church...
We don't have doctrines in the SDA church--that way we don't get fossilized. To the best of my knowledge we only have the one guideline (on abortion--and to the best of my knowledge it was for the hospitals not for the church members).
[/quote]
yeah right, my bad, you have fundamental beliefs!
Adventist.org: The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church
[/quote]
>abstinence from alcohol is not a doctrine, its a guideline
I would say neither--its is part and parcel of our health teaching.
[/quote]
according to the above link its part of the fundamental beliefs (christian behavior). but I guess you are right its part of that health teaching
[/quote]
>abstinence from homosexuality is not a doctrine, its a guideline
To the best of my knowledge we don't have one. It may be part and parcel of "our" teaching on sexual morality.
[/quote]
yeah, it seems to be a just a position, so its neither fundamental belief nor guideline
Adventist.org: The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church
[/quote]
>abortion may not be the best solution but its up to the individual (the individuals conscience and their relationship with God) and in case the life of the mother should be at stake its absolutely OK (or the lesser evil if you will) - do I understand the guideline correctly here?
Drop the word "absolutely."
[/quote]
so I understand correctly here, the guideline is: its up to the individual, and while it may not be the best solution, its definitely up the individual and their relationship with God?? is that really it, I mean you understood that my second part "(and in case the life of the mother should be at stake its absolutely OK (or the lesser evil if you will)" was a completely different scenario. So I ask you again, abortion is up to the individual, that is if a female person who happens to be pregnant decides that she doesnt wanna continue and would rather 'abort', then its perfectly up to her to decide?
Now imagine the following: a man got upset because of some doctor who performed abortion, not this man, who is also known as an individual, decided in his conscience that he doesnt wanna continue with this and would rather abort, abort the performance of the doctor, and he could only do that by terminating the doctor, so the man, the individual had a very good relationship with God, and felt in his conscience that God would like it if he killed that doctor...
would that be the same?
[/quote]
>if so - what is the application of the guideline? in regard to SDA hospitals?
That is my understanding.
>are they prepared to perform abortion if the life of the individual is at stake (ONLY) or are they generally up to the task, performing abortions at all times (that is if the conscience of the individual has decided so)
Mind you it isn't the hospital admins or staff doing the abortion. Not all the doctors who serve at a SDA hospital are SDA.
[/quote]
I think my intelligence is letting me down again, what does that mean that the admins dont perform abortions? and what does that mean that not all doctors who serve the SDA are SDA... what does that mean, cause I dont understand the relation between the two... does that mean if I hire somebody to perform certain jobs, I dont have any influence on that hired person? I mean if a non sda performs an abortion at an Sda hospital, does that mean that the sda doesnt have anything to do with?
[/quote]
>now in regard to Irving Feldkamp - is he an SDA (a proper member of the SDA) who is, among other business ventures, the owner of 17 abortion clinics (private ones that is, not SDA affiliated)
I have no idea. And just because someone is a "card-carrying" member that doesn't mean anything. We teach that most SDA's won't be saved.
[/quote]
You dont need to, I already posted a link that linked Feldkamp with the SDA... so the proof is there... of course, not all SDAs will be saved... still amazing to know that he is an SDA, like I already mentioned, my mother told me once about this plane crash, yeah, justice served and stuff... and you know what she heard (read about in an SDA mag) but the writer apparently didnt know that Feldkamp was an SDA... this is the funny part of an otherwise sad story
[/quote]
>
- another question - if the answer to the above question is positive - would it be the same if an SDA (a proper one) owned a bar or a restaurant where liquor (and/or unclean animals are being served) - I mean would be as OK as it is OK for Feldkamp to own that clinics?
No because there is never any medical necessity for the use of alcohol.[/quote]
could you just tell me another thing, what would you say was worse, owning a bar or an abortion clinic? I am interested in your personal opinion...
Personally I dont go for either of them, but then I guess I would prefer the bar... or the restaurant (a restaurant, I guess is miles away from a bar, and then there are also so many diffierent kinds of bars... well... some with hookers, some without... lets better think about restaurant when serving alcohol...)