Seventh-day Adventism has a lot of baggage, but shush, it's impolite to mention it in the same breath as SDA and Republican hopeful Dr Ben Carson.
The Sabbath persecution complex is a prime example. The time is a'coming when the nasty Catholic church will enforce Sunday observance. Lo, the Mark of the Beast. That's what SDA prophetess Ellen White taught, and apparently what Carson believes.
... Carson might fairly be asked about his penchant to believe in extreme conspiracies and whether he truly fears a plot to criminalize Saturday worship and use state force to round up Seventh-day Adventists and others who don't wait until Sunday to commemorate the Sabbath. Carson, who has said present-day America "is very much like Nazi Germany," has forthrightly stated that he believes Satan has pushed the theory of evolution and embraced the notion that commies have secretly infested the schools, media, and government of the United States. If his dark vision of the world extends further, he probably ought to share it with the voters.
Would you vote for a bloke who believed this stuff?
"Would you vote for a bloke who believed this stuff?"
ReplyDeleteNO.
And unfortunately his comrades are cut from the same cloth.
No, I would not vote for Dr Carson or anyone else who held such extreme views. For instance,
ReplyDeleteMr. Romney believed some interesting things about prophecy relative to the US, and I didn't vote for him either. One has to wonder how such beliefs might impact the decisions reached in the Oval Office.
In a word, no. I would not vote for Ben Carson. Living in the USA, and being an active participant, I just don't understand how anyone could compare the current state of affairs with Nazi Germany. That is fear rhetoric, rooted more in paranoia than in fact.
ReplyDeleteThe basic problem is that we never really get full disclosure on the person for whom we are voting. Journalists are often very good at exposing some facts, but others are carefully concealed. I was quite shocked to learn recently that Ronald Reagan was known to his staff as experiencing days of dementia and total confusion during his presidency, only to rally to total lucidity and brilliance on other days. FDR's health issues were similarly concealed by a more cooperative press corps, decades previously. And, as bad as Richard Nixon was, some of his most egregious flaws continue to come to light.
Ben Carson is not unique in his views. Our current era does seem to be a cycle of profound societal change. These are not changes like laws which could be repealed, or changes which result from a reversible presidential order. How would you put the cap back on gay marriage, or medical marijuana, as an example? And, with the entire Democrat financial agenda having been imposed on the US as an antidote to the new great depression, a Republican administration would need to be very cautious in gradually retreating from and reversing them to conservative positions, or the resulting depression would be much greater than the one we "bubbled" out of.
BB
One thing that would be worse than B. Carson is having an agnostic or atheist as president. Such a president would have ethics based on nothing more than whimsy. He/she might wake up one day with a new set of "ethics" and decide that we cannot justifiably defend our borders. When it comes to electing a president, we must all pay our dime and take our chance. But some propositions are just too risky for me.
ReplyDelete-- Neo
Clinton and Obama really ath/agn, though they fake with occasional church attendance for 'window dressing' to please the peasants.
DeleteIn today's America, in order to gain elected office one must either have religious belief or be able to convincingly fake it.
DeleteThe competency to win an office is far different than competency to fulfill the office.
ReplyDeleteIf Ben Carson has the competency to actually win the election, he'll be unfit for office. If he has the competency to serve in the office, he won't win it.
You see what's wrong with American politics?
His extreme views are hardly at issue.
Oh yes, those evil atheists. We must watch out for them!
ReplyDeleteNot to worry, an atheist doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting elected in today's United States. We have a (half) afro-american president, and we may soon get a woman president. Even the gays are starting to get accepted. But atheists? Sorry, that's beyond the pale.
What does an atheist mean when he uses the term "evil"?
Delete-- Neo
What does a christian mean when he uses the term "evil"?
DeleteEvil is the violation of the moral code expressed in the New Testament.
DeleteSince atheist have no such source, I am assuming that they base their morality on whim. Or for those atheists who are more systematic and see themselves at their highest state as simply a functionary of Nature, they might try to map evolutionary theory into their moral behavior. Or maybe it is just a mystery.
-- Neo
If one's basis of morality differs from yours, you assume the base their morality on whim? That's both insulting and utterly inane.
DeleteJews, Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, Taoists and every non-christian base their moralities on things other than the New Testament. Do you put them in the same camp as atheists and assume they also base their morality improperly? Or do you think they are they OK because they have some ancient writings on which to base their authority?
Consider this. All ancient writings, including the New Testament, were written by men. Men that lived in thousands of years ago and were ignorant of many things that are now common knowledge. Should we base our morality on the best current knowledge or on ancient myths, superstitions and prejudices?
You think the New Testament offers a superior basis of morality? Gimme a break already! The New Testament endorses many things that are plainly immoral and plainly stupid. Two obvious examples are slavery and faith healing.
So take your holier-than-thou superior-morality putdown of atheists somewhere else. We're not buying it here!
Skeptic: I think you have widely missed the point. So let me re-phrase: Theists have a foundation for their morality that has to do with god. Atheists have a foundation that is essentially whim. It is this latter point I brought up for comment and nothing else bears upon the argument. The type of theist, whether Christian or Muslim or whatever, has nothing to do with this. Whether or not the god of the theists is credible does not have anything to do with this. Whether this or that sacred writing can be believed or not has nothing to do with this.
DeleteThe question is, again, how do atheist figure out what is evil?
It is odd to me that you can seem so outraged. My guess is that you have facile, malleable, self-determined morality where the distinction between right and wrong or between what is acceptable and what is outrageous is just a matter of how you happen to feel at the moment. If not, what do you base your morality on?
I am not asking you to buy anything. I just asked a question.
-- Neotherm
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNeo, atheists, like believers, are human beings. Both make decisions and conduct their day-to-day lives based on a moral framework of what they consider right and proper. Neither changes their behavior on a "whim" based on "how they happen to feel at the moment". It's not about feelings, it's about core beliefs. All human beings strive to live in a manner that they believe is right and proper.
DeleteIt seems to me theistic belief is based on an appeal to authority. Atheists consider this a logical fallacy; their set of morals is based on core principals such as fairness, harm, loyalty, purity, respect for authority, etc. In my experience, I have seen atheists who live very moral lives and others who don't. I have also seen believers who live very moral lives and others who don't. I have yet to encounter anyone who changes his moral foundation from minute to minute on a whim.
The only thing atheists, as a group, have in common is that they don't believe there is a god. The pro-god arguments just do not ring true to them. Other than that, they are as varied a group of people as believers. Some atheists are good family men and honest, upright pillars of their communities. Others are scoundrels. But it's no different: the same can be said of believers.
Neo, perhaps you can see my point and understand why you were making a false assumption regarding atheist's moral foundations? Frankly, your "whim" statement sounds like you consider atheists all the same and all dopes. This is insulting to atheists and makes you seem shallow. Perhaps you could try to see atheists as people, the same as believers are people? All of us, atheists and believers, are just doing the best we can to make our way through that difficult journey we call life.
I believe very much in the humanity of atheists with all the foibles that pertain. I do not think anything that I have stated has detracted from the belief that atheists are humble hominids. One of the strong supports for the existence of god was developed by C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity and is based on human beings possessing a moral nature. And I have always realized that atheists fall pragmatically within the boundaries of this argument despite their theoretical rejection of the concept of absolute good and absolute evil.
Delete-- Neo
He's a nut.
ReplyDelete