are SDAs the only ones?

[JohnMarsten]

John,

The Adventist health care system is legally a separate entity from the General Conference. This came about the when the healthcare system (hospitals) was under heavy debt in the 90s. The fear of default would threaten to bring down the whole denomination (on GC assets) put forth the legal separation. So GC fought hard to separate herself from healthcare system.

You know I'm critical of GC and their apostasy and back-sliding. But in this case, GC really can't dictate to the SDA hospitals on their medical practices.

I think this whole abortion thing started in the 70's but you may correct me if I am mistaken here... so the debt crisis of the 90's might not have had that impact on the abortion thing as it was apparently performed earlier as well... but yes, feel free to correct me...

and besides... threatened to bring down the whole denomination? pardon me, but this sounds absolutely ridiculous!!!!!! you know why, because IF this is God's remnant church, and IF the health care/hospital ministry is His will, dont you think He would have found another solution... ??? I think God is wealthier than all the riches of the earth combined, and as a matter of fact He owns this earth... so I dont think that this legal separation was that necessary, it rather sounds like a lack of faith... but of course its easy for me to say so, I know what it is to be lacking in faith and to fail... no hypocrisy intended...

 

[OntheDL]

I think this whole abortion thing started in the 70's but you may correct me if I am mistaken here... so the debt crisis of the 90's might not have had that impact on the abortion thing as it was apparently performed earlier as well... but yes, feel free to correct me...

and besides... threatened to bring down the whole denomination? pardon me, but this sounds absolutely ridiculous!!!!!! you know why, because IF this is God's remnant church, and IF the health care/hospital ministry is His will, dont you think He would have found another solution... ??? I think God is wealthier than all the riches of the earth combined, and as a matter of fact He owns this earth... so I dont think that this legal separation was that necessary, it rather sounds like a lack of faith... but of course its easy for me to say so, I know what it is to be lacking in faith and to fail... no hypocrisy intended...

The GC leaders could not have expected God to defend the SDA healthcare system since they don't believe and practice the health message.

The Adventist healthcare system that practices allopathy through pharmakeia is a far cry from our health message that promotes small and scattered sanatoriums that practices the healthy living and healing principles in conjunction with the preaching of the 3rd angel's message. We saw this with Dr JH Kellogg. He took over the Battle Creek sanitarian and did things his way despite repeated appeals and warnings from Ellen White. The 'san' was burnt down. But he rebuilt it even bigger and at one point employed more people than the whole church did. Of course he got into debt for it. The Great Depression put it out of business and was eventually taken over by the government.

I think starting from the late 80s, many of the Adventist health institutes lost tax exempt status because it was determined there was no religious activities taking places in these health institutes. This tax 'hardship' and the unresolved debt had the creditors threatened to seize GC owned properties as repayment.

This prompted the legal separation. Some had since been transferred to the local conferences. But many are independently owned and operated.

 

[JohnMarsten]

The GC leaders could not have expected God to defend the SDA healthcare system since they don't believe and practice the health message.

The Adventist healthcare system that practices allopathy through pharmakeia is a far cry from our health message that promotes small and scattered sanatoriums that practices the healthy living and healing principles in conjunction with the preaching of the 3rd angel's message. We saw this with Dr JH Kellogg. He took over the Battle Creek sanitarian and did things his way despite repeated appeals and warnings from Ellen White. The 'san' was burnt down. But he rebuilt it and got into debt and was eventually taken over by the government.

I think starting from the late 80s, many of the Adventist health institutes lost tax exempt status because it was determined there was no religious activities taking places in these health institutes. This tax 'hardship' and the unresolved debt had the creditors threatened to seize GC owned properties as repayment.

This prompted the legal separation. Some had since been transferred to the local conferences. But many are independently owned and operated.

so what is the current status then>?

the hospitals are no longer GC affiliated?

do they have to perform abortions or do they do it because otherwise they might go belly up?

if they are legally separate entities, why does it seem that the so-called abortion guidelines are so much in line with abortion (in the sense that they dont oppose abortion)

 

[OntheDL]

so what is the current status then>?

the hospitals are no longer GC affiliated?

do they have to perform abortions or do they do it because otherwise they might go belly up?

if they are legally separate entities, why does it seem that the so-called abortion guidelines are so much in line with abortion (in the sense that they dont oppose abortion)

Aside from a few life style centers that are still guided by the health message, the Adventist hospitals have all gone to allopathic side through pharmakeia. So why should anyone be surprised they are just like the world that perform abortion?

 

[David Conklin]

>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.

>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).

>abstinence from alcohol is not a doctrine, its a guideline

I would say neither--its is part and parcel of our health teaching.

>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.

>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."

>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.

>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.

>
- 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.

 

[JohnMarsten]

>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...)

 

[stinsonmarri]

Well I am back and just in time! Well it is funny that some have commended John on certain doctrines concerning Jubilee not even remotely Bible base but now they are upset with him, interesting. John is consistent with his rhetoric, which is wrong all you have to do is follow his pattern.
How many of you have read the story about Judah second born son? I suggest that you read it in Gen 38:9. Neither did EGW or the SDA have comment about this sinful act. Conception is when a baby is conceived and Judah's son withheld the conception act to take place. Rape is not a acceptable conception act it is done through sin by force. Abortion is a sin unless it was force upon a woman without her consent. It does not matter whether the SDA church separates from the Health services (which is a cop out) or not it is wrong. However, we should hate the sinful act and not the person who committed the sinful act! As I have said before the SDA Church is the Laodicean church of Revelation. Why are you not surprise like the Jews they are turning their back on truth. The church thinks it has everything it needs for salvation, it does not and it is wretched, naked, miserable, poor and blind! Should we leave her of course not but call sin by it right name. We should cry and pray for her sins but stand for truth. When the refreshing comes the angels of Elohim will separate the wheat from the tare.

Happy Sabbath,
stinsonmarri

 

[JohnMarsten]

Well I am back and just in time! Well it is funny that some have commended John on certain doctrines concerning Jubilee not even remotely Bible base but now they are upset with him, interesting. John is consistent with his rhetoric, which is wrong all you have to do is follow his pattern.
How many of you have read the story about Judah second born son? I suggest that you read it in Gen 38:9. Neither did EGW or the SDA have comment about this sinful act. Conception is when a baby is conceived and Judah's son withheld the conception act to take place. Rape is not a acceptable conception act it is done through sin by force. Abortion is a sin unless it was force upon a woman without her consent. It does not matter whether the SDA church separates from the Health services (which is a cop out) or not it is wrong. However, we should hate the sinful act and not the person who committed the sinful act! As I have said before the SDA Church is the Laodicean church of Revelation. Why are you not surprise like the Jews they are turning their back on truth. The church thinks it has everything it needs for salvation, it does not and it is wretched, naked, miserable, poor and blind! Should we leave her of course not but call sin by it right name. We should cry and pray for her sins but stand for truth. When the refreshing comes the angels of Elohim will separate the wheat from the tare.

Happy Sabbath,
stinsonmarri

so you say that I am consistent in my rethoric, which is wrong... I guess not my being consistent is wrong but my rethoric in the first place... so what exactly is so wrong with it..? feel free to instruct me (iron sharpens iron

 

[ricker]

>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, I thought I read a lot! A million pages would be equivelent to reading a 274 page book every day for ten years. Quite impressive!

 

[stinsonmarri]

so you say that I am consistent in my rethoric, which is wrong... I guess not my being consistent is wrong but my rethoric in the first place... so what exactly is so wrong with it..? feel free to instruct me (iron sharpens iron

John go back over the comments we have made to each other on certain subjects you have provided. Please do not take this personally but many of the things you have provided are not Bible base. It is how you interepet the Bible instead of understanding exactly what it said. The Feast Days of Yahweh for instance, your views about jubilee and more. Understand the Bible is a gift and we must ask for simple understanding.

Love ya and be bless,
stinsonmarri

 

[JohnMarsten]

John go back over the comments we have made to each other on certain subjects you have provided. Please do not take this personally but many of the things you have provided are not Bible base. It is how you interepet the Bible instead of understanding exactly what it said. The Feast Days of Yahweh for instance, your views about jubilee and more. Understand the Bible is a gift and we must ask for simple understanding.

Love ya and be bless,
stinsonmarri

not taken personally, we are all entitled to our own opinion. I wouldnt say that my opinion is not bible based, of course there is a lot of reasoning but its all bible based, of course we can all be in error and make mistakes, I guess thats what makes us human...

btw, have a look at my opinion on wine, and probably yours both are bible based I guess (in a way that is)... I just dont buy into that grape juice theory...

 

[JohnMarsten]

Wow, I thought I read a lot! A million pages would be equivelent to reading a 274 page book every day for ten years. Quite impressive!

Wow, havent calculated that, that would mean he should be at about two million now (at least )...

I wonder how much he remembers from reading those books and what kind of books these were...

He must be pretty smart