Print
The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
The name of Walter Veith may be unknown to many Spectrum readers but according to Veith’s own website it is well known to thousands of people around the globe. Veith is a “world renowned scientist, author, and lecturer,” WalterVeith.org reports. He is “deeply interested in the ecological deterioration of our planet” and speaks “to standing-room-only crowds around the world on his findings in archaeology, history, Bible prophecy, secret societies, and political intrigue.” What precisely qualifies Veith as a “world renowned scientist” and author is difficult to say from the four published titles that appear under his name on Amazon.com. His bestselling work Amazon indicates is a self-published 2002 tome of over 500 pages entitled Truth Matters: Escaping the Labyrinth of Error, which at last check had not received a single customer review. One of the most comprehensive online archives of peer-reviewed journal articles, JSTOR, does not show a single peer-reviewed article—scientific or otherwise—published in Veith’s name. But Veith’s primary mode of communication is not the printed but rather the spoken word. For anyone desiring to enter the dark fantasy world of Walter Veith—a universe that seamlessly blends nutritional advice and traditional Adventist apocalyptic beliefs with Veith’s own idiosyncratic, surreal, and sinister conspiracy theories—the portal is any computer with an internet connection.
Veith is a South African Seventh-day Adventist who was born in 1949 and was at one time chair of zoology at the University of the Western Cape. He was also at one time by his own telling a committed atheist who underwent a dramatic conversion. He now leads an independent evangelistic and itinerate speaking ministry based out of British Columbia entitled “Amazing Discoveries.” A Google Videos search for “Walter Veith” returns nearly 6,000 films. Veith’s most watched video of all time is “Saddam Hussein Dead Since 1999,” which has had nearly a quarter of a million views since it was posted on Youtube in June 2007. (By comparison, the most watched YouTube video of Ted Wilson, the first 10 minutes of his inaugural sermon as GC president in Atlanta, has had fewer than 20,000 views since it was posted by AYA Ministries in July 2010.)
“Saddam Hussein Dead Since 1999” is a ten-minute excerpt from a nearly two-hour lecture, “A New World Order,” originally filmed in 2004, which in turn is a single episode from a 36-part DVD lecture series entitled Total Onslaught that Veith sells on his website for $260, copies available in English, Spanish, and Russian.
In the lecture, the zoologist turned religious entrepreneur makes heavy use of crude but effective Powerpoint images, which he flashes at his audience with breathtaking speed as he unfolds the diabolical forces at work behind the daily news headlines (or the headlines of the parched newspapers he has kept on file dating back to the 1980s as the case may be). The “total onslaught” of demonic spirits acting through their human minions—virtually all of the world’s political and religious leaders—is in fact not so much behind these news clippings as it is transparently visible on their surface, self-evidently clear for those who have the secret knowledge necessary to decode the signs of the times. Veith does not analyze texts or images but rather dispatches them in tones of great authority and with an air of professorial condescension toward the somewhat bewildered looking people we catch occasional glimpses of in his audience.
Queue image of upside down European identity card. “What do you see?,” Veith demands, scrolling a cursor over what to this uninitiated viewer’s eyes is nothing more than an abstract pattern. The question is rhetorical, however, with Veith leaving no time for guesses. “You see the goat of Mendes,” he proclaims. “The horns are slightly modified to give another symbolism of the seat of the earth, but the inner facial features of the goat are very clearly discernible.” Veith then highlights another nebulous cluster of shapes on the card. “What these mean over here,” he says with a hint of deviousness, “I would rather not say.” The scales at last fall from one’s eyes. The shapes are surely phallic. How could anyone think otherwise? Or how could one think otherwise after being exposed to Veith’s not so subtle insinuation? Such is the power of suggestion.
But there is no time to linger on the goat of Mendes or to ponder why the European Union would think it vital to place such satanic symbolism on the otherwise numbingly dull documents of modern state bureaucracy. Veith is already on to the next slide, an image of former German Chancellor Schröder shaking hands in a business-like way with an unidentified man on an unidentified occasion at an unidentified date (he is in fact Helmut Kohl). “That is a Masonic handshake,” Veith declares, “signifying the new Mason is taking over where the old Mason is leaving.” It seems the diabolical secret of Masonic handshakes when compared with others is that they are actually just ordinary handshakes—which would, of course, be the most cunning disguise of all.
Veith quickly moves on to a set of images showing Bill Clinton and Vladimir Putin pointing with their index fingers toward other political leaders as they pose for photographs. This is also a Masonic gesture Veith informs his audience, something he refers to as “fingering.” “They are all showing that they are part of the same system.” Next slide. Veith has moved from the alleged goat of Mendes to Schröder’s alleged Masonic handshake to Clinton’s and Putin’s Masonic “fingering” to Russia’s adoption of the symbol of the double-headed eagle (the mark of its satanic allegiance to Freemasonry) in the span of less than one minute. His lecture has just begun. He will maintain this pace for the next hour and a half.
Veith, it goes without saying, is trading in a world of fantasy and myth that has considerably less logic than a Dan Brown novel and a great deal more creepiness. There is, however, something mesmeric in his performance. If nothing else, he knows how to play the chords of apocalyptic menace with a campy but bravura showmanship. And he seems to know exactly what he is doing. Veith repeatedly states in his performances that he is not telling his listeners what to believe but is simply presenting them with the “facts” so that they can make informed judgments for themselves. But these claims are also simply part of the show. Veith is by every indication a religious confidence man who has carved out his own niche market by convincing sadly credulous listeners to suspend their critical judgment just long enough to become convinced that what he is saying is not only entirely plausible but is in fact the very height of reason.
Who was responsible for plotting the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? George W. Bush and the CIA. What made the Twin Towers fall? They were brought down not by the airplanes but by explosives previously planted by the CIA in the buildings. What was the actual fate of Saddam Hussein? He died in 1999—it was his body double that was hung in 2003. What is the truth behind Islam? It is a secret creation of the Roman Catholic Church, invented by the Vatican and planted in the Middle East to stamp out the last remnants of non-Catholic “true” Christianity. “They are only playing the game of Hegelian idealism, thesis and antithesis,” Veith explains with pseudo-philosophical profundity, “but behind the scenes they all belong to the same club.”
The “club”—a term Veith uses often in his lectures—is interchangeably the Freemasons and the Catholic papacy. The extent of the Catholic Church’s diabolical control of world events through the tireless plotting of its puppets, the secret societies, is truly astounding. The ranks of the Illuminati, secretly and tirelessly working in consort across the ages toward the goal of one world government controlled by Rome, includes: Karl Marx, Cecil Rhodes, Andrew Carnegie, Winston Churchill, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, Shimon Peres, Yassir Arafat, both George Bushes, Ted Kennedy, Alan Greenspan (part of the Illuminati’s “Committee of 300”), Hilary Clinton (a “6th Grand Dame,” according to Veith), Jimmy Carter, Saddam Hussein, Richard Holbrooke (a “thirty-three degree Freemason”), Al Gore, Tony Blair, and Nelson Mandela.
Veith does not discuss his sources for these fantastical claims. He simply declares at one point in this role call of the Illuminati’s greatest hits that the information can be found “on a website” (the address is included at the bottom of one of his slides but it is in a font too small to make out from the video).
The fact that Veith has been able to gain a hearing peddling in such ideas might be baffling to many. It is, though, not so difficult to grasp. To become a fellow traveler with Veith is to become the partaker of a profound secret wisdom, which the rest of the world is either too ignorant or too wicked to comprehend. But those who will just journey with him for these “amazing” 36 DVDs will discover at the end of the journey that it is not the rich, the powerful, or the well-educated, but rather they along with Veith who are the real Chosen Ones—the elect few who through their initiation into secret knowledge of end-time events will somehow escape this veil of corruption while the rest of the world burns. The Gospel according to Walter is nothing other than a 21st century Gnostic revivalism.
The great irony is that Veith himself is well educated and—at least judging from the slick packaging and merchandising of hundreds of his lectures in multiple languages—doing well from the power he exercises in the Adventist circles in which he operates. There is a Facebook page devoted to Veith that includes nearly 4,000 fans, the majority seemingly young adults of the Seventh-day Adventist church. His acolytes frequent the Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC) annual conferences. Herein lies an important fact. Veith’s audiences are already well primed to hear his message of diabolical Catholic conspiracy. His incredible claims about the schemes of the Freemasons and the political conspiracies behind every major world event go without question by many who attend his talks because they are merely improvisational flourishes on a well-established theme that for most Adventists is beyond question or revision.
Many Adventists are taught to think like Veith from an early age. And Adventist young people are highly vulnerable to Veith’s conspiracy theories because it is in fact official church teaching that the correct way to read Biblical apocalyptic literature is to scour its pages for detailed and esoteric knowledge of how final events will unfold—and to then turn to the latest news headlines for confirming evidence of the “signs of the times,” the understanding of which might also confirm one’s election as part of God’s true “remnant.”
CONSPIRACY CREATIONISM
Many Adventists also give Veith a free pass in his handling of historical evidence because they are pleased by what he has to tell them about the evidences of science. In addition to his lectures on the conspiracies of the Illuminati and the Catholic Church, Veith is a popular speaker on some Adventist circuits as an apologist for young earth creationism. Any Adventist theologian or scientist publicly expressing views on creation similar to rigorous and sober evangelical scholars like John Stott, Alister McGrath, John Walton, and Nancey Murphy today stands to be denounced as an “infidel” Adventist and “Seventh-day Darwinian” by high-ranking church officials. Meanwhile, any and every incredible claim about the creation is now apparently deemed theologically acceptable by church leaders (judging from their conspicuous silence when confronted by figures like Veith) provided only that it is a fundamentalist one.
On May 19 and 20, 2011, Veith delivered two lectures at La Sierra University at the invitation of a student group, the “Sci-Fai” Club (formed by student Louie Bishop to agitate for strictly fundamentalist readings of Genesis and “scientific” creationism in the classroom). Veith’s visit was reported as a significant event by one fundamentalist lay Adventist website, EducateTruth.com. Amid fulsome praise for Veith’s ideas, a few commenters on the site raised concerns about Veith’s conspiracy theories. Site operator Shane Hilde quickly intervened to steer the conversation away from these questions. “Veith lectures on many topics, a lot of which are considered controversial,” Hilde wrote, “however, let’s only focus on his lectures regarding science and creation. This forum is not intended to be grounds for discussing the plethora of topics he has covered.”
Yet Veith’s handling of the evidences of history is directly relevant to his credibility as a creationist claiming to speak with authority and integrity about the evidences of natural science. And Veith’s reasoning is not of a radically different kind when he is dealing with scientific problems. Whether discussing evolution or the Illuminati, he is blithely unconcerned with the actual weight of the evidence. His interest is in data mining for anomalous or puzzling facts that can be amplified in a sensational way to confirm for his followers what they think they already know. In answer to a question from an audience member at La Sierra about his views on “amalgamation,” Veith made clear that his conspiracy theories and his “scientific” creationism are in fact deeply intertwined.
“Do you think the antideluvian world with its tremendous brain capacity was not as advanced as we are?” Veith asked (without waiting for any replies). After suggesting that the myth of the lost city of Atlantis is evidence for a hyper-advanced pre-flood civilization fully capable of conducting genetics experiments to blend human and animal DNA, Veith continued (from 6:40 here):
There are some that say that this great race to go to the moon and to discover what is on the moon and on the other side is perhaps a race to pick up some of the lost technology of the antideluvians, because if we could get there they surely got there. Maybe there’s something there. And it’s fascinating to me that in the space race it’s only the esoterics [sic] that take part. You have to be a high-ranking Freemason or a high-ranking Mormon in order to go to space. So there are all kinds of circumstantial evidences. Yes, I believe there was amalgamation and I believe that God destroyed that amalgamation and eventually he will destroy it again.
The harm done to Adventism’s name by such unscrupulous conspiracy evangelism and “scientific” creationism might tempt one to offer an elaborate counter-conspiracy theory (“thesis and antithesis”) to explain Veith himself. What better way for the secret societies to disorient Adventists and discredit the Adventist church, after all, than to dispatch someone like Veith expounding in Adventism’s name about how Nelson Mandela and Joseph Stalin are spiritual brothers in the same “club” controlled by Rome? Or how the Freemasons working at the bidding of Rome may well have journeyed to the moon in the 1960s in search of the lost technology of the antideluvians, since the pre-flood civilization of the days of Noah “surely got there” first? Is it really just a coincidence that “Veith” is the Germanized name for Vitus, who was one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers of the Roman Catholic Church and who also happens to be the patron saint of actors?
But of course the only sane answer to this question is, yes, it really is just a coincidence. To understand Walter Veith requires no conspiracy theory. What it does require is deeper understanding of fundamentalist expressions of Adventist apocalyptic identity nearly two centuries after their original formulation. It also requires, it seems to this observer, some theological discernment of the meaning of Christ’s words in the Gospel of Matthew: “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
User login
Recent
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
It's interesting to see how conspiracy and anti-science theories mix in Adventism and how many of those attacking La Sierra University also dip into these dark fantasies. As I point out to my students it's easier to match upside down stars on web pages than read histories of why people try to make meaning in a changing world.
Ron wrote: "The ranks of the Illuminati, secretly and tirelessly working in consort across the ages toward the goal of one world government controlled by Rome, includes: Karl Marx, Cecil Rhodes, Andrew Carnegie, Winston Churchill, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, Shimon Peres, Yassir Arafat, both George Bushes, Ted Kennedy, Alan Greenspan (part of the Illuminati’s “Committee of 300”), Hilary Clinton (a “6th Grand Dame,” according to Veith), Jimmy Carter, Saddam Hussein, Richard Holbrooke (a “thirty-three degree Freemason”), Al Gore, Tony Blair, and Nelson Mandela."
---
If only "God's remnant church" could be so organized. Apparently the devil has very strong administrative skills.
Ron also wrote: "Adventist young people are highly vulnerable to Veith’s conspiracy theories because it is in fact official church teaching that the correct way to read Biblical apocalyptic literature is to scour its pages for detailed and esoteric knowledge of how final events will unfold—and to then turn to the latest news headlines for confirming evidence of the 'signs of the times,' the understanding of which might also confirm one’s election as part of God’s true 'remnant.'"
---
That's my experience. My first exposure to this strategy was in a small home bible study organized and led by three young British teenagers who were as insistent that the King James Version of the bible was the only valid one as they were that Hartland Institute was one of the few remaining Adventist colleges un-corrupted by the world.
As best as I know, they remain Veith aficionados and have been soaking up his DVDs for nearly a decade now.
I was once a part of a small company, made up of mostly younger people, many of whom were recent converts. Almost the entire congregation was extremely fundamentalist in orientation.
Several prominent members (elders, etc.) were obsessed with this guy. His videos were shown after potluck as a church community "learning activity." His theories were accepted and believed by a significant plurality of the church, and people would discuss them casually, as if there was no doubt that what he was saying was the truth.
I was horrified. As a naturally skeptical person and a as someone who has studied history and economics, his fairy tales immediately reeked of something foul. But here I was stuck in a church that I otherwise felt was a good fit for me at the time, except for the fact that people were telling me I was ignoring the signs of the times if I did not buy into this wacko conspiracy nonsense.
It is truly unfortunate that Adventists are so susceptible to this sort of charlatans. It really is a discredit to our message to have people running around spouting conspiracy theories that any thinking person knows are the fruit of paranoid, slightly disturbed minds.
I read an interesting set of essays recently called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," by Richard Hofstadter. It contained an interesting theory of why the right wing in America tends toward the paranoid, and actually gives a shout-out to the Millerites and Adventists. I think it's useful reading for Adventists who wonder why our denomination is so prone to this behavior.
Richard Hofsteader's illuminati(ng) essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics,"
can be read free of charge at http://studyplace.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/files/courses/reserve/Hofstadter-1...
It's half a century out-of-date... but not really! My theory is there is a secret political group (based in universities, of course) on the left that is resurrecting famous essays and recirculating them free of charge in order to bankrupt legitimate publishers and overturn America.... ;-)
Ron Osborn: Yet Veith’s handling of the evidences of history is directly relevant to his credibility as a creationist claiming to speak with authority and integrity about the evidences of natural science.
Very interesting article. I took issue with the quote above. Does James Watson's (of DNA Watson and Crick fame) racist and sexist remarks impact his credibility as a scientist? If not then why is Veith's (perhaps reckless) handling of history related to his credibility as a Scientist?
A statement like the one made above is showing that you have an agenda. If a liar said that a blue sky was blue they would be telling the truth. Perhaps the author and readers should read the following peer-reviewed paper on Why Most Published Research Findings Are False before making any biased claims at data mining. Data mining is a feature of scientific research. This is a problem in science overall. Veith is certainly not the only offender.
I don't agree with Veith's liberal standards on sourcing and reasoning for most of his historical presentations. At best it's reckless. At worst it's deceptive. He is a (serious) liability to those who believe in some of his conclusions in part or in whole. On that point I agree with the author.
Quince.
@Graeme - thanks for finding and posting that link! service-y!
I've written about some of Veith's claims (and his sources) here: http://billcork.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/walter-veith/
Pr. Jan Mackenzie has also written about him: http://www.thejerichoroad.com/home-journal/2008/9/1/walter-veith-is-it-a...
Quince -- yes, Watson's prejudices are as much an embarrassment to scientists as Satoshi Kanazawa is to social scientists.
Surely you understand that "But they do it too!" is not a valid argument for committing any unethical act. The National Academies of Science are very concerned about research misconduct and there aren't many professional orgs now who are willing to dismiss it as trivial.
SDA religious disease....pride, paranoia, passivity
Quince: you are right that a scientist might have character flaws (be a racist, a chauvinist, etc.) and still be a good scientist.
But when a person shows a reckless disregard for basic principles of reasoning and handling of evidence in one field of intellectual endeavor (in this case social history) it calls into question the idea that they will be exceedingly careful, diligent, sober, and cautious in another (in this case natural history).
Even if we agree with some of what WV says, the credibility question is real.
Does Veith invoke Icke and the Lizards?
This is huge in the Caribbean.
If it wasn't for the creation interlude I would print this out and distribute it widely.
Walter Veith has a massive following in the Caribbean and I believe this is dangerous to our understanding of prophecy (while seemingly aligned with it). Much of these theories come from people with a dispensationalist understanding, and it's a quick jump off from Veith to them on Youtube. Here, the preferred medium is DVD.
This is one of the things I was hoping the GC would address, but sadly it seems that as long as you hold traditional beliefs on key doctrines--anything else can be ignored (just as the author said). I was really disappointed to hear that centering prayer and evolution were the main "issues". (Mind you--I believe in a six-day creation.)
Our church has peculiar weaknesses, and this is one of them. We need to be aware of this. Not all outcomes are equally likely. We always fall into the right-side ditch.
..."It is truly unfortunate that Adventists are so susceptible to this sort of charlatans. It really is a discredit to our message to have people running around spouting conspiracy theories that any thinking person knows are the fruit of paranoid, slightly disturbed minds."....Nathan
but SDA's have been conditioned from kindergarden if not earlier to have faith in unbelievable stories of talking snakes, discoursing donkeys, the sun stopping its revolution of the earth so the killing could continue, and tantalizing tales of tall, majestic beings living without sin possibly on Jupiter or Saturn?
And yes, his followers are young here as well. Some of this stuff made it into the pulpit recently at my church (divine hour).
The hard part is it is difficult to reason anyone out of these beliefs. I usually stay mum out of courtesy. Many of these people are close friends.
I took time to listen to the arguments and belief systems of Walter Veith as presented to the La Sierra students in the Sci-Fai Club. You can see the audience is small...probably it would have been even smaller if credit was not offered. The students held themselves to the back to the room, clustered...appearing ready to vacate as quickly as possible after the lecture. I agree with Ron Osborn's summary of the presentation...the horror of some of the ideas that the sensitive minds of the young should be exposed to...even the corruption of incendiary ideas like these in the composite.... should concern us all. When you understand his weapons and his powers you are no longer afraid of the spectors, the goblins, the dragons and the devils and other monsters he fashions. And I assume over time students learn how to develop an enchanted sword against this kind of material....just as we have done. We are all aware, of course, that there are lunatices in the world...from smaller effectors to larger ones, and an infinite variety of cranks and bores. But I must say, I gained a sense of composure when listening to the variety of questions raised by the students after both lectures. Many should be able to leave these two lectures with something to compare against with his secret realities. Over time I believe these students (on average) will solve the vexing issues of sorting out truth from fiction as they journey through life. Some of what he had to say was handled properly...the rest jumps out as old-fashion progaganda.
Cheers
tjoe
Outstanding article, Ron. Great work! Seriously, this was very well researched and put together.
In all fairness, however, the guy does have some real science--even peer-reviewed--behind his name. JSTOR, which I love to use myself, is not the best place for a search. Here are the hits from a search of Web of Science for "Veith WJ:"
1. The impact of dietary protein intake on serum biochemical and haematological profiles in vervet monkeys. Johnson Q; Veith WJ; Mouton T. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PRIMATOLOGY 30(1):61-69. FEB 2001. Times Cited: 6 (from Web of Science)
2. The effect of dietary protein on the mineral status of vervet monkeys with special reference to the impact of milk solids on calcium excretion. Johnson Q; Veith WJ; Aalbers J. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PRIMATOLOGY 28(6):334-343. DEC 1999. Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
3. Antimicrobial resistance of bacterial flora associated with bovine products in South Africa. Manie T; Brozel VS; Veith WJ; et al. JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION 62(6):615-618. JUN 1999. Times Cited: 10 (from Web of Science)
4. Antimicrobial resistance of bacteria isolated from slaughtered and retail chickens in South Africa. Manie T; Khan S; Brozel VS; et al. LETTERS IN APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY 26(4):253-258. APR 1998. Times Cited: 41 (from Web of Science)
5. The chemical-composition of the follicular-fluid of the teleost Clinus dorsalis (Perciformes, Clinidae). CORNISH DA; VEITH WJ. COMPARATIVE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY A-PHYSIOLOGY 88(4):599-602. 1987. Times Cited: 2 (from Web of Science)
6. Ovarian adaptations in the viviparous teleosts Clinus superciliosus and Clinus dorsalis (Perciformes, Clinidae). VEITH WJ; CORNISH DA. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 21(4):343-347. 1986 Times Cited: 8 (from Web of Science)
7. Embryonic adaptations and nutrition in the viviparous teleost Clinus dorsalis (Perciformes, Clinidae). CORNISH DA; VEITH WJ. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 21(1):79-84. 1986. Times Cited: 10 (from Web of Science)
8. Histochemical-study of the distribution of lipids, 3-alpha-hydroxysteroid and 3-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase in the androgenic gland of the cultured prawn, Macrobachium rosenbergii (de man) (Crustacea, Decapoda). VEITH WJ; MALECHA SR. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 79(3):84-85.1983. Times Cited: 12 (from Web of Science)
9. Viviparity and embryonic adaptations in the teleost Clinus superciliosus. VEITH WJ. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE ZOOLOGIE 58(1):1-12. 1980. Times Cited: 24 (from Web of Science)
10. Chemical composition of the follicular-fluid of the viviparous teleost Clinus superciliosus . VEITH WJ. COMPARATIVE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY A-PHYSIOLOGY 63(1):37-40. Published: 1979. Times Cited: 19 (from Web of Science)
11. Reproduction in the live-bearing teleost Clinus superciliosus. VEITH WJ. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 14(4):208-211. 1979. Times Cited: 29 (from Web of Science)
12. Function of corpora-lutea and progesterone in ovo-viviparous lizard Chamaeleo pumilus pumilus. VEITH WJ. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 71(2):57-57. 1975. Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Some conclusions:
1. The guy has far more published science than other self-declared science authorities in the Church. Sean Pitman (an MD), David Read (a lawyer), and Paul Giem (another MD)--all of whom have self-published books on creation/evolution issues and a loyal following (well, Pitman and Giem, at least)--come to mind. Numerous SDA biologists have a much better publication and citation record. I know. I've checked.
2. The guy's science has no direct bearing on origins and is very much dated--nothing more recent than 2001. His work is yesteryear's news.
3. Anyone who wants to get rich and can deliver a slick-packaged program has the perfect audience in preaching anti-evolutionism to the SDA "faithful." The apocolyptic conspiracy approach, strangely and tragically, only adds to such an appeal. This vulnerability of SDAs to unadulterated propaganda comprises one of the strongest arguments for sending kids to SDA colleges that instill critical thinking. And I'm not referring to the critical thinking that Bob Ryan is presently extolling at Educate Truth, which Sean Pitman himself had to step in to correct. The current exchanges at ET are hilarious, by the way. I like it most when EducateTruthers go after each other, something they are more prone to do when agitators (like myself) refrain from posting.
It is sad that end time conspiracy theorizing seems more encoded in the traditional Adventist DNA than the good news of Jesus. In the end, I just can't give this garbage, or anyone spouting it, the time of day. I need to keep focused on keeping the main things as the main things...in my own life, or when engaging with others.
Thanks...
Frank
Thanks for calling attention to these articles Prof. Kent. Although they were not published in the leading scientific journals of the world which are included in JSTOR, and although they do not show that Veith is a "world renowned scientist" as his website claims, they do show very clearly that he comes from a serious science background and was most productive in his scholarly work in the 1970s and 1980s. I appreciate your tracking these down.
Anyone who markets oneself as a "world renowned scientist" should arouse immediate suspicion. Always.
I can´t believe how we attack ourselves, and how you all blame veith for all those theories, when everyone with an aye at the university can find masons and people who knows about those theories, without being SDA or knowing Veith, If you havent watched Total onslaught (you reader) Watch it first and then dicide yourself, Most of the accusations against Veith exposed here, are not well based, and half of them are a bias.
You should be praying for his ministry you cowards who don't dare to preach that hard, only preaching good deeds, and forgetting of end-time prophecy
If you are an adventist go and read the great controversy and selected messages,
You cheeky scholars, you are the ones who speak with "authority" Instead filling up the work veith does, yes he may be fundamentalist, but he gain many souls for the Lord, whatever the reason it be, its accountable to the Lord, you shuld rather be filling up the missing part you speak of, he teaches prophecy and paranoid stuff, whoever may call our religion a paranoic cult, with your standards. but we know what we stand for, and rather fill out the part those other persons are lacking at your eyes, those veith-converted-fundamentalist adventist paranoids, teach them the other side of christianity, the side "off conspiracies" if u like.
James 4:11
Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. (ASV)
James 4:12
There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? (NASV)
I walk with the Lord
On one thing we agree Obed - people should certainly watch Veith and decide for themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8StKKPWejM
FIIRST, your criticism of conspiracy theories may be well founded....But you reveal your true colors by using words that reveal you don't take Papal Rome as the Little Horn of Daniel or doctrinal positions along those lines. You sound as though you have disdain for Adventist beliefs (And I'm not refering to the conspiracy theory stuff you were writing about)
SECOND, your attempt to smear Creationism in the same way is DISPICABLE. The level of hatred you seem to harbor for creationism raises the legitimate question as to why you are an SDA or a Christian at all? The most EMBARRASSING thing in the Church today are the people pushing evolution on the Church. I was DUMB enough to buy into evolution about 12 years ago until I studied it in detail. The SCIENCE does NOT back up evolution.
If YOU want to play wink wink with Genesis 1 while here in the space fabric of time-that's between you & God. But leave the youth of the Church ALONE.
THIRD, your snide remark about the "remnant" illustrates that you truly have no clue to what the remnant involves as an issue or doctrine.
Spectrum, Adventist Today & especially Adventist Wheel are examples of the tares that we leave to Him to seperate from the wheat. If you wonder why such a strong reaction was given to this--it's because I found your post to really CROSS THE LINE with a personal attack on Veith & enough is enough. Sure his conspiracy theories were maybe a little out there- but you said some rude things about him and used it for a springboard to attack Adventism in general in other areas. Oh, and speaking of wolves in sheeps clothing......
dvd
"Anyone who wants to get rich and can deliver a slick-packaged program has the perfect audience in preaching"...evolution to those who are vulnerable to such silliness, insults to the intelligence and a general disdain for the Word of God.
Richard Dawkins comes to mind.........(I actually laughed at parts of his book Ancestors Tale as I read my copy).
dvd
Obed7.0
There is such much one could say in response to your comment.
For starters, .......oh why bother.
I'm more interested in where you live Obed7.0?
why do u mind? LOL, I´m mexican from mexico city =)
I walk with the Lord
Ron, your article sounds like you learned to write (but didn't really learn journalism) at the Los Angeles Times. It is full of innuendo and snide commentary, and nothing like what I would expect from a history Ph.D candidate at USC.
Do you, with a tome on Amazon with only one review, really want to haughtily dismiss a book that has none? I dare say Veith has sold more books than you have, despite the lack of a review on Amazon. And if Professor Veith's ministry is based in British Columbia, it isn't itinerant (or "itinerate" [sic] as you put it).
Veith's website says, he is a “world renowned scientist, author, and lecturer,” as you correctly report the first time, then conveniently drop the latter two categories to ridicule the idea that he is a "world renown scientist." Well, he certainly is a scientist by training and profession earlier in his life--with published papers, as Jeff Kent helpfully points out--and he is world renown as a lecturer, so the website statement is correct. But you distort it and drop the latter two categories so as to pretend the statement isn't correct.
Your use of the term "confidence man" is worse than snide; it is defamatory. What evidence do you have to support such a term? Have you read the annual reports for Amazing Discoveries (his independent ministry)? (Presumably there's a Canadian equivalent to the U.S. Form 990 tax return for non-profits which in the U.S. are required to be made available upon request.) Do you know how much he makes? Have you talked to him or anyone on his board of directors? A real L.A. Times reporter---as opposed to just a wannabe muckraker---would have done those things.
Veith's conspiracy theories are inherently damaging and problematic. But also problematic is your attempt to use them to impeach biblical creationism, which is really the whole point of your article. I don't think it will work, because it is just guilt by association. It is saying in effect, "Walter Veith is a creationist, and he also believes and teaches nutty conspiracy theories, so creationism must also be nutty." But of course that is both guilt by association and a non sequiter
What is interesting to me is that Veith's lectures on origins are generally better reasoned and evidenced than his conspiracy-related lectures. That isn't surprising given that he has a good deal of training in the relevant science. If you just watch his lectures on origins, you won't get the conspiracy theories and you will get the thoughts of a trained scientist with knowledge of zoology.
Well said David!!
My thoughts exactly!
It is interesting to analyse the spat between Walter Veith and the BRI regarding his views on the King James Version. Veith takes offense to the fact that the church often make reference to the fact that he has no theological training, stating that he is a scholar who is able to develop new skills. His argument against the BRI however reveals that his thinking is no different than a freshman theology student who enters a class on Revelation and Inspiration filled with his own opinions based on spurious facts and a naive world-view. As the lecturer proceeds to pull apart the facts, the student conveniently drops the arguments that now no longer holds water, and keeps trying to make the same argument by introducing more and more desperate questions which shows that he really has no idea about what is going on after all. In order to safeguard both his own and the student's dignity, the lecturer stops engaging - and the student takes this as confirmation that he has the upper hand in the argument.
The articles have been published on Veith's website, but don't seem to be available anymore.
(Original Reference: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-FAQ - What is Walter Veith's relationship with the Biblical Research Institute)
They are still visible in Google's archives however: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:uNrtXowrq2MJ:amazingdiscoverie...
The problem is that Veiths propensity for seeking out conspiracy and intrigue seems to be fundamentally part and parcel of the way he operates and thinks. Even in one of the lectures given at LSU he mentions the Bright organization with nuances of such an approach.
Therefore although in principle you would like to separate out the good from the bad this is not so easily achieved.
On balance his, to quote David Read, 'inherently damaging and problematic' conspiracy theories make any upside brought about from zoological insights he might bring to the creation/evolution debate somewhat negated.
Just a few weeks ago some youth visiting our church were handing out his Total Transformation DVDs - DVDs full of talks with undertone's of perfectionist theology. Attacking Ron's article is all well and good, but in essence he is right - Veith damages the Adventist name and more alarmingly has a disturbing influence on young and impressionable minds.
KM and Edwin,
Points well taken.
Adrian, I recently watcboutbout half an hour's worth of a recent talk by Veith on ADTV. Veith understands righteousness by faith and isn't a perfectionist. It was a full sermon's worth of straight Lutheran, Reformation gospel. Even though Veith often lectures on diet and health, he actually ridiculed people who think they can achieve perfection through dietary self-discipline and abstemiousness. His theology is orthodox, he just adds unnecessary stuff to it.
The problem with Ron's piece is that he just wants to use Veith's conspiracy nonsense as a lever against orthodox SDAism which obviously includes creationism. It isn't sincere. Leftwing conspiratorial nonsense abounds on this site, most recently including the idea that Pope John Paul I was murdered to prevent auditors from investigating Vatican finances.
David, we will have to agree to disagree on Veith's view of J by F. My concern is that we have a credible witness internally and externally. As I wrote above, Veith's modus operandi seems to be based on looking for and conceiving of conspiracy theories ad nauseum. Conspiracy theories by either the left or right wing are not helpful.
You obvoiusly want to attack Ron's agenda rather than the problems which approaches like Veith's bring to the party, which is fine but is your call. The Jesuit/mason-under-the-bed 19th century conspiracy approach does not help us deal with children of the 21st Century.
Wow Ron Thanks.
Just imagine the distribution of Great Controversy as a leader to a tour de force by Walter Veith.
Adventism has over one hundred years of preparation for the onslaught of snake oil science and religion. There is more than enough evil in the world to have anyone inventing a pyramid of fear.
Imagine John and Paul in the first century after the Common Era. Imagine Paul's witness:
I KNOW IN WhOM I HAVE BELIEVED, AND I AM PERSUADED THAT HE IS ABLE!
At 86 with two hip replacements, I no longer knee for prayer. But neither do I look under the bed
before I retire. I look up from whence my redemption drawth neight.
Why are Adventists so vulnerable--simple they have spent generations preaching the problem without a clue to the answer. I recall one evangelist in his Augusta appearance stating during the period of the 7 day war that the Locusts were paratroopers and the grasshoppers were battle tanks. I took it that the live rounds were his B.S. I also recall, home on leave from Camp Grant early in WWII an officer of the Lake Union Conference gave the sermon at the E.M.C. Chapel in which he claimed that the round tires of Ezekial were fortelling tire rationing of WWII.
The best evidence that Walter Veith is on to something is the General Conference's Rules of Order in constituency level meetings. CONTROL aways CONTROL
Tom Z
Obed7.0
I understand your post. That is just the way it is on this forum. Those that care see that Latin America is very active in outreach and the work. Many here are just fanatic, insubordinate , gainsayers, paralyzed with critical analysis...and bad mouthing leadership. Some are actual law and sabbath trashers.
However, it is good experience to grow because you appreciate more what the challenge is to love your enemies.
Being in this most dangerous Christian denomination let's a member experience what Jesus did dealing with Pharisees and Saducees and His people who rejected Him and truth.
Frank7 posted:
"It is sad that end time conspiracy theorizing seems more encoded in the traditional Adventist DNA than the good news of Jesus. In the end, I just can't give this garbage, or anyone spouting it, the time of day. I need to keep focused on keeping the main things as the main things...in my own life, or when engaging with others."
Frank,
I appreciate and can identify with this. Do some analysis..why is your first sentence valid?
For me, this only shows bias and and a double standard; there is 'legit' foolishness and then the legit foolishness sets itself up as the judge of the illegitimate foolishness.
This man's mindset and tactics are the same, only the story is a little different. It only looks like a mutant of the legit because the setting is now the 21st century. Adventist 19th century story only sounds more legit because it's hoary with precious age. It's been mumified and put into a glass cage for adoring fans.
Are we going to be honest enough to teach the young people how to use critical thinking on our past story; me thinks not! But it's fun to stand with our hands behind our backs and bemoan that the young people are gullible for this...tch tch
There is something about this guy that I like and i think it's because he can tell a good story without scaring the hell out of me, unlike the other SDA tent story tellers of my youth.
Talk about a conspiracy: why is that when you click the "up" arrow on a comment that disagrees with the author, the "down" arrow automatically gains another vote - yet the opposite is not true (when you click the "up" arrow for a comment that favors the author, the "down" category does not gain any)?
:-)
When you vote the total refreshes on your page and, if others had voted - up or down - since you last refreshed your page, then their votes would also be added to the new present total. This can sometimes make it seem like you had multiple votes or your vote was offest. But nothing nefarious is going on. - website editor
And by "author," I meant Ron Osborn.
Yeah we Catholics run everything. That's why we oppose abortion, but yet it still remains legal. Oh and all that great press coverage we got on the scandals. How did this guy get in on our big secret?
I remember talking to a guy with similar views. I asked him the following questions: have you ever been to the Vatican?, do you know Latin or Italian?, what meetings of the secret cabal did you attend and how did you get in? He responded he had heard it from his preacher. I then asked the same questions of the preacher. The point being that there is no real evidence of a conspiracy involving the Catholic Church.
It is so very amusing to read so-called enlightened liberal "Adventists" with advanced degrees write "unbiased" journalism. This piece drips of judgement.
The Bible says that Satan is like a roaring lyon seeking whom he may devour (1Peter 5:8). I believe that my Savior Jesus lives and is a positive force here in this world who works through people to save the lost. Satan is very alive too, and is working through his agents to do their very best to destroy all of us. The Bible details who the key players are in this battle of the end of the world.
So does a conspiracy exist, YES! It is called sin and the great controversy.
Revelation 14:12
Shawn, when you click an arrow either up or down, it updates the tally for both. In your case, someone else clicked the down arrow between when you opened this page and when you clicked the up arrow.
I have to agree that some conspiracies are very subtle to detect. It takes the right kind of mind.
I find David Read's defense of Veith--& harsh attack on Osborn--predictable. After all, he & Veith share the notion of an antediluvian world capable of advanced science to achieve "amalgamation" of species. They also have in common the endeavor of publishing & selling this notion.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Revelation 4
Your charge is " This piece drips of judgement."
Of course it is, and that's the way it should be. What's wrong with exposing lunacy? What we should avoid at all cost is misrepresentation and lies. One of the objectives of higher education is to teach people the importance of building their intellectual structures on a foundation of facts. In societies that have no such culture anything goes. In some central African countries there has been a wave of lynchings of kids accused of being witches. In Ghana hysteria broke out a few years ago when it was reported that penis thieves were depriving men of their manhood. In this country the Bible-believing citizens of Salem, Massachusetts, murdered close to 30 of their neighbors over accusations of witchcraft. We pay a high price when we take leave of the facts and indulge in fantasy.
If we did not condemn charlatans such as Veigh, we'd be remiss. This country is awash in charlatans that claim science is a conspiracy against the facts about the climate and the history of life on Earth. We can't afford to take a "teach the controversy" approach to scientific facts, and declare that all claims to truth are equal and entitled to the same respect.
Aage
Note to all: this piece is not a work of investigative journalism or detached news reporting. It is observational criticism of a figure who has posted hundreds if not thousands of hours of videos of himself online in his efforts at self-promotion. Much of what Veith says is simply familiar Adventist evangelism, which I have no particular objections to. But Veith has made a name for himself not simply by being a traditional Adventist evangelist but by placing his own conspiratorial stamp on Adventist eschatology. His conspiracy theories are at the heart of the worldview he advances in his "Total Onslaught" series, and his conspiracies do not represent the best of traditional or orthodox Adventist thinking.
On the question of Veith's "world renown", I do not accept that Veith is a "world renowned" scientist OR author OR lecturer. Gaining some kind of notoriety in certain segments of the Adventist world as an evangelist or public speaker is not the same as achieving "world renown". It is questionable whether Veith has even achieved "Adventist renown." Nor does "renown" in one area of life give one permission to attach any number of additional achievements to one's name. What would we make of a website announcing Bill Clinton as a "world renowned musician and politician"?
But I do understand why some will be unhappy with my critique of Veith's conspiracy lectures and how they connect with his particular brand of creationism. Veith proposes a hyper-advanced antideluvian civilization--much more advanced than ours--that was capable of conducting genetics experiments we are only now beginning to grasp. Veith follows this idea through to its logical conclusion: if the pre-flood world was indeed so technologically and intellectually superior to our own, they probably traveled to the moon as well. I do not consider such fantastical speculations to be either sound science or sound theology.
But those who have a more positive view of Veith than I do should take a few moments to write the first customer review of his book here (being sure to read the book first, as I confess I have not):
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Matters-Escaping-Labyrinth-Error/dp/09682363...
Shawn,I'm a fan of your blog.
It's always interesting to see who shows up to comment on an article like this. I wonder. Do these folks read Spectrum every day and then when it mentions Veith, it really gets them going?
I think that it just shows how intellectually rotten these fundamentalists are. Behind their seeming mainstream attacks on LSU, various church leaders, women ministers, and Spectrum, they are watching sick videos of a charlatan who is preaching 9/11 conspiracy theories, recycling anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic fantasy pulp fiction from the 19th century, and then whining that someone is being biased and judgmental.
the point of Jesus saying judge not refers to the question: who is going to heaven? God takes care of that. (Judge not lest ye be judged refers to God judging those who divide saints and sinners here on earth.) But concerning the parameters of this earth, particularly rationality, we can judge. That's what education is about. So, when you are too lazy to read basic history (the goat of Mendes idea was created by hacks in the 19th century), and instead defend a guy who steals his ideas from fantasy, conspiracy websites, you undermine your whole attack on liberals.
So please, keep defending Walter Veith, it totally makes sense when you really think about it.
Mr. Osborn wrote:
"He now leads an independent evangelistic and itinerate speaking ministry based out of British Columbia entitled “Amazing Discoveries.”"
Mr. Veith is not the leader or owner of Amazing Discoveries. But more to the point, neither is he "independent". Why did Mr. Osborn neglect to state that Walter Veith is actually Pastor Walter Veith, an ordained SDA minister in regular standing from the Cape Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in South Africa?
Disagree with him if you wish, but don't try to obfuscate the fact that he is a Seventh-day Adventist pastor, (much to your chagrin).
Fr Jim,
I visited another Catholic church recently in my area.
For the size of the crowd including youngsters...it sure was quiet.
I have gone to several SDA churches with 1/3 to 1/2 the amount of people and the noise is like a restaurant.
Brith should take a look at the Masonic theology that exists inside of Ellen Whites teachings!
Sorry that was meant to say Veith lol
John K., thanks for providing the additional information about Veith's credentials as an ordained Adventist minister. If he is currently employed by the Cape Conference and living in South Africa then you are right that he is not independent and I will stand corrected. Regarding, his relationship to Amazing Discoveries™, Veith's personal website is registered in AD's name. I do not know what the official board structure of AD is but it is clearly an organization established by a small group to aggressively promote and market Veith on a for profit basis. Here is what AD says about its origins on its website:
"...Seeing the success of Professor Veith’s series [at a Canadian theater in 1992], we formed Amazing Discoveries™ in 1993 as a way to expand our audience and consolidate resources. Several more seminars followed throughout the years. Since then, Walter Veith and Amazing Discoveries™ have gone through several updates of the series, expanded to include the US and Europe, and added additional speakers and topics. Seminars are now available on DVD and on the Web. Amazing Discoveries™ employs more than a dozen staff, distributing DVDs and publications for sale throughout North America and hosting seminars around the globe. Veith’s series are being broadcast in Spanish and English around the world on satellite television, with new languages on the horizon."
I am amused that someone gave the last comment by Ron a thumbs down. What was their objection?
Are other churches plagued with conspiracy theories and such "amazing discoveries"
as this psuedo scientist preaches?
That he is effective is demonstrated on other SDA web sites who laud him, quote him as a "world-renown scientist" which should be heard. With a group of dedicated
followers he will continue to confuse (as well as confiscate funds) from legitimate missions. As Anonymous wrote:
"The mind of the fundamentlist is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you pour on it, the more it will contract."
Or the Christian to the Skeptic: "I'll pray for you." The Skeptic: "Then I'll think for both of us."
Elaine
Why would Ron have any reason to believe Veiths site and DVD's were/are funded or marketed any differently than Doug Bachelors? Why would he care if they were? Of course they are for profit since they use the profits to make their materials available in more languages in more countries same as bachelor.
Nothing sinister here.
Michael
Michael, there's nothing wrong with running a business.
It begins to become troubling when one's business is making personal profit from "evangelism".
It is definitely sinister when one's "evangelism" is itself sinister and sensational conspiracy theories.
Face it Edwin
You dont have the slightest clue if Veith is making a personal profit or not. Can you tell us what percentage he reinvests? Doubtful.
Michael
Like many, I too wonder why conspiracies play to certain minds / groups of people.
My hunch is that those who are marginalised in some way, whether it be: ethnic, national, political or economic, yearn to rationalise their circumstance. They ask the question: why is the world against my type, why are people like me always at disadvantage?
It seems to me that stories about secret societies, power groups, communist plots, the power of orthodox religions rationalise discrimantory behaviour that is otherwise inexplicable.
Catholic conspiracy plays well in South America, Illuminati and Communist threats played well in segregated South Africa for instance where Dr Veith established his audience.
From my perspective, fear based faith that plays to these vulnerabilities is dangerous. The poor get poorer, their capacity to engage in the larger society is diminished.
In my view we have a better story to tell. Helping people to find trust is far more constructive.
Conspiracists should be rejected, not because they are misguided or even exploitative, but because they do lasting damage to hurting people.
" But those who will just journey with him for these “amazing” 36 DVDs will discover at the end of the journey that it is not the rich, the powerful, or the well-educated, but rather they along with Veith who are the real Chosen Ones—the elect few who through their initiation into secret knowledge of end-time events will somehow escape this veil of corruption while the rest of the world burns. The Gospel according to Walter is nothing other than a 21st century Gnostic revivalism."
Are you serious????? This statement is an inaccurate, disrespectful, conspricacy theory itself. The statement is simpy not true. I am sure to ask if you were to ask Vieht or one thousands of precious souls who the Holy Spirit used him to bring to Christ, they would we saden by this statement and say that this is certainly not there belief.
I am sure that Vieth's methods are not perfect and should be refined. However, this is not constructive Christ like criticism.
If you look at his fruits, you could see thousands of individuals who were led to Christ. I personally know one gentleman who viewed Vieth's videos, gave his life to Christ, and joined His remnant church, the SDA movement. Where were the "acceptable" missionaries that should of shared Jesus and His truth to Craig and the thousands of other individuals who came to the feet of Jesus, through Vieth's ministry?
Why don't you have respectful conversation with Vieth, learn from him, and also share some of your concerns in a loving manner?
By the way I am not even a hard core conspiracy theory advocate myself. But I do believe we have a distinct message to share with the world. The three angels message. Rigtiousness by faith in verity. Christ upon the cross, the Gospel!
According to Amazing Discoveries' filings with the IRS from 2009, Veith is not an employee of the organization and is not listed as receiving for any sort of salary.
The assumption would then be that a significant portion of Amazing Discoveries' $351,322 unitemized expenses, and perhaps a portion of their $50,000 professional fundraising expenses are likely flowing through some means to Veith's pockets.
Perhaps he retains the copyrights to all of his presentations and receives royalties for their sales?
The question is: why do they feel the need to keep his compensation hidden?
Visit me at giovannihashimoto.com
Martin said:
" But I do believe we have a distinct message to share with the world. The three angels message. Rigtiousness by faith in verity. Christ upon the cross, the Gospel!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have a definition of these terms?
What is distinctive about this message?
The difficult thing to get across, Martin is that success is not necessarily always an endorsement of methods. Different types of people are reached in different ways. More pertinently, God will use sincere people even if their methods are less than stellar--that is not an endorsement of their methods though.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Eph 6:12
Thoughs two lines introduces Paul's whole armour of God:
Loins girt about with truth
feet shod with the gospel of peace
the shield of faith
helmet of salvation
the sword of the Spirit
and in prayer often.
All this dwelling on the enemy is no preparation for battles of the mind, heart, and spirit.
We can be more than conquorers in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
To recognize the true is all that is necessary to expose the false. Preach the Gospel, don't dance with snakes. Tom Z
I do not know what the official board structure of AD is but it is clearly an organization established by a small group to aggressively promote and market Veith on a for profit basis.
Ron, I'm sure glad you don't claim to be a journalist, because you would fail Journalism 101. Amazing Discoveries is not, repeat not organized on a for profit basis. It is a non-profit. Its website says that clearly:
"Amazing Discoveries™ is a non-profit organization committed to exposing deceptions in the areas of science and Creation, health, the music world, history, and the religious realm. . . . Amazing Discoveries™ is an independent ministry that receives no denominational funding or subsidies. Amazing Discoveries™ is funded through donations from friends and supporters. The sale of our products helps to support our administrative costs, so that as much of your donation as possible can be used for our projects and mission."
It filed a form 990 non-profit tax return in the U.S., and Giovanni was even able to find the latest return online, apparently without too much trouble.
Individual DVDs and other products are sold at a per unit profit, but the money goes to help cover administrative costs so that the ministry is not totally dependent upon donations. As of 2009, however, it was still largely dependent upon donations, receiving about $487,500 in donations and about $181,000 of other non-donation revenue, which would include sales of DVDs and other items.
Lets face it, adventism that is coming out of South Africa is sensational and lacks sound theology or reasoning. Actually, all christianity that is coming out of Africa is bad!
Jim, we are not Pentecostals. Our worship is usually rather quiet. If everyone is talking it can be rather difficult to hear the still small voice of God.
Even if Amazing Discoveries™ is a non-profit organization, Veith may be paid a salary. Veith's ordained; is he paid by the church in South Africa?
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
If you want to find the source of Veith's conspiracy theories look no further than dispensationlism. He has attempted to blend historicism with dispensationlism. Ironincally, Desmond Ford attempted to do the same thing. Veith is no more a spokeperson for the Adventist Church than Spectrum Magazine is. Both Spectrum and Veith present ideas inconsistent with what the SDA church teaches. I would not support any effort to stifle Vieth or Spectrum.
David, yes, you are correct that organizations like Amazing Discoveries are for some reason able to register as non-profits. I'm not sure, however, why you think this means they or Veith do not actually profit from selling conspiracy videos like the "Total Onslaught" series. The charismatic healer Benny Hinn funnels money through his "Benny Hinn Ministries" which is officially a 501(3)c "church". According to Wikipedia, in 2006 BHM sent out mailings asking for donations to purchase a new Gulfstream G4SP jet valued at US$36 million. The plane was purchased in 2007 and christened "Dove One". Do I think Benny Hinn profits from his "non-profit" organization? Absolutely.
This article was not an attempt to investigate Veith's finances (and financial gain is not the only way one might profit from an unscrupulous enterprise). My primary interest is in Veith's conspiracy theories and the damage they do to the Adventist church. Giovanni, though, has done us a great service in providing the Amazing Discoveries tax forms for 2009. The forms show only 2 employees for the organization (even though their website says they employ more than 12). AD's total revenues for 2009 were $674,996--an increase of nearly $70,000 from the previous year. Between 2008 and 2009, the organizations "other expenses", however, jumped dramatically from $351,332 to $613,217. Normally such an increase in spending would occur if an organization purchased a building or made some such investment in a hard asset. This is not the case for AD.
If you look at the total expenses of the organization (part IX) you will see that total expenses for AD, including broadcasting, postage and shipping, video production, contracting, advertising, rent, advertising, office expenses, travel, salaries (presumably to AD's two listed employees), legal fees, accounting, grants, office expenses, and royalties, totals only $286,289. The single greatest expense reported by AD for 2009 was non-employee "management" services. This single item accounts for $288,730. This money--more than a quarter of a million dollars--is being paid to individuals who are not listed as employees of AD. So just how much management service does AD require? Walter Veith is not an official employee of Amazing Discoveries. The question therefore is: Is Walter Veith receiving money from AD for "management" or other services? If so, how much? If not, who exactly is receiving these very substantial payouts?
Whatever the financial bottom line is for Veith, the trouble with Veith's "ministry" remains the substance of his outrageous assertions about the Illuminati, the celebrity status he has achieved in some fundamentalist Adventist circles, and the failure of the church to do more to protect its young members from being preyed upon by such unscrupulous conspiracy "evangelism".
Are you really interested in learning these terms?
My main point was not a bible study on Adventist terminology. Also, I don't really agree with all of Vieth's methods. Some of his material is good. Some of it is out there.
However, main point was that the following statement is deceitful, disrespectful and inaccurate.
" But those who will just journey with him for these “amazing” 36 DVDs will discover at the end of the journey that it is not the rich, the powerful, or the well-educated, but rather they along with Veith who are the real Chosen Ones—the elect few who through their initiation into secret knowledge of end-time events will somehow escape this veil of corruption while the rest of the world burns. The Gospel according to Walter is nothing other than a 21st century Gnostic revivalism."
I don't believe Vieth and people who watch his videos, think themselves as the "chosen ones"
We are all poor, wretched ,blind and naked. And in great need of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.
I just don't agree with the author of this article, that they have this kind of mindset.
Teachings of Veith, Rudolf Steiner, Mormon, Nietzsche and Vernon Howell all contain *some* truth, no doubt.
This article was not an attempt to investigate Veith's finances (and financial gain is not the only way one might profit from an unscrupulous enterprise).
And yet you went so far as to call Veith a "confidence man," which in the ordinary use of language means someone who knowingly lies and cons people out of their money, and (obviously) does so for personal enrichment. The term "confidence man" also clearly implies that Veith doesn't really believe what he is preaching, and where is your evidence for that?
And the ironic thing is that in this instance there was no need for you to gild the lily with exaggerated and unjustified language. I agree---assuming your report is accurate regarding what Veith teaches---that Veith's conspiracy theories are unhelpful, and potentially damaging to the church (although not as damaging as Spectrum's daily assault of liberalism, Darwinism, and doctrinal heterodoxy). I just disagree that Veith's unrelated conspiracy theories somehow discredit biblical creationism in general, or the amalgamation theory of the dinosaurs in particular, which I think was the real point of your piece.
Add to that list Adventism, Ellen White, Hubbard (not old mother!), Mary Baker Eddy, Krishna, etc
Vieth's biblical teachings on creation, the antichirst, the united states in prophecy, spiritualism, sabbath are all true.
However, his theories about secret societies and attacks on idividuals are may not be accurate.
The fear mongering and sensationalism has a massive price to pay in emotional damage - I see it all too often.
"But I do believe we have a distinct message to share with the world. The three angels message. Rigtiousness by faith in verity. Christ upon the cross, the Gospel!
----------------------------------------------------------------
How is this different from what any other biblically based Christian denomination preaches or has preached...for centuries? RBF and the cross of Christ is the NT gospel that was preached in the first century, and emphasized from the Reformation onwards. There is nothing uniquely Adventist about this.
In fact, Adventism has muddled the gospel of RBF in Christ alone...the center of Christianity and of the NT witness... for most of its history. We can't even agree on what the gospel is, so what are we really sharing with the world along this line?
It also points to one of the weaknesses of our separatist stance from the rest of Christianity, and the flow of Christian history as well. If Christianity at large is to be regarded as Babylon, and we're to evangelize them, what could we possibly learn from them? Our views of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and the gospel, have in a sense, been a sort of reinventing of the wheel, that has taken place within the insulated Adventist community, with little to no reference t the Christian community or history at large.
Jones' and Waggoner's preaching of RBF has always struck me this way...a preaching of the gospel that just seemed to muddy the NT gospel nearly as much as the legalism they were attempting to fight. That may rankle some folks...but it's just my general impression.
Thanks...
Frank
Hey you all, perhaps you should watch the Rekindling the Reformation series, u may understand better the position of Veith
I walk with the Lord
Was the cross of Christ, only physical pain?
When my Savior died for me, did his "conscious spirit" immediately go to paradise?
Did my Savior abolish the Sabbath at the cross?
Are some distinct messages?
Was the cross of Christ, only physical pain?
When my Savior died for me, did his "conscious spirit" immediately go to paradise?
Did my Savior abolish the Sabbath at the cross?
David, everything about Veith's "ministry"--the substance of his ideas, his mode of rhetorical delivery, and now the evidences from the 2009 tax forms that show massive amounts of money being paid out to unspecified non-employees of AD for their "management services"--suggests to me that Veith is indeed a confidence man no less than Benny Hinn. I believe he is too smart to not know what he is doing. Others may draw other conclusions from the available evidence and defend Veith as a knight of faith if they wish. But my intention in calling attention to Veith's strange and damaging conspiracy theories was not to dismiss all creationists or creationism as such. I would not trust anything Veith told me about scientific evidence for young earth creationism since I have already seen how he handles the evidence I am able to evaluate without needing any kind of specialized knowledge. I also think that Veith's conspiracy theories are interwoven with his particular brand of creationism. If young earth creationists want to be taken seriously then my sincere advice to them is that they find more credible people to represent their views (such as several people I know at Geoscience who are serious about evidence). Freemasons on the moon searching for lost antideluvian technology just does not cut it.
Victor
"Like many, I too wonder why conspiracies play to certain minds / groups of people."
I have not seen any authoritative study on the subject. Most of standard references go back to Hofstadter and Eric Hoffer, but they largely described the phenomena. Explaining it may be akin to explaining why people all over the world have a religious inclination. To me there are two important factors that correlate with a conspiratorial mindset: a binary (Manichean) approach to good and evil and education that does not include higher thinking skills.
To take the first, when you believe that the world is divided between good and evil, and that higher powers than you have drawn a line in the sand between the good people (your people) and all others (the wicked world), you're deep into the territory of the conspiratorial mindset. Today we refer to people who think this way as fundamentalists. Fundamentalists of all stripes think that the opposite of A is B--that. in fact, there is no ground between A and Z. Hence, those who disagree are not seen as people who disagree on the number of decimals to be included in the calculation of life, but wicked people who perversely choose evil while staring truth (A) in the face.
In the SDA world, this means that Sunday-keepers are not people who have concluded that the Jewish Sabbath does not apply to Christians, but apostates who have sided with Satan (at least, once the SDA argument has been laid out for them.) In traditional SDA thinking only a perverse mind could disagree with the SDA position on a whole host of positions. In the Muslim world this kind of thinking is very strong.
The fact that conspiracy theories are particularly popular in under-educated parts of the world also shows that education plays an important part in inoculating people against a conspiratorial mindset. Much of the education dispensed in developing countries focuses on literacy and rote memory tasks. Even here in the US a lot of kids are only exposed to higher thinking skills in the best high schools and colleges. Hemingway said of writers that they needed an internal "crap detector" to amount to anything, and this is one of the things that an education focused on higher thinking skills tries to provide students with. There is a reason why you can't go to MIT and Harvard and hope to convince people that a New England forest fire on the 19th of May, 1780 was a sign that the end of the world is around the corner, or that the Roman Catholic Church created Islam as a tool to be used against its enemies.
Aage
Was the cross of Christ, only physical pain?
*************
Obviously not. This is never even focused upon in the NT; its horror was obvious to a 1st century audience. The spiritual implications of the cross are emphasized in the Pauline letters. It is not uniquely Adventist, nor is such an understanding limited to our denomination. Read Leon Wood's, "The Cross Of Christ," read John Stott, and countless other non Adventist scholars and commentators on the cross, as well as non Adventist preachers, to see if the spiritual implications of RBF are not understood outside SDAism. In fact, I have heard countless sermons within SDAism that have focused on nothing more than the physical pain and the medical implications of Christ's sufferings...as if that is preaching the cross.
As far as the other extrapolations, these are more of a focus on distinctive Adventist doctrines than on RBF alone. This is where Adventism does have something more unique to say. How these relate to RBF can also be a unique Adventist contribution to the Christian world. The Sabbath as a symbol of the freedom of RBF, and of complete salvational rest in Jesus can be beautiful...as long as it doesn't become the cake instead of the icing, as has often been done.
Thanks...
Frank
Amen, Frank.
I think you said that point really well.
Also, I am not closed minded to read other Christian writtings like Stott, Lewis, or one of the other writers you suggested. I have been blessed by many non adventist ministers.
I know God has other sheep that are not of this fold and do have good teachings that have edified my walk with Christ.
I just believe that the SDA movement has some distinct messages that beautifies the character of God.
Martin,
Did you say "character of God"?
Now you're talking. Not so much into the jargon at all myself (i.e. "Three angels' messages").
Many people seem to be arguing that the church exists in order to be "unique". All the verbal hype can't save a few esoteric doctrines in to a thing of unbridled joy.
Hi Aage, I hope you're fine.
I appreciate this post. Right on.
I'm so happy to have had a good education.
There is no substitute.
Take it easy.
Regards. Dave Langworthy
Wow!!! I've laughed I've cried and laughed and cried at the comments posted whether for or against this post or Walter Veith. This is what happens when Christ isn't lifted up we don't draw all men to him but away from him and the focus turns to us. Lord help us!
Giovanni, thank you again for providing the link to the Amazing Discoveries tax return. If I had come across this earlier it would certainly have been included in my article.
To summarize what we learn from the form:
In 2006, a group calling itself "Amazing Discoveries" (AD) gains non-profit status in the state of Washington. We know from the group's website that the purpose of the corporation is to promote (almost exclusively) Walter Veith.
In 2009, AD reports $674,996 in income, an increase of about $70,000 over the previous year.
Most of AD's money comes from contributions ($487,487), but a significant amount of its revenue also comes from "sales of inventory" ($169,674).
"Video production" and "postage and handling" account for slightly less than $80,000 of AD's listed expenses, so its "sales of inventory" (primarily Veith's DVD's) appear to have generated approximately $90,000 in profits in 2009.
AD lists only 2 employees on its tax forms and 4 non-compensated "officers" (V. Gill, W. Goubej, D. Goubej, and M. Kiefiuk). Walter Veith is not, it appears, one of AD's 2 employees. Walter Veith is not listed as a non-compensated officer.
For 2009, AD reported the following expenses:
1) $286,289 = grants, legal services, accounting services, advertising and promotion, office expenses, royalties, travel, broadcasting, postage and shipping, video production, independent contractors, rent, and employee salaries and wages (paid to 2 people earning a combined total of only $14,035, or about $8,000 LESS than was paid to employees the previous year)
2) $72,243 = unspecified "other expenses"
3) $288,730 = non-employee "management" services
More than a quarter of a million dollars--45% of AD's 2009 revenue--was paid by the "non-profit" organization created to promote Veith's ideas to unspecified non-employees and non-officers for their "management" services.
My question for AD (and those who support it) is: Who are these individuals? Does Veith receive non-employee "management" payments or is he compensated by AD in some other way? If Veith is being paid by AD as a non-employee, how much did he receive in 2009? If he is not being paid, who exactly received more than a quarter of a million dollars in 2009 for their "management" services?
Wow! Is this financial question, the core of your concern?
It seems to me that some people are so concerned about the lack of oppression of the Adventist church that they feel it necessary to go and find conspiracies that are so secret we are unable to see their oppression!
How about a follow up piece?
The dark fantasy world of Ron Osborn?
Michael
Maybe the $288,730 is going to the Illuminati, some Jesuit organization, or the Freemasons for dissemination of misinformation. If people are paying attention to Saddam Hussein and the Twin Towers, they can more readily sneak into the GC headquarters with heads turned the wrong way (apparently they got exposed at LSU).
Aage
Thank you for your contribution which is helpful. I enjoyed the perspective on 'crap detectors'. If you could discover its anatomy and physiology it would be worthy of a Nobel Prize!
In the current debate, Professor Veith is well schooled and not to be counted among the economically deprived. Presumably he just has a malfunctioning 'crap detector', yea an amazing capacity to discover it.
I am not sure that I want to go down the 'con man' road, though I can see why people make that allegation. That too, is a simplistic good v evil analysis.
Many people are drawn to Prof Veith's personal testimony which includes a vivid encounter with 'the demonic', which undoubtedly plays to the clear demarcation between good and evil.
I have sympathy for the 'unschooled', there are many in the world, and we have to take great care in debunking myths they find helpful. They deserve better cognitive frameworks. Though there are a people with vivid / boolean versions of good and evil, I am not sure that this provides an adequate explanation for those who are well educated, in most respects generous people who actively seek out these ideas.
Indeed, I have a relative long since an Adventist, Professor at UCLA, very sharp crap detector, who has spent his retirement years in California writing books (self published) on these themes. I doubt that he has made much money, probably the opposite. I doubt that his influence has gone much further than annoying/entertaining a few relatives. I am not sure that he has strong lines of moral demarcation. He simply wants to find a rational explanation for a messy world. Maybe its an overdeveloped sense of causation and an underwhelming appreciation of chaos theory, or to embellish the euphimism - a simple acceptance that 'crap happens'.
Big surprise this evening: an SDA scientist (a cordial colleague) sent me the following compilation of refereed publications on the cause of the World Trade Center Twin Towers collapse. He also sent most of the papers, which I've perused a bit late tonight.
All of the detailed analyses to our knowledge provide conclusive support for the one conclusion held near-unanimously by engineers: the collapse of the towers could NOT have resulted from the far-fetched notion of controlled demolition (orchestrated by George Bush and the CIA, or perhaps some jesuit or SDA GC jihad). Item #3 in particular presents a very detailed discussion of the facts, which followed up on the exhaustive research completed by the NIST report in 2005. If the Veith defenders can produce any detailed studies published in a reputable journal to support his claim of conspiracy for collapse of the Twin Towers, PLEASE PRODUCE those refs for us. Items #3 and #10 set out specifically to evaluate the claims of the conspiracists, so I would be particularly interested in a rejoinder specifically to items #3 and #10 (not older stuff).
By the way, in the absence of credible evidence for Veith's claim, one has to ask what his source was (um...the "internet?") and how biased his interpretation was. Frankly, I think he's enamored with any claims of conspiracy and is eager to believe ("That's the easy part" -- a quote from our beloved Bob Ryan.) Furthermore, I would go so far as to declare Veith to be a part of the "lunatic fringe." Yep. Now there's a phrase the EducateTruthers can sink their teeth into ("Oh Lordy, Professor Kent at Spectrum said...").
1. Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" by Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson. Björkman A. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 136:933-934 (JUL 2010)
2. Closure of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" by Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson. Bažant ZP, Le J-L, Greening FR, and Benson DB. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 136:934-935 (JUL 2010)
3. What did and did not cause collapse of world trade center twin towers in New York? Bazant Zdenek P.; Le Jia-Liang; Greening Frank R.; et al. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 134:892-906. (OCT 2008)
4. World Trade Center Disaster: Innovations for Improved Fire Safty in Buildings. Kodur V. K. R. DISASTER ADVANCES 1:43-50. (JUL 2008)
5. Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis. Seffen KA. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134:125-132. (FEB 2008)
6. Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions. Bažant ZP, Verdure M. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 133:308-319. (MAR 2007)
7. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers: A metallurgist's view. Gayle Frank W. MRS BULLETIN 32:710-716. (SEP 2007)
8. Behaviour of lightweight composite trusses in fire - A case study. Choi Seng-Kwan; Burgess Ian; Plank Roger Source: STEEL AND COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 7:105-118. (APR 2007)
9. Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers structural frame in multiple floor fires. Usmani AS. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131:654-657. (JUN 2005)
10. NIST. 2005. Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. S. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator, Rep., Gaithersburg, Md.
By the way, I'm no engineer, so I'll defer to the experts (whose arguments I've now examined). Does Veith happen to have a degree in engineering that confers expertise on interpreting evidence on demolition and building collapse? (Oh yeah, sure, he's an authority on detecting lies, coverups, and secret messages.)
I think Ron Osborn's thesis is absolutely valid: if Veith is going to use poor judgment (or none at all) in assessing the evidence for conspiracy theories, why would he be any better at assessing the evidence for the origin and diversification of life? (Wait a minute--there's no need to remind us he's a zoologist/nutritionist; after all, the church recognizes MDs and lawyers as authorities on radioisotope dating, molecular systematics, biogeography, and other pieces of the origins puzzle. We get it.)
Michael,
"Why would Ron have any reason to believe Veiths site and DVD's were/are funded or marketed any differently than Doug Bachelors? Why would he care if they were? Of course they are for profit..."
That's why some of us have such a problem with Doug Bachelor, not just Veith...
Someone should also write an article on Roger Morneau and his fanciful encounters with the occult!
Professor Kent, re the 9/11 conspiracy "theories":
If you only believe what comes from peer-reviewed literature, you obviously have a lot of faith, but faith in man, not God. You obviously haven't even begun to dig into the problems with peer-reviewed literature, randomised controlled trials etc. They are as open to manipulation as people with little education.
I presume you also believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Iran tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington?
APOLOGY FOR ANY OFFENSE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment made to me regarding my attempt to clarify Gender Equality
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although he might keep his thoughts and feelings on this to himself, I think that Elder Wilson would find the suggestion that he thinks that his wife is less valuable or important than he is false and offensive.
I certainly do. What's the point in making such silly and hurtful statements? They strike me as wholly unworthy of this discussion. I request that you stop making them."
-----------------------
1. I appreciate what discussion I have had on the Spectrum blog.
2. I have been rather blunt and possibly too aggressive for some or many
3. That my concern to get at the real issues and cut through the fog and possible muddled thinking may not be appreciated. In my job I am paid well to do that.
4. I actually work, mix and live among people in a big city, Los Angeles that the DC administrators in their offices plan to evangelize.
5. I have actually just read The Great Controversy and the beginning of Patriarchs and Prophet
I APOLOGIZE TO ANY THAT I MIGHT HAVE OFFENDED.
I believe we are in a very serious high stakes game. There is a lot at stake here. A lot that may not be obvious.
6. Regarding Ted Wilson - Theology of Women
- my Socratic question about how he views his wife is NOT meant to be offensive, but to find out what he truly believes the status and ESSENCE of women is. The Church needs to know what position the leader has if the leader is determined to defend a certain position, as it might appear, come what may
- the answer to my question is Yes, No or 'it all depends'
- it is hard to have a rational argument if you do not know what the premises are
- Socrates pushed Euthypro personally to find out what justice was. Euthypro was taking his own father to Court for a capital offense in the name of justice.
7. Regarding Ted Wilson - Church Leader
- I have described Ted Wilson as a 'talking suit', as an amateur ('he needs to get a real job and work with real people') a Home Depot CEO, I would now add as a demagogue after reading his article about City evangelism, who in my opinion has no clue but plans to spend millions of dollars for his grand view of the city.
- this is not personal as I do not know him. BUT he is well aware of the political game and stakes as a world leader, and rather than be offended he needs to argue his case as to why he is fit to lead the Church.
- it is quite possible that there is a serious power struggle going on in Washington. A lot of people do not want to go down with Ted and so are planning what to do.
- this whole NAD vote may be largely political. Ted is not going to have his way
- possibly NAD has won power to women but may have lost the ordination battle ( pragmatics versus theology)
- I have been humored by my concern over legal matters
- I do know what my experience is with post 9/11 Federal Government. A sensible risk management policy of an institution with deep pockets should reflect carefully on officially disseminating the Great Controversy in a post 9/11 enviroment where religious hatred and fundamentalism lie at the root of world terror.
- I have just read Great Controversy, and a case for anti semitism, religious bigotry - anti Catholic, anti Protestant, anti everybody in league with 'Satan', polytheism, Arianism, anthropomorphic view of God, just one big conspiracy theory masquerading as a theodicy exuding hate, fear, paranoia and endless violence, can be made.
- do NAD church leaders want to argue the First Amendment to evangelize?
- will someone request the Federal justice department to investigate Hate Crimes?
- we are in a post 9/11 period. The federal government takes hate seriously.
- finally we all know Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings and Narnia are fairy tales with a message. My understanding is that NAD leaders believe Great Controversy is a real/actual description of the future.
- the final Great Controversy edition was in 1911. Four years later was the First World War. Twenty eight years later was the Second World War. I don't know if EGW experienced the horrors of the US Civil War. I wonder IF she experience these world horrors, 35 million Russians died, whether she may have rewritten her Time of Trouble chapter.
- my father was 10 years old when the Germans blitzed his house. They could see the German machine gunners in the bombers. My mother was 12 years old in East Prussia in 1944 when the Russians came. The time of trouble?
8. It is NOT BEING OFFENSIVE to raise the question of the fitness of Ted Wilson to lead the Church.
9. WHAT IS OFFENSIVE to many is a Church which is 100 years behind the times, with division in it's ranks, with unclear theology having the audacity to claim this is God's unique vessel to bring the 'Good News' to the world.
So there we are. I live in a city, work there, related to people long term. I am a professional. The people I associate with have never heard of Seventh day Adventists. As for the billions of secular people, the Islamic and Hindu world, they do not appear to be moved so far by SDA 'evangelism'
I was in Stockholm, Sweden this summer and passed the Adventkyrkan. Forty years ago it was small and appeared irrelevant. Forty years later it is smaller and still irrelevant.
I apologize if I have offended anyone with my posts.
I believe there is a very serious high stakes game going on. It is a deadly serious matter. we all need to humbly pray.
Pax et Bonum
Edgar Drew MD
Board Certified Pychiatrist
Bbbazusa@aol.com
Victor
Your right that "we have to take great care in debunking myths they find helpful." I have a student from a West-African country who told me a year ago that the prime minister of his country has stayed in power through witchcraft, and that is so powerful that he can fly through the air and I forget what else. All I said to him was that he might want to keep that to himself because in this country people don't believe in witchcraft, and that he might be ridiculed if he talked openly about it. Beliefs that saturate entire cultures can not be purged from people by browbeating them with arguments. It's my firm conviction that it's life and exposure to life--and not the least, people--beyond their cultural bubble that changes people's opinions, not arguments.
Aage
Hi Victor,
My two penny's worth (and in keeping with the title of this article) is that the religious world could also legitimately lay claim to the term "paraphilia" to describe a misdirected zeal which has tremendous power to stimulate religious arousal and gratification. Such "conspiracy" paraphilia is highly addictive. It preys on very basic religious inclinations to project one's own need to feel differentiated from one's parochial environment and circumstances, as well as the need to feel significant, onto a larger narrative that seems to make sense of everything and frames the world in the simple binary terms that you refer to above.
My sense is that this paraphilia is not linked to cultural or educational status, but that its occurrence could be subject to the same debates -- concerning nature, and nurture, or to whether it should be of concern to religious people in general, or if it is just a pejorative description that is designed to fuel discourses of power that are inevitably present in all religious systems -- that pervade the conversation around the classical use of the term.
My personal opinion is that experiencing consistent heightened states of arousal mitigates against personal growth. While it has the temporary advantage of inoculating one against overwhelming feelings of personal contingency and smallness, it desensitizes a person from elevated ideas and hidden realities religious sources try to capture through the use of far more subtle innuendo, poetry, contrasts, and creativity.
As Jesus said, you drive out a demon and 7 come to take it's place. Dismantling a belief without changing the thought process that created it only leaves one open to continued development of ideas that are suspect. A new paradigm has to be inculcated - new wineskins.
Years ago when I worked as a Social Worker, a woman was hired who ideas of "welfare recipients" was very negative. They were all cheats and frauds. As she came in contact with actual people, their situations and their needs - her views changed dramatically.
Ed
"I was in Stockholm, Sweden this summer and passed the Adventkyrkan. Forty years ago it was small and appeared irrelevant. Forty years later it is smaller and still irrelevant."
Ed, you hit the nail on the head. The Adventist church in Europe is hopelessly irrelevant, but the situation here in the US is not much better. The bitter reality is that if the church disappeared tomorrow, it would leave behind a footprint so small that few would notice. Adventism has always been an opinion-based church with little relevance to the outside world. During the Civil War in the US, EGW was pushing her reform dress (which was so ugly that 'sisters' refused to wear it) and a vegetarian diet. The nation was being rent apart over slavery, and hundreds of thousands were dying on the battle field, but all that the God of Adventism was concerned about was the digestion and appearance of the faithful.
This has been the story of Adventism ever since. It has functioned as an emporium of shop-worn apocalyptic beliefs from the 19th century, and its interaction with the outside world has largely been limited to periodic sales and side-shows to lure people in. Jesus was relevant to his own culture; people were for him and against him, but few were indifferent to him. Adventism's greatest danger is not apocalyptic martyrdom but irrelevancy.
Apart from that, a pleasure to see you emerge from beneath nearly 40-year old Newbold memories. You and Otto and Carl and Vincent and Barry--your faces are still vivid in my mind.
Aage
Aage
After this short bout I now return to submerge myself
I do not want to call people demagogue, irrelevant etc. it is all so negative.
I am saddened by all the frustration, anger, at times hate on these blogs. I do not want to be involved in that.
So I suppose quit the talk, just walk the walk.
If you wish please email me at bbbazusa@aol.com
Pax et Bonum
Ed
Ed
"I am saddened by all the frustration, anger, at times hate on these blogs."
Some use it to vent, but most people are just test-driving their opinions, whatever side they're on. What's happening here is healthy. Lighten up, Ed.
Aage
Pagophilus,
You wrote, "If you only believe what comes from peer-reviewed literature, you obviously have a lot of faith, but faith in man, not God. You obviously haven't even begun to dig into the problems with peer-reviewed literature, randomised controlled trials etc. They are as open to manipulation as people with little education. I presume you also believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Iran tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington?"
Are you serious? I believe in God and His written word. I believe in a literal 6-day creation, largely on faith. God hasn't told us that George Bush and the CIA bombed the twin towers. You don't want to hear my thoughts on the problems of peer-reviewed literature because I publish in it regularly and the reviewers and editors can be a huge pain in the buttocks. However, the alternative of publishing willy-nilly is certainly no better. What exactly do you think is better than randomised controlled trials? Do you prefer the undisciplined claims of homeopathy to evidence-based medicine? If there are peer-reviewed articles on the evidence for weapons of mass desctruction in Iran or assassination attempt of the Saudi ambassador in Washingto, please bring them to my attention so that I might better inform my conclusions which, you infer, are based only on what I read in the peer-reviewed literature.
I remember a guy in my town who was utterly convinced that Chinese armies were massed on the Rio Grande and would invade any minute. He was going to move to a "safe haven" in the Ozarks and actually did so. As of yet no Chinese armies have crossed the border. No doubt he has moved on to the next conspiracy. Some people are just plain nuts.
It might be worthwhile to invite David Read to comment on why he so stridently defends Veith's deeply troubling theories.
"A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates "evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it."
Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
"It's my firm conviction that it's life and exposure to life--and not the least, people--beyond their cultural bubble that changes people's opinions, not arguments."
Which is one of the prime reasons that this conspiracy mindset affects Adventism: they have been taught to insolate themselves from the "world" and "worldly people and ideas" and read the Red Books, almost exclusively. Exposure to the larger world is a wide-eyed introduction and only a small number of Adventists have dared venture outisde the cocoon of Adventism. Many of those who post here have dared to to do so and find it impossible to turn back to the Adventism they once trusted to tell them what to think. Critical thinking is deadly to Adventism.
Elaine
You're all just jealous that you didn't think of such an imaginative way to make money fleecing the sheep.
I have watched all of the Genesis Conflict, all of the Total Onslaught series, most of rekindling the reformation, and all of his lectures online of his time this year at Loma Linda and La Sierra.
I understand why many readers here would not want to watch as much as I have. And I also understand the concerns people have about the conspiracy aspect of some of his lectures. But I respect what Veith defends. He is a Seventh Day Adventist and it is obvious he loves Jesus and hates deception. Understanding his personal conversion story and his wife's family's background in the occult sheds much light on why he is persistent in exposing...what some might call conspiracy theories. You can watch him talk about how he came to talk about these things here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPaGDq8kpy8
I
I am 27 and I nearly left the church 3 years ago because I had serious questions about Adventism. I read websites like http://www.exadventist.com/ and http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/ . Though I graduated from Auburn Adventist Academy and Walla Walla University I did not have adequate answers to the honest questions I was seeking. I was 100 percent willing to leave the church and I very nearly did.
I respect people that follow logic where it leads and do not remain a part of something that they fundamentally disagree with. The reason I did not leave the church was because I prayed a very sincere prayer for truth. "I told God that I did not see answers to the questions the critics were raising...and if there were no answers, to lead me out." Please understand I was ready, and still would be ready to leave the church if there was not solid answers to the questions I had. I am not making an argument tantamount to Mormons where they say "I read the book of mormon and I felt in my heart that it was true" Then contrary to the evidence, despite the contradictions they follow the feeling instead of the logic. No, I had real questions and I needed real answers.
After my sincere prayer I was given an insatiable desire to read...and it was through this process that I found solid answers to my questions. The more answers I found the more I realized that the attacks against Adventism I was reading on the websites were dishonest. I reasoned If they were honest they should at least remove those attacks.
I say all this to make that point that Walter Veith can have a positive impact on our church. I was young person earnestly seeking answers to deep questions I had. I am part of the GYC crowed sometimes talked about at Spectrum. I believe in the pillars of this church. We are saved by faith alone! In watching mostly all of Veith's videos it is my conclusion that he believes this too.
Watch how a La Siera theology graduate student has a distorted view of who God is in connection to biblical interpretation. Veith responds by lifting up the bible and a God who is love! The part I am talking about begins at 8:54 into the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HyXbDW_v5M&NR=1
Kevin, when you describe Veith's ideas as being "what some might call conspiracy theories" you imply that you believe them to be otherwise. Has he convinced you that the UN has a hidden occult agenda? Or that Islam is actually the creation of the Catholic church? Or that Nelson Mandela is a secret Mason?
I became intrigued by Veith's suggestion that Mandela is a Mason and so tried to find the source of his claim. What I found were a host of racist and paranoid non-Adventist conspiracy sites and videos like this one, which seem to me to be based only slightly more crude logic than Veith's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QADU0n2gXDA
I would also caution you against making moving personal conversion stories the basis for evaluating the gospel someone proclaims. Benny Hinn is a charismatic and in many ways likeable speaker. There is also partial truth in his message. Watching him talk about his modest background and family story one can understand why people respond to him. You can see this side of Hinn on display here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjyUIP8IfwA
But this is also Benny Hinn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GXFJL8NujQ&feature=related
I would also encourage you and other Spectrum readers to read what others have said about Veith, including some who have some personal experience of "Amazing Discoveries" from the inside:
http://www.thejerichoroad.com/home-journal/2009/1/27/walter-veith-former...
"After my sincere prayer I was given an insatiable desire to read...and it was through this process that I found solid answers to my questions."
It might have been your choice of reading where you found "solid answers" to your questions. Many of us have also read widely over the past 50+ years (more than your lifetime) and have been convinced that there is too much smoke and mirrors in the religious world to succumb to any. Your sincere prayer and reading have convinced millions to also adopt Mormonism. Such a program is not a guarantee of anything but finding what one is looking for. Sincere Muslims find all their answers in the Koran and they pray five times daily, proving nothing that was not formerly their beliefs.
Elaine
Kevin, I am quite taken aback by your last statement. You write: "Watch how a La Siera theology graduate student has a distorted view of who God is in connection to biblical interpretation. Veith responds by lifting up the bible and a God who is love! The part I am talking about begins at 8:54 into the video."
The student you refer to is a good friend of mine, an occasional contributor to this site, and a Bible teacher at an Adventist academy. He asks Veith three very valid questions:
1) What principles does Veith follow to determine what parts of Scripture are to be taken literally and which parts not?
2) What are the moral implications of Veith's creationism with its implication that God supernaturally cursed animals to make them predators to punish humans?
3) Does Veith endorse the scientific validity of eugenics (selectively breeding out aggressive human traits)?
Veith responds as follows:
1) The Bible is self-interpreting according to Veith and this tells us what parts should be read literally and what parts not. Note: this is a complete non-answer and form of tautological reasoning. It amounts to saying, "I know what parts are literal and what parts not because it is self-evident from the text". But it is often not self-evident which is precisely why many very serious OT scholars have concluded that Genesis should not be read in a woodenly literalistic or "scientific" fashion and was never read this way from the start. (Walter Brueggeman, for example, believes Genesis 1 was composed for primarily liturgical purposes in the context of the Babylonian exile.)
2) "Maybe God did intervene directly", Veith says, to transform animals into predators. However, he then goes on to say the changes also arose naturally so God is not the author of pain and suffering. Note: this is also a complete non-answer to the problem. Whether God directly created predators or abandoned morally innocent creatures to the ravages of death to punish morally guilty humans, a pressing theodicy problem remains. It does not seem that Veith has even understood the question.
3) Eugenics is proven to be valid, Veith states, because in American jails, he claims, prisoners fed vegetarian diets come out of solitary confinement with amazingly lower levels of aggression. Note: this is simply nonsensical. The claim about vegetarianism in jails sound utterly dubious on the face of it (recall that Hitler was also a vegetarian) but beyond this it sounds from Veith's answer that he does not even know what eugenics is, unless he thinks that changing your diet can actually modify your DNA. If this is Veith's view then he subscribes to the thoroughly discredited evolutionary view known as Lamarckianism.
Unfortunately W. Veith has a lot of followers in Europe too.
This is the reason I have examined “The new world order”, one of Veith’s videos from the series “Total onslaught”. I have checked his quotes in the cited sources and compared it with what is really written there in the context. Three examples may be sufficient:
1. “Summa theologiae”
Veith quotes from the “Summa theologiae” of Thomas Aquinas, a theological compendium of five volumes with hundreds of pages each and a content of high philosophy of Law. Veith does not care to distinguish between the “natural law” and the “positive law”. He quotes what is written there as if it were a simple story from a newspaper. He is keen to get the quote as he needs it for his proof-text-method but doesn’t care about the setting and the context of the quote that would make the use of this quotation unfit for his purpose. “A text without it’s context is a pretext” – was one of the favourites of our Bible teacher, Hans Heinz, at the Seminar Bogenhofen, Austria.
2. RERUM NOVARUM (Encyclical 1891)
Veith presents in his video this encyclical as THE basic saying of the Roman-Catholic Church in regards to private property, social justice etc. and as instrumental in ending laissez-faire capitalism in the 20th century and starting effective interference by the government. Veith sees this encyclical as the justification to impose the new world order by the Roman-Catholic Church, what according to Veith means: no private property / government has the right to intervene and re-distribute goods and property etc.
Here are only two of many examples of RERUM NOVARUM in regards to private property:
“38: First of all, there is the duty of safeguarding private property by legal enactment and protection.
46: We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.”
3. Liberation Theology
Veith is depicting Pope Paul II with ONE quotation as someone that was supporting the Liberation Theology. But Veith omits that the same Pope was fighting very hard against Liberation Theologians such as Gustavo Gutiérrez, Leonardo Boff, Jon Sobrino, Hélder Câmara, Óscar Romero etc., etc. Veith leaves the uninformed spectators of his videos with the impression that the RC-Church was pro Liberation Theology. This is simply not true!
These are some of my findings of a time consuming but simple source-check. Veith twists and turns quotations as he needs it. This is not what I expect from someone with his claim.
I would be glad to read an official statement of the Adventist church in regards to W. Veith stating that his way of arguing, his use of sources, his conspiracy theories etc. are not in the Christ likeness the Adventist Church promotes and that this does not correspond with the ninth commandment.
Herbert (Switzerland)
I wish I had more time to write at the moment but I just have a few minutes before I get back to work. I often read spectrum but this is the first time I have commented. As a frequent reader I of course run into many of Elaine's posts. Congratulations on your recent birthday and it was neat to put a face behind the name with the recent blog article on this site about you.
I hear what you and Ron are saying as far as making a personal conversion part of my appeal. I mentioned that because no one on here knows who I am, and it was just a little background to where I am coming from. I appreciate logic, I appreciate people who think... I also mentioned how my conversion is different than a mormons who "feel the burning in the bosom" I am willing to listen to logic. And logically if I believed the fundamentals of Adventisim were false I, I most certainly would not remain in a church I didn't believe in. If I was convinced that Adventism was a false theology I may like Dale Ratzlaff try to convince people of why they too should leave...but I would not pretend to be a Seventh Day Adventist while doing so.
For me there is no biblical worldview that lifts up Christ like Adventism does. We can explain biblically why hell does not burn forever. Why dispensationalism makes God arbitrary, we can show how we have always been under grace and not law. We can show logically why the 10 commandments still stand...all of them. And we can show how prophecy follows a historical logically consistent thread...there is no need to throw the last week of the 70 week prophecy off into the distant future.
Walter Veith is a defender of Adventism. That is why when I read this article I felt compelled to offer one more voice in his defense. Walter's personal testimony is compelling. It is possible that he is a liar and making the details in his story up... but if not I would caution against speaking against him so strongly prematurely. Just as in Acts Gamaliel said "if it be of men, it will come to naught, but if it be of God, ye will not be able to overthrow it; lest perhaps ye be found even to fight against God."
I agree with you that it is important to look closely at the sources and the points he is making. I will continue to do so. I just hope that you are careful about speaking against any man...before all the facts are known. If anyone is interested about learning more about who Walter Veith is check out his personal testimony or watch this one on one interview http://www.youtube.com/user/TheClosingOfTime#p/u/12/p-QQ0dvy5KE
Would love to type more but I need to get back to work.
Blessings
Kevin McGill
Kevin, just a note of clarification. When I wrote about needing to be cautious about personal conversion stories I was in no way meaning to disparage your own. My concern was with taking Veith's personal testimony or conversion story as a reason not to carefully analyze the actual content of his conspiracy claims and his completely irresponsible, dishonest, and manipulative use of evidence. Incidentally, if you happen to be in the Loma Linda area and would like to meet the student who asked the questions of Veith maybe we could arrange a get together along with a friend of mine who is a leader at Advent Hope (Adrian Zahid) who I know is also troubled by Veith. I feel like more honest and face-to-face dialogue/conversation (and simply friendship building) between "conservative" and "liberal" Adventists who take their beliefs seriously is very sorely needed right now.
I am in agreement with you here Ron. If I was in California I would love to meet up! However I am in Washington state. I think it would be great if there was more dialogue between the different labels within Adventism.
Herbert, your analyses are greatly appreciated.
Kevin, Thank you for the wishes on my recent birthday,
As you are aware, Spectrum enjoys a wide appeal to a very diversified audience. This is its uniqueness: it is not limited to an official SDA position but presents them much sooner than the official presses and allows each of us to converse about those news items.
When someone who is a world lecturer in Adventism, although not officially sponsored by the church, he becomes open to comments from various sources, both pro and con. This should be welcomed as where else could one go to have such free and open discussions?
It is obvious that the various TV and video ministries will have devoted fans; this is not unexpected. But for those who make specific claims of either current events, biblical interpretation, scientific discoveries and news, it is only due diligence to investigate all those claims which cannot be immediately confirmed by those who are scholars in the respective fields. If someone who had no medical training was offering advice for all sorts of diseases, he should be expected to offer evidence that he is fully qualified to do so. That is the minimum to expect.
Because one may have qualifications in one branch of science does not confer expertise in all: a geologist is no more qualified to address medical questions than an engineer. Bestowing total confidence in someone who is unqualified only reflects the level of credibility in that individual or group.
One's conversion story can always be most inspiring, but it does not confer professional acumen in any specific discipline whatsoever. Sencerity never replaces long, hard study and recognition of completion.
Is that too much to expect from anyone who claims to be so wise in so many subjects?
Elaine
Kevin, the facts are known. He is indiscriminate in the way he cuts and pastes from conspiracy webpages, presenting it on the screen and smiling and saying, "Don't get angry with me! I'm just reading from the screen!" He totally avoids any accountability for the falsehoods, half-truths, rumors, fantasies and distortions he presents as if they are facts.
I've documented plenty: http://billcork.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/walter-veith/
He's a scholar. He knows the importance of evaluating sources and documenting his sources. He doesn't do that here. He repeats bizarre 9-11 conspiracy theories. He confuses the Alpha Course with alpha waves. He says the Jesuits founded the Mormons because one Jesuit missionary happened to stumble across Brigham Young in the desert. He can't understand the Cajun accent of Jesse Duplantis and accuses him of praising Satan. He makes statements about what John Paul II preached at St. Louis that are contradicted by facts. He says Pac-Man is the all-seeing eye of Lucifer.
There's no need to be patient. His stuff has been out there. There is no benefit to this stuff. We need a strong statement from the GC warning our people against this guy.
How sad Mr. Osborn it is for you to assume that the Mr. Vieth is in this alone, if you have done any 'critical' consideration at all you would have been honest enough to make it known that the Amazing Discoveries ministry is not merely the work of one man but of a team of individuals who, with their own ability to think critically, have chosen to be a part of this ministry. Shame on you!
As for the information provided in the 36 published DVDs, why is it that your criticism is so narrow. Is there not 36 messages, yet you focused in on so little. What about the other themes presented? - Those that point to Jesus as Lord and Saviour, and those that uplift Christ and his earthly ministry? Shame on you again!
You single out Mr. Veith as though he is out for himself and the dollars he can make, yet you make no comparisons to the multitude of NAD pastors and evangelists who do exactly the same thing. Do we not have ABC stores all over that peddle their wears in the hundreds of dollars in our pulpits on Sabbath and our Sabbath School Quarterlies? If you were honest you would admit to the double standard you are creating! Again, shame on you! As you said, one of the lectures can last longer than an hour, yet many other evangelists may speak for as little as 30 to 45 minutes and charge as much or more for their 25 DVDs as does AD. Shame on you!
One of your colleagues/friends, Professor Kent calls your article ‘Outstanding’, ‘Great work!’ ‘very well researched and put together’. Yet he goes on to list 12 references ‘In all fairness’ to show that ‘the guy’ has ‘some real science—even peer-reviewed—behind his name.’ How in the world could this be even considered close to being ‘well researched’ by P. Kent when he himself was so easily able to search out these references? Why didn’t you Mr. Osborn take the same courtesy to justify your claims before your post? Again, shame on you!
P. Kent, how in the world could you give such accolades to this article when you make such a list. If you, both of you, were truly professors, would you accept such ‘research’ and offer such glowing praise to a student that handed this to you. I think yes if it were posted here, but no, if it were just another assignment, but then again, the minds applauding this is truly bewildering.
If any of you had truly or seriously watched the Total Onslaught series you would know that some of what has been revealed is being lived out before your very eyes today in the various uprising around the globe.
Consider this; Mr. Veith is the only one I am aware of, of late, who has clearly stated in the Total Onslaught and Rekindling the Reformation series that one of the biggest issues that will face the world would be the disparity between the rich and the poor, and that there would be a huge push to take from the rich and give to the poor. Do we not see this in all of the ‘Occupy’ movements now taking place around the world? What about the issue of ‘sustainable development’ which favours multinational corporations? He spoke on this at length too, before it was even witnessed by most, and today, even in my own little, somewhat insignificant location, the government has, as most international and territorial governments now do, have departments, commissions or some sort of agency dedicated to ‘sustainable development’, most of whom are even apply named.
If there were any serious or even good research here it would be at least balanced. Even if you don’t think Mr. Veith is balance in his, you have the obligation to be so in yours.
I believe in the absence of sound biblical teachings, in particular within the SDA church, God has allowed this man, in my humble opinion, to stand in the breach of what many of our high profile leaders over the last 30 years or more have miserably failed to do, keep the truth alive and relevant to the world at large.
One other note, you criticise his use of the internet in his research as though it should somehow be obvious to us that, ‘because he used the internet’ that somehow his research is not as valid has others. This is a criticism I have seen levelled against many over the years, but yet today, most research begins on the internet, ever hear of ‘Google’ and the like.
Shame on you, for this sad piece of research, so called!
Final thoughts:
“God is permitting the elements of confusion and disorder to bear sway for a season. A power from beneath is working to bring about the last great scenes in the drama—Satan coming as Christ, and working with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in those who are binding themselves together in secret societies. Those who are yielding to the passion for confederation are working out the plans of the enemy. The cause will be followed by the effect.
Transgression has almost reached its limit. Confusion fills the world, and a great terror is soon to come upon human beings. The end is very near. We who know the truth should be preparing for what is soon to break upon the world as an overwhelming surprise.
John writes: “And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Revelation 20:11, 12.
Are we as a people asleep? Oh, if the young men and young women in our institutions who are now unready for the Lord’s appearing, unfitted to become members of the Lord’s family, could only discern the signs of the times, what a change would be seen in them! The Lord Jesus is calling for self-denying workers to follow in His footsteps, to walk and work for Him, to lift the cross, and to follow where He leads the way.
Many are readily satisfied with offering the Lord trifling acts of service. Their Christianity is feeble. Christ gave Himself for sinners. With what anxiety for the salvation of souls we should be filled as we see human beings perishing in sin! These souls have been bought at an infinite price. The death of the Son of God on Calvary’s cross is the measure of their value. Day by day they are deciding whether they will have eternal life or eternal death. And yet men and women professing to serve the Lord are content to occupy their time and attention with matters of little importance. They are content to be at variance with one another. If they were consecrated to the work of the Master, they would not be striving and contending like a family of unruly children. Every hand would be engaged in service. Everyone would be standing at his post of duty, working with heart and soul as a missionary of the cross of Christ. The spirit of the Redeemer would abide in the hearts of the laborers, and works of righteousness would be wrought. The workers would carry with them into their service the prayers and sympathy of an awakened church. They would receive their directions from Christ and would find no time for strife and contention.
Messages would come from lips touched with a live coal from the divine altar. Earnest, purified words would be spoken. Humble, heartbroken intercessions would ascend to heaven. With one hand the workers would take hold of Christ, while with the other they would grasp sinners and draw them to the Saviour.”
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, Page 28-29
MichaelE
Ron, as to the question of when to read Scripture literally and when to read it figuratively, Veith's answer is the only one there is. The Bible is its own interpreter. (Incidentally, the Protestant Reformation rest utterly, completely and entirely on the principle that the Bible is its own interpreter.) The fact is that it is usually very obvious whether something is intended to be taken literally or figuratively.
That literal days are intended is clear from Gen. 2:2-3 and Ex. 20:11. It is also clear from the phrase, "the evening and the morning were the ___ day," obviously referring to the dark and light portions of a literal day, repeated with reference to each of the six days. The idea that the days were not literal is not textual at all, but is driven by the origins theories of mainstream science. People who would read Genesis as figurative or non-literal are almost always motivated by concordism, trying to make Scripture fit with atheistic scientific theories about origins.
As to when and why predation and carnivory came into the animal kingdom, we know it came in as a result of the Fall, as a result of sin. God created the animals to be vegetarian. "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so." Gen. 1:30. I realize you think God was overreacting to curse the entire creation just because Adam and Eve ate the fruit---or at least claim to think so, in order to place another theodical issue in counterweight to the problem your theistic evolutionary views cause: making God responsible for 600 million years worth of pre-Fall predation, carnivory, sickness, suffering and death.
There are studies suggesting that vegetarians are less aggressive than meat eaters. Veith was obviously referring to one such study, when he mentioned changes in prisoners fed a vegetarian diet. The phenomenon obviously would not fall under the rubric of eugenics, but quite possibly epigenetics. The field of epigenetics is fertile, and researchers are finding that diet and other "acquired characteristics" can effect how genes are expressed. The sarcastic question---asking whether Veith would be in favor of eugenics or selective breeding of humans---deserved no better nor more specific answer than that.
Bill Cork: "There's no need to be patient. His stuff has been out there. There is no benefit to this stuff. We need a strong statement from the GC warning our people against this guy."
Absolutely!
For many month, I understand, he was not allowed to speak in Adventist churches in Germany for these reasons. From what I heard recently, he is back... Don't ask me why, I wish I knew...
Walter Veith's style is nothing new - just that he has capitali$ed in it with fame and infamy. This is what Adventism in my growing up days thrived on in the pulpit, sabbath school discussions and Sabbath lunches. Brith is just taking it to another level and with the proliferation of the Internet there is so much more access to wild and whacky theories and proofs. I recommend that Ted gets Walter to write the 2011 version of Great Controversy and get the conspiracies up to date!
"we know it came in as a result of the Fall, as a result of sin. God created the animals to be vegetarian."
Would you please cite the Bible text verifying this statement?
Elaine
Aage, " Small and irrelevant" would apply at one time to little Karl Marx sitting in a cafe in Vienna in 1916.
"Small and irrelevant" would apply to Jesus of Nazareth and an uneducated bunch of 12 nobodies in Palestine in AD 26.
"Small and irrelevant" would apply to the children Ellen and James White playing religion in the 1840's in the backwater muddy roads of New England.
I don't disagree that our Adventism often appears "small and irrelevant" and you can sniff down your nose at it.
But then I wonder what that makes you, since you spend so much of your adult life reading and criticising the opinions of those who find " small" to be unimportant, and Adventism very relevant for the the personal guidance, support, and hope they have had from it.
We are very interested in exposing the tumors and ugly sores on our church body like Walter Veith, Doug Bachelor, Gender discrimination, and the unnecessary and impossible chronologies of creation.
But I have yet to read one of your posts that has shown the psycological benefit you obtain from constant criticism of everything Adventist other than "smarter than thou" which does seem pretty small and totally irrelevant to me.
Please feel free to share with me the greatness and relevance of your personal mission of proclaiming Adventism " small and irrelevant " that so far I am missing?
Jack
"And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so." Gen. 1:30.
Bill Cork: "There's no need to be patient. His stuff has been out there. There is no benefit to this stuff. We need a strong statement from the GC warning our people against this guy."
And while the GC is making strong statements, we need a strong statement against the relentless liberalism, Darwinism, and doctrinal heterodoxy streaming forth daily from Spectrum and Adventist Today. That seems fair: The GC should issue a strong statement warning people against Spectrum, Adventist Today and Walter Veith.
And certainly parents should also be warned against sending their kids to LaSierra, so a warning to that effect should be included in the batch of strong statements to be issued by the GC.
... and the grasshopper plagues have been taking that seriously ever since!
Ive been warning my kids and friends about Adventism for a long time
David, you write: "People who would read Genesis as figurative or non-literal are almost always motivated by concordism, trying to make Scripture fit with atheistic scientific theories about origins."
And yet Moses Maimonides, the most revered interpreter of the Torah in orthodox Judaism up to the present, declared that the days of Genesis were not to be read literally in the sense you demand. It appears to me that fundamentalist readings of Genesis that insist it can only be read as a statement of precise historical/scientific origins are themselves overawed by modern scientism.
It is also a plain fact that many evangelical Old Testament scholars with much stronger credentials than you or I have come to very different conclusions about the meaning of Genesis. So even if you want to make an argument for reading Genesis in a literalistic way, the idea that fundamentalist hermeneutics are self-evident, self-validating, unquestionable, and uninfluenced by factors of culture, psychology, and history external to the text itself is a false idea. It is simply not the case that anyone who reads Genesis 1 differently than you can only be one of three things, intellectually deficient, morally corrupt, or spiritually inferior.
But this is all somewhat beside the point.
I would be very interested to read any peer-reviewed studies about vegetarians being less aggressive than meat eaters in virtue of their vegetarianism (and don't forget that correlation is not causation which means that any study attempting to show what you claim is probably doomed from the start; Buddhist monks who are strictly pacifist might not eat meat because they are Buddhist monks but it would obviously be absurd to say they are Buddhist monks BECAUSE they don't eat meat!).
Veith answered a serious question about eugenics with a statement that made zero sense. Why you would want to defend him by saying his reply made complete sense and really had something to with epigenetics (but what did the prisoner example prove about epigenetics? did this alleged study also track the offspring of the prisoners? compared with a control group of offspring of meat-eating prisoners?) is beyond me. You seem determined to somehow place Veith in a more respectable light. I think all such efforts only succeed in making the problems with Walter Veith's claims all the more apparent.
It would appear from the reading of Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, Page 28-29 (and others) that Mr. Veith isn't the only one you could accuse of living in 'The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith'.
It would appear to me he's in good company. Many of the disciples and/or prophets wrote about the darkness in or to come upon this world through the beguiling influences of Satan. Have you forgotten that he, Satan, is at war with God and His people?
The whole Great Controversy theme shows forth a great 'conspiracy' by the prince of darkness that is come upon the whole world. Does it seem like fantasy, of course it does, that's why most of the world sees it as a Disney fairytale and is to be treated such.
Isn't it ironic that now SDAs are doing the same thing? Most if not all of the Disney block buster cartoons carry the theme of good and evil, were evil is dark and conspires against good to overthrow it. Where did Disney get it from?
By attempting to diminish this Brother in Christ, Pastor Veith, you have cast doubt upon the truth of the satanic forces that lead men astray and conspire against God and his people.
We used to believe that men could become possessed by demons, but it would seem as though this is now fantasy. But let’s assume that they still could become possessed as before, how would these people be, would they conspire with one another, if so to what end. Would they uplift Christ or man?
Today the cry is down with Christianity and up with Humanism, do you not here it. People want to establish the charter of human rights, where do you think this will leave God’s law.
Just fantasy or theoretical conspiracies, if you believe so then you have laid aside the Truth.
Bring on the ecumenism to coddle us into a false sense of peace and safety and brotherly love.
If it were possible the reformers, new and old, would be spinning in their graves.
If there is a ‘Dark Fantasy World’ it is certainly not the one that Mr. Veith is revealing, but the one where the Truth is cast down and folks are lead astray to think that Satan is just a figment of our unsanctified hearts and imaginations.
Mr. Veith reveals a ‘Dark World’ indeed, but the ‘Fantasy’ is found in hearts and minds of those who deny its existence.
MichaelE
It is interesting how both sides of the argument want the GC to become an enforcer!
i) Church policy on service requests and the credential mechanism does attempt to control the flow aberrant forces. This is effective when the person is not well known, however celebrity's make their own rules.
ii) The church takes care not to make public statements that are defamatory.
iii) In the management of conspiracy, public bans have the effect of drawing attention to conspiracists and fuel cover up arguments.
iv) Some of these people are prolific and can consume an enormous amount of time countering every point they come up with. Most of us don't have such forbearance.
v) The more we counsel against these people, the more people feel a need to hear the argument for themselves.
vi) Where individuals fund these independents through independent channels, the church really has no control.
vii) The majority of people are far more savvy than critics give credit.
Posted by MichaelE - Wed, 11/02/2011 - 15:51
"Today the cry is down with Christianity and up with Humanism, do you not hear it? People want to establish the charter of human rights, where do you think this will leave God’s law."
Here is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Michael:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Where do you think it will leave God's law, and why, if you don't mind my asking?
Thanks.
Maggie
Aage Renalden said:
"The nation was being rent apart over slavery, and hundreds of thousands were dying on the battle field, but all that the God of Adventism was concerned about was the digestion and appearance of the faithful."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen White wrote in strong terms against slavery as well as against the nation as a whole--North and South during the Civil War.
She wrote that the North and South would suffer until they admitted that slavery was the genesis of the problem.
She also wrote that SDAs should disobey the Fugitive Slave Act.
She lambasted the church for its failure to evangelize the freed slaves in the South--until her own son did it. Apparently she got in trouble for it and was shipped off to Australia for talking out of turn.
Rather than condeming the Human Rights Declaration on the link above, what posssible affect do you believe it has on God's Law found in the Bible?
After reading it, it upholds the rights enumerated in our U.S. Constitution. Is there some problem with that document? Do you believe that it should mention the Law of God as found in the Bible? Do you believe that this nation should be declared a "Christian nation"?
Elaine
Let us not disparage Doug Batchelor by placing him in the same class as Walter Veith. Elder Batchelor is a consecrated and highly-gifted evangelist who does not embarrass me in the slightest.
Ron, good article, but PLEASE the word "evidence" is correct for one or a million, so skip on "evidences". The latter is the hallmark of talking to a creationist straight off the farm.
David, if the animals were plant eaters before sin, where in the Bible is their plant diet very suddenly changed to be carnivores? Do animals and plants sin? An entirely different digestive system would have to have such a change to enable a totally vegetarian diet. Humans can be both herbivores and carnivores but not all animals can be limited to herb eaters, and some rarely if ever ingest herbs; sea life has little source of plants and nearly all are predators for smaller sea life. When was this sudden change made?
God cursed the serpent, but there is nothing about all the abundant animal life being cursed.
Elaine
From the Jewish Encyclopedia: According to Maimonides, there is no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed and the truths which the human mind, a power derived from God, has discovered. * * * But as Maimonides recognizes the authority of Aristotle in all matters concerning the sublunary world, he proceeds to show that the Biblical account of the creation of the nether world is in perfect accord with Aristotelian views.
Ron, it sounds like Maimonides is a data point for my case, not yours. His entire career was primarily concerned with concordism between revealed truth and philosophy (which included whatever "science" existed during the middle ages).
The fact that "many evangelical Old Testament scholars" are involved with concordist interpretations of Genesis is not surprising because, like Maimonides, they want to make Scripture agree with current notions of science. Liberal theologians are more likely to admit that the writer of Genesis meant literal days, because those scholars don't believe the Bible was inspired and don't expect it to be true or correct. They are therefore completely unconcerned when it seems to conflict with the claims of science.
Studies about environmental factors and gene expression don't have to be multi-generational, and many are not. As to the studies on meat and aggression, I leave that to my friend Jeff Kent, since he has access to scientific publications databases. I don't deny the obvious fact that Veith did not answer the question about eugenics, but it was not a serious question deserving a serious answer. It was a rhetorical "gotcha!" question, and ignoring it (or answering a different question) was the nicest thing that a public speaker could do in that situation.
Hi Elaine:
Not to worry, if modern sea life evolved (via microevolution only of course) in only 4K years from the "kinds" we see in Cambrian fossils to what inhabits the oceans blue now, it no doubt was only a few score generations needed to go from vegan to carnivore (and please do keep in mind, only microevolution, and strictly within "kinds").
Its amazing how widely evolutionist some creationists are.
Ron and David Read,
My question to Veith about eugenics was completely serious, and not sarcastic. And the questions about literal interpretation and the creation of evil in the animal world were equally serious. Nowhere have I ever written that I think evolution as an explanation of origins is without serious theological problems. However, I am quite convinced that it is no more problematic than literal creationism, and this is because of the suggestions made in the questions I asked Veith. And Ron was correct--he failed to answer them satisfactorily.
David, you seem to be confused. If you think Aristotle's metaphysics, including his logical proofs for the necessity of an Unmoved Mover, i.e., God, constitutes "atheistic science" as you wrote earlier, then you are mistaken in your understanding of Aristotle. If your point is that Maimonides believed the best of reason and evidence is in harmony with a faithful reading of Scripture and belief in a Creator, then that is my point too. But if you think that Maimonides uncritically or thoughtlessly embraced Greek philosophy, you have also not carefully attended to his thinking on the creation. Here in part is what I wrote on Spectrum more than a year ago in a posting about Maimonides:
Maimonides major concern in his writings on questions of origins was to demonstrate, contra both Plato and Aristotle, that the creation occurred as the Bible records it. In Plato’s Timaeus, the world is created by a Demiurge de novo (that is, at a moment in time) but not ex nihilo (that is, out of nothing). Plato imagines, in other words, a creation from pre-existing matter in the cosmos. For Aristotle, according to Maimonides’ reading, the world was meanwhile created neither de novo nor ex nihilo but is an eternal emanation of the Unmoved Mover. Although Maimonides confessed that he could not disprove the Aristotelian view through either rigorous logical or empirical proofs, he maintained that the creation occurred both de novo and ex nihilo as the language of Genesis clearly suggests.
Even as Maimonides argued for the superiority of Scripture to Greek philosophy on important questions of origins, however, he also insisted that it was a mistake to read the six days of the Genesis narrative as literal 24-hour periods. The creation in Genesis, Maimonides taught, is not primarily intended as a cosmogony (that is, as a scientific description of the way the world came to be in every particular detail) but rather as a cosmology, i.e., a description of the structure and order of God’s creation.
You can read the rest of the article if you wish here: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/02/01/moses-maimonides-literal-mea...
But again, this is now start to feel like a complete diversion from the issue at hand. We have discussed these questions many times before. I see no reason to revisit them on this thread, which is not about the serious philosopher and theologian Maimonides but about the conspiracy claims of Walter Veith, who you continue to try to defend.
Ron, as Matt said when you first posted the piece on Maimonides, the literalist Adventist would respond to Maimonides with this question regarding the Sabbath and creation: "If not a literal creation week, why a literal seventh day (as opposed to just any one day out of seven)?"
As a proud gentile, whom the Apostle Paul has repeatedly assured need not be Judaized, I will require a very compelling reason for keeping the Jewish Sabbath. I find that reason in the fact that God created the world in six days, and rested on the Sabbath day, and commanded me to rest on the Sabbath in commemoration of His having done so. If God was just kidding about the six days part--and really meant billions or hundreds of millions of years---I'm going to assume he was also just kidding about the Sabbath part, at least for us gentiles.
CI - your note caught me truly off guard! I had no idea the inclusion of a single letter at the end of a word could mark one out as fundamentalist. I was fully prepared to repent... until I found the article below by an avowed evolutionist pointing out to his peers that the claim that "evidences" is unique to theological discourse is in fact false. It seems to have a long and noble pedigree and since I am an unapologetic Christian anyway, I will probably continue to use it by force of habit as well as sheer cantankerousness towards those atheistic materialists :)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html
Matt, what was it that Veith said in his lecture that prompted you to ask him if he believed in eugenics? I didn't watch all 5 parts of the video, so I really don't know.
Since I'm not aware of anyone who really promotes eugenics today, it frankly sounded like an insincere question. It sounded like you were trying to show him up with regard to something he had said previously, and I'm curious what that was.
Posted by . RonOsborn - Wed, 11/02/2011 - 13:38
"I feel like more honest and face-to-face dialogue/conversation (and simply friendship building) between "conservative" and "liberal" Adventists who take their beliefs seriously is very sorely needed right now."
Wonderful suggestion I think, Ron!
A suggestion I would add to that is that to globally discount what another person says is, in my opinion, bound to be overkill, and therefore tends to generate unfocused, chaotic, polarizing discussions, e.g., your statement:
"Veith, it goes without saying, is trading in a world of fantasy and myth that has considerably less logic than a Dan Brown novel and a great deal more creepiness."
Want to "friendship build" by telling Dr. Veith about his "creepiness" in a "face-to-face conversation?"
I would further suggest that nothing "goes without saying," except, perhaps, in totalitarian regimes.
I always reflexively generate internal "mind maps" in response to these discussions ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlabrWv25qQ ), and George Knight's Neutering of Adventism showed up for me on this discussion, but there's little hope of a nuanced discussion here, it seems.
Hitting a hornet's nest with a hammer does not "fix" the hornet problem.
Jack
"Please feel free to share with me the greatness and relevance of your personal mission of proclaiming Adventism " small and irrelevant " that so far I am missing?"
Jack, stating that Adventism is 'irrelevant' is a description of its footprint in today's society. It's highly relevant to its members, but not to anybody else. As long as the church tries to drag the outside world into its 19th century ideological bubble, it's going to remain insignificant. Adventists fear engaging the world, they fear to take steps to becoming culturally relevant. Raoul Dederen, formerly at Andrews, used to say of Augustine that his greatness was that he managed to engage the outside world in conversation. People found him relevant, even if they disagreed with him. People in our culture don't even bother disagreeing with Adventists. It's your challenge to do something about that. I'm no longer a member, but it would please me a great deal to see the church move out of the ghetto and into the limelight. The reason why I visit this forum, however, is that I enjoy talking and studying about religion. Even though I'm not a believer, I still read my Greek NT from time to time and relevant works on Biblical studies. To me Adventism is just the background against which our conversations take place. And you're free to disagree with me any time you want, and if you can correct me when I rely on the wrong facts, all the better.
Aage
David, how strange that instead of reading my reply to Matt and the long discussion that followed about how one might be a non-literalist and a Sabbatarian, you simply found your own comment late in the conversation on that thread and cut and pasted it into your note above. Shall I now cut and past my reply to you from that thread? The reply that immediately followed your statement? For whose benefit are you re-asking these questions that you know I have already given you my thoughts on? I can't help but feel like this is all some kind of diversionary act to change the topic to something other than Walter Veith's indefensible conspiracy beliefs.
"Walter Veith's indefensible conspiracy beliefs."
Every single belief of Dr. Veith is indefensible, Ron?
Do you want to talk about Dr. Veith ad hominem, or the issues he brings up?
Hi Ron:
You have the researches on evidences! I'll modify my behaviors.
Maggie,
Re-read Ron's comment: "than Walter Veith's indefensible conspiracy beliefs."
He did not say "every single belief, but those conspiracy beliefs which are indefensible. He probably had some believable comments, but the conspiracy ides are indefensible.
Those are issues, not ad hominem attacks.
Elaine
I can't help but feel like this is all some kind of diversionary act to change the topic to something other than Walter Veith's indefensible conspiracy beliefs.
Well, Ron, what can I say? You're just too sharp for me.
Nowhere on this thread have I defended Veith's "indefensible conspiracy beliefs." Had you confined your own comments to those things, I might not have posted at all. But you didn't. You've snidely nitpicked him for a bunch of silly things, like harmless self-puffery on the AD website and for not having any reviews on Amazon of a book he might not even have posted there. And you have assassinated his character, calling him a "confidance man" and hinting of financial impropriety when you have no knowledge or proof of any such thing. Please understand that when I object to those tactics---which ought to be beneath you---I'm not defending the conspiracy theories.
You seem to want to completely destroy the man, because he peddles unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. And that seems strange coming from the guy who, about eight months ago, took very grave offense at me for saying---referring to mere ideological differences regarding where we would take the SDA Church---that we were enemies. If our ideological differences don't justify me in using that term of you, then Walter Veith's quirky conspiracy theories don't justify a total demolition of the man and his ministry, a ministry which seems to have helped many people, some of whom have commented on this thread.
Frankly, if I thought that your sole concern was to protect the sheep from conspiracy-peddlers, I still might not even have posted, despite your harsh, unforgiving, "un-redemptive," scorched earth approach to Walter Veith and Amazing Discoveries. But that isn't your sole concern. Your real motive is to use Veith as a weapon to attack perfectly orthodox, traditional, biblical, SOP, Adventist beliefs, like a recent creation in six literal days. Please understand that when I object to that, I'm not defending the conspiracy theories.
"some women testify that they have a "call" or a spiritual gift to be a minister of a church. Reply: We must remember that not every call or gift comes from God. The Bible states, "Test the spirits to see whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1, RSV)."
Why! Those lying, malicious, treacherous women have been beguiling men since the beginning of time, what with the forbidden fruit and all! Nothing changes! No need to even test their "spirits". When a woman claims to be called by God to minister - find the devil in her before it's TOO LATE!!
What is that you say about Sister White? Well, she wasn't a minister. No Sir! She was MORE than a minister! She was called by God to be the last day prophet of the Remnant! She didn't need laying on of hands! Let no man put aside those whom God has called!
***
Now...after painting such an 'eloquent' argument, is there a window from which to escape this all too real corner?
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
I heard Walter Veith speak in 2000. I didn't understand why so many people were going to hear him? His scientific ideas and nutritional research suddenly blended in to these wild conspiracy theories about the Masons, the CIA, the US government, etc. During the middle of this meeting I realized how crazy this guy was. He stated that the Masons have an outfit that always includes a black tie and a black suit. Then he starts showing BLACK and WHITE pictures of Ronald Reagan, James Baker, Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle all appearing in what looked like a black suit and black tie. He quickly clicked through these slides. Then he's on to the next subject: The special Mason handshake and point with the index finger. I started to think that maybe I was a Mason because I have shaked hands and pointed at one time or another just like all those politicians did. I was laughing at all his crazy theories by the time the program ended.
This guy is certifiably nuts...
"...perfectly orthodox, traditional, biblical, SOP, Adventist beliefs..."
Several contradictions in one sentence, one might note.
David, you did not simply say we were enemies. If I recall correctly, you said I was part of the "liberal rot" who needed to be eliminated from the church in a coming "civil war" which you looked forward to with "relish", the first "salvos" of which we have only just seen. I told you that I did not think of you as my enemy and was sad to hear you thought of me as yours. You replied, "Au contraire mon frere. Your aggrieved victim act doesn't wash with me. You are my enemy." I later asked you for an apology for your words. You replied that you did not have anything to apologize for even if you may have been a little excessive.
It is striking to me that you now call for great charity for a man who is proselytizing among Adventist young adults, convincing them to embrace his immensely damaging, dishonest, and (for those receiving payment for "management" services) it seems lucrative conspiracy claims. These indefensible claims of Veith's--which suggest an either dishonest or delusional mind--are not simply occasional or odd eccentricities that pop up here and there. They are central to Veith's entire eschatological framework and worldview.
I can also assure you that my "real motive" as you claim (and how is it that you can discern my motives so clearly but we cannot discern Veith's at all?) was not to attack sober creationists who are careful and honest about the weight of the empirical evidence. I know such creationists. I have invited them as guest speakers to the Sabbath school class I helped start a couple years ago. I believe there is still space for very fruitful dialogue between Adventists with different views on the creation.
But Veithian creationism is of a different kind. Most of the article above was in fact written months ago and included no reference to Veith's visit to La Sierra or his creationism at all. It was an article still in need of a conclusion. This past week I took another look at the draft and did a Google search that led me to EducateTruth's website and the comments there hailing him as some kind of intellectual giant and Adventist knight of faith. This in turn led me to the videos from his La Sierra visit, which I had never seen until this past week. The substance of his claims and the glowing reception he received from people who have made it an almost full time vocation to attack LSU's every move and denounce serious scholars as "infidels" and "commandment breakers" was appalling.
So this was the genesis of the article and also the reason I talked about his LSU visit and his claims about "amalgamation." I discovered his "amalgamation" claims not at the start of writing my article but quite near the end. And I have no apologies for calling attention to the absurdity of the treatment afforded Veith in contrast to the vilification heaped on any and all Adventists who are not fundamentalists when it comes to their reading of Genesis.
I do understand your interest in defending Veith, though. I realize his views on "amalgamation" are practically identical to your own, although I don't know if you have ever also speculated that the antideluvians might have traveled to the moon. (It logically follows from your belief that they were intellectually and technologically more advanced than we are today, possessing electron microscopes, etc.) As I have said previously, I think your views on the meaning of Ellen White's words on "amalgamation" only be sustained by a willful refusal to look at the weight of the historical evidence.
I also think that attempts to excuse or condone or coddle or defend Veith's enterprise can only be sustained by a willful refusal to look at the weight of the evidence.
@Aage: Jack Hoen's rebuke to you, was very fitting. We have lost much of our "relevance" to the culture around us because of the lukewarmness and worldliness of so many of our members. They no longer live the SDA message as in earlier times, when were a peculiar people. Your desire for relevance will only lead to "irrelevance" in our modern culture. Case in point, the mainline Protestant churches have experienced a huge bloodletting of membership over the last 30 years, when they abandoned most of their Protestant and Biblical underpinnings, in the quest to become more "relevant" to the society at large.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
David, you did not simply say we were enemies. If I recall correctly, you said I was part of the "liberal rot" who needed to be eliminated from the church in a coming "civil war" which you looked forward to with "relish", the first "salvos" of which we have only just seen. I told you that I did not think of you as my enemy and was sad to hear you thought of me as yours. You replied, "Au contraire mon frere. Your aggrieved victim act doesn't wash with me. You are my enemy." I later asked you for an apology for your words. You replied that you did not have anything to apologize for even if you may have been a little excessive.
But who's keeping score?
These indefensible claims of Veith's--which suggest an either dishonest or delusional mind--are not simply occasional or odd eccentricities that pop up here and there. They are central to Veith's entire eschatological framework and worldview.
What's your evidence for that? I've heard Veith talk about eschatology frequently and he seems to stick pretty close to the Adventist view of end time events, as set out in Great Controversy and other Adventist writings.
But Veithian creationism is of a different kind.
What are you talking about? Give examples, and the fact that some people who post at Educate Truth are impressed with Veith doesn't count as example. That you don't share the enthusiasms of the Educate Truth crowd does not mean that Veith promotes a different kind of creationism than traditional Adventist creationism. I've heard Veith lecture extensively on the origins issue, and his arguments were generally well informed, which is not surprising, since he has formally training in a relevant scientific discipline. As I said before, his lectures on the origins controversy are better, and make much more conservative use of facts and authority, than his lectures on secret societies and "esoterics."
I realize his views on "amalgamation" are practically identical to your own . . .
Ron, where do think this crazy idea about an advanced antediluvian civilization came from? Loren Seibold says that I got it from Erich von Däniken. It is perhaps plausible that Loren is unfamiliar with the writings of Ellen White, but I know that you are not unfamiliar with her writings. And you've read my book, in which I quote the relevant passages:
Notwithstanding the wickedness of the antediluvian world, that age was not, as has often been supposed, an era of ignorance and barbarism. The people . . . possessed great physical and mental strength, and their advantages for acquiring both religious and scientific knowledge were unrivaled. It is a mistake to suppose that because they lived to a great age their minds matured late; their mental powers were early developed, . . . Could illustrious scholars of our time be placed in contrast with men of the same age who lived before the Flood, they would appear as greatly inferior in mental as in physical strength. As the years of man have decreased, and his physical strength has diminished, so his mental capacities have lessened. There are men who now apply themselves to study during a period of from twenty to fifty years, and the world is filled with admiration of their attainments. But how limited are these acquirements in comparison with those of men whose mental and physical powers were developing for centuries!
It is true that the people of modern times have the benefit of the attainments of their predecessors. The men of masterly minds, who planned and studied and wrote, have left their work for those who follow. But even in this respect, and so far as merely human knowledge is concerned, how much greater the advantages of the men of that olden time! . . . The antediluvians were without books, they had no written records; but with their great physical and mental vigor, they had strong memories, able to grasp and to retain that which was communicated to them, and in turn to transmit it unimpaired to their posterity. And for hundreds of years there were seven generations living upon the earth contemporaneously, having the opportunity of consulting together and profiting each by the knowledge and experience of all.
Those who are deceived and flattered on in the delusion that the present is an age of real progress, and that the human race has been in ages past progressing in true knowledge, are under the influence of the father of lies, whose work has ever been to turn the truth of God into a lie.
In the antediluvian world there were many wonderful works of art and science. Fresh from the hand of the Creator, these descendants of Adam possessed capabilities that we do not now see.
There perished in the flood greater inventions of art and human skill than the world knows of today. The arts destroyed were more than the boasted arts of today.
In strength of intellect, men who now live can bear no comparison to the ancients. There have been more ancient arts lost than the present generation now possess. For skill and art those living in this degenerate age will not compare with the knowledge possessed by strong men who lived near 1,000 years. Men before the flood lived many hundreds of years, and when one hundred years old were considered but youths. Those long-lived men had sound minds in sound bodies. Their mental and physical strength was so great that the present feeble generation can bear no comparison to them.
True knowledge has decreased with every successive generation. God is infinite, and the first people upon the earth received their instructions from the infinite God who created the world. Those who received their knowledge direct from infinite wisdom were not deficient in knowledge.
There are many inventions and improvements, and labor-saving machines now that the ancients did not have. They did not need them. The land has felt the curse, more and more heavily. . . . The greater the length of time the earth has lain under the curse, the more difficult has it been for man to cultivate it, and make it productive. As the soil has become barren, and double labor has had to be expended upon it, God has raised up men with inventive faculties to construct implements to lighten labor on the land groaning under the curse.
Now, Ron, since you're familiar with these passages, why would you imply that anyone who believes in an advanced antediluvian civilization is likely a conspiratorial nutter? Am I a nutter because I believe in the prophetic authority of Ellen White? Or am I a nutter because Walter Veith also respects the Lord's messenger in this regard, but also happens to go far beyond the inspired writings with regard to how the "principalities, powers, and world-rulers of this darkness" organize themselves?
David, sorry for the late reply.
I don't know where I can find the earlier parts of the video to remember what Veith said that prompted the question, but it wasn't contrived. I cannot remember the point he was arguing for, but he kept referring to these foxes that had been bred by artificial selection so that the offspring were not agressive. I think he might have been trying to demonstrate that the original creatures were not agressive, but that they became more agressive over time. The very clear implication was that since the problems of sin are intensified over generations, the problem can partially be addressed by addressing reproduction. And taking what he said about the foxes, it sounded like the logical end of his statement was that we might have better humans if less agressive ones did the reproducing. It bothered me deeply.
Interesting David. Earlier in this thread you made comments suggesting you are not very familiar Veith's ideas. You now say that in fact you have heard him talk about eschatology "frequently" and lecture on creationism "extensively." This helps to explain why you have been so keen to minimize the blatantly dishonest and/or delusional way he handles evidence as he spins his conspiracies. Apparently you are a somewhat avid follower of Veith's work--more so than you have previously led us to think.
Veith clearly promotes his own idiosyncratic brand of creationism and it is hardly "traditional" Adventism. A case in point are his notions about "amalgamation", which you may share with him but which many other Adventist creationists completely reject and which have nothing whatsoever to do with the thinking of the Adventist pioneers (let alone the book of Genesis). There is nothing traditional in the idea that Ellen White was referring in secret or cryptic language to the work of evil antideluvian scientists in advanced laboratories conducting genetics modifications on animals, creating the dinosaurs to fight in arenas for the amusement of human spectators. There is nothing traditional in Veith's claim that these same antideluvian scientists might well have traveled to the moon. And there is nothing traditional or sane in Veith's assertion that all astronauts are either Freemasons or Mormons.
This single example illustrates what I would call Veithian creationism--the blending of familiar creationist ideas with utterly surreal and fantastical or feverish speculations that tell us nothing about theology or science and everything about the distortions fundamentalism can take in the face of the challenges of secular modernity.
I don't know if you have ever also speculated that the antideluvians might have traveled to the moon. (It logically follows from your belief that they were intellectually and technologically more advanced than we are today, possessing electron microscopes, etc.)
Ron, when we find something on the moon that needs explaining, I will speculate. Since we haven't, I won't.
Meanwhile, down here on earth, there are many things that need explaining. For example, there are many classes of animals whose remains are found in the Flood-laid fossil record, but which have left no traces whatsoever in the post-Flood world. That needs explaining. These animals often have mixed class or "amalgamated" characteristics. For example, the mammal-like reptiles are like mammals in some respects, but like reptiles in others. If you're a Darwinist, there's already a perfectly good explanation for the mammal-like reptiles---in fact they're "Exhibit A" in the fossil evidence that supports your theory---but if you're a creationist, they need explaining.
Ellen White said, "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood," which turns out to be a remarkably cogent and prescient explanation for both of the phenomena mentioned in the previous paragraph.
As I have said previously, I think your views on the meaning of Ellen White's words on "amalgamation" only be sustained by a willful refusal to look at the weight of the historical evidence.
Ron, I know that discrediting Ellen White is a crucial and necessary step in your campaign to doctrinally new-model the Seventh-day Adventist Church. And I know how deeply she would be discredited if you could hang on her Uriah Smith's interpretation of the amalgamation statements. But your existential need to destroy the prophetic authority of Ellen White does not mean that I'm refusing to look at "the weight of the historical evidence." From where I stand, the "amalgamation" statements transcend the racism of her day and, rightly interpreted, enhance her prophetic authority,
Ron, your last post, written while I was also writing, gets to the nub of it. The only thing you can cite as an example of "Veithian" creationism is his agreement with me about amalgamation.
So I was right. The whole point of the last part of your article was to discredit me by association with Walter Veith. I thought maybe I was being paranoid, but I guess even paranoids have enemies.
David, I did not even mention you in my article. If my goal from the outset was to discredit you by association, I would not have hesitated to make the association explicit in the text of what I wrote. You are the one who has associated yourself with Veith by repeatedly coming to his defense throughout this thread. Any discredit by way of association therefore belongs to you and you alone.
Regarding Ellen White, I in fact received a personal letter of appreciation for my article about the amalgamation problem from Herb Douglass. You have mistaken my strong criticism of your ideas and my attempt to read White in a truly contextualized way for an attack upon White. I have done no such thing and others can clearly see this.
I leave you with the final word and whatever conclusions you wish to draw from this exchange. I fail to see what more I can or should say to someone who has once more described me as his enemy.
Let me ask a semi-serious question about the idea that the antedeluvians were so intelligent and capable that their accomplishments far outstripped what modern man/woman can achieve.
Was the gopher wood and pitch with which Noah was instructed to manufacture the ark really the best material available given that material for electron microscopes and interplanetary craft was conceivably to hand?
The previous pastor in my district used Walter Veith liberally in prayer meetings and evangelism and I am constantly having to deal with issues that come from his DVD's. Most recently my Elder and I locked horns on the use of the King James Version and I cannot say that I have won that battle yet.
I've been trying to look at some of Walter Veith's use of evidence. I have a sense that my church members might respond if I can distil my problems with Walter Veith down to a matter of "bearing false witness." A while ago I thought I had found it. Veith makes some wild unsubstantiated claims in his DVDs eg... Khadija, Muhammed's wife, was a very wealthy Catholic nun, who got married to Mohammed and influenced him to be found the Islamic faith.( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq4fLzx2lJw&feature=related ) That is a statement that generates a very large burden of proof, but on the face of it Veith makes no effort to substantiate it. I started to re-visit that idea yesterday, thinking it could make a contribution to the discussion on Spectrum. Veith does actually build up quite a "strong" evidence base. I discovered that he premises his statement on claims by Alberto Rivera a well known and highly disputed conspiracy theorist. He then builds his evidence from within the fantasy world-views of Freemasonry and Theosophism itself.
I've been trying to see who he quotes:
Robert Morey - is a fundamentalist pastor who has Ph.D's and even honorary doctorates from well known diploma mills in the United States and Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morey_%28pastor%29
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince - wrote the book that inspired Dan Brown's plot in the Da Vinci Code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Templar_Revelation
Alice Bailey is a controversial theosophist who is also known for describing Negro races as people with "child souls", leading shallow lives aimed at physical satisfaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#On_the_Negro_race
Helena Pertrovna Blavatski is a founder of the Theosophical society whose writings have regularly been described as fraudulent. She believes that Satan is the only god of our planet and she also ascribes to an evolutionary view of the development of human races. (I don't think it correlates with scientific evolutionism). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky
William J Schnoebelen who claims that for five years he was simultaneously a Wiccan, a Freemason, a Catholic, a Satanist and a Mormon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schnoebelen
Nesta Helen Webster - another controversial historian and occultist who involved herself with right wing British Fascists and anti-semitic movements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesta_Helen_Webster
He quotes liberally from the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and another Freemasonary tome - Morals and Dogma. Even Anton La Vey is referenced as an authoritative source of truth.
I'm beginning to realise that at the heart of Walter Veith's theory is an unspoken premise that Freemasonry, Theosophism, and Satanism (Luciferianism) are based on unquestionable truth systems. He quotes their thoughts and ideas as authoritative and he does not seem to employ any hermeneutics of suspicion in his reading of their works. (Note that he is however a master at employing hermeneutics of suspicion liberally when he investigates what Christian leaders say about Islam, and on practically all accountable historical sources.)
The cynic in me is beginning to see a conspiracy theory as well. There is no better way for Theosophists, Satanists, and Freemasons, probably even the Satanic cabal who leads the Catholic church to infiltrate the Adventist church than by using a well-meaning conspiracy theorist who buys everything that they can throw at him and presents it as incontrovertible truth to non-assuming audiences. It is far cheaper and more effective than surreptitiously training Jesuit priests and planting them in positions of authority in the church. In fact, perhaps I can develop this even further. If Veith is the thesis (which instils fear), and Spectrum is the anti-thesis, it might even be possible that the two can be in co-hoots with each other to form a new synthesis that will "hopefully" introduce the real new world order.
WV is only reaping what we have been sowing. He is not alone. Mainstream SDA, apprehensive of disquieting facts and information, turn toward the lunatic fringe of the right to be rescued. Voices that would have been banned from mainstream audience a few decades ago, have become center stage in present Adventism. The history of Europe shows how an identity crisis may plunge a whole nation into the arms of mad extremists. The winner in our present acquiescence to extremism will be another Waco.
We don't need another Waco
But we sure have plenty of Wacko in our midst!
The antediluvian world is fundamentalism's Sim City. You can build it up to impressive dimensions, but the minute you log out of fundamentalism it's gone without trace. In the 19th century people used to create fantastical worlds on Mars and Venus (C. S. Lewis piggy-backed off the idea in his two science fiction books Perelandra and Out of the Silent Planet). Before the advent of modern space technology, you could create Sim Cities throughout out solar system. The problem with the Antediluvian Sim City is that (1) it's a concept that only makes sense to people who believe in the fundamentalist Flood idea, and (2) that it left no more trace behind than the Book of Mormon civilizations of North America. All kinds of 'antediluvian' animals and plants survived as fossils, but every vestige of this advanced virtual civilization, down to the smallest cobble stone, vanished.
Aage
I watched the Veith series -- everything from 1844 to Freemasons. One thing he never mentions, and no "evangelist" does, is that the secret formula used to arrive at 1844 was concocted by a 32nd degree mason -- William Miller.
tg
TJG
"I watched the Veith series -- everything from 1844 to Freemasons. One thing he never mentions, and no "evangelist" does, is that the secret formula used to arrive at 1844 was concocted by a 32nd degree mason -- William Miller."
That makes sense! Adventism is a Masonic conspiracy. EGW called Wm Miller one of the greatest men to have ever lived, which proves that she was also in on it. Dang it! What more proof do we need! And yet, I'm sure that some of those nasty critics out there will refuse to admit the truth,even though it's staring them in the eye!
Aage
As a pre-teen, the radio carried a thriller series called the Green Hornet: The Intro carried the question: "Who knows what evil lurkes in the heart of man?" The answer: "The Hornet Knows!"
By that time my mother had me turn off the radio. So I had to wait for SDA Evangelists to find out what the Green hornet really knew--all but the sound effects. But they compensated with: "With every head bowed and every eye closed. as the organ plays: "Just as I am, without one Plea--" (once and awhile, I peeked as the pich continued and a few brave souls stood and came forward as the evangelist said: Ahem Brother, Yes, Yes, "To the dear brother in the balcony I see your hand, and the Lord knows your heart." As the congregation and choir sings--"Shall we gather at the river" please all those who raised their hands, or stood, or came forward, please come down front and we will have a prayer service together and make plans for your walk with Jesus." Then the lists begin: rings, tithe, diet, movies,
tithe, diet, Sabbath hours, novels, T.V. tithe, Sabbath hours, jewelry, smoking, booze, lip stick, ---
This play--"I gotcha!" repeated three to four times a year in the Bible belt: makes one wish for the return of the Green Hornet. Tom Z.
Justin a hurry : Walter Veith also has one lecture in his repetoir titled somehow "War about the Bible", where he describes with detailed "quotations" that xxx wordsof the oiriginal text have fraudulently been changed to diabolically deceive the transaltors and the believers. Counting all the words making the text of the NTquite some 60 or 80 percent would thus be false.
This was too much for the Austrian Union of SDA - they assignet Johannes Kovar of Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen to write a comment (ask Johannes.kovar@bogenhofen.at).Johannes just could not get this cluster of accusations straight, he only could give a clear rejecting statement - not forgetting a general appraisal for Walter Veith for his brave and clear words on "our" topics as creation, endtime, lifestyle and diet - - in the last paragraph of his paper.
See II Tim 4 : 3.
By the way : Like Professor Kent I also checked the scietific publications of Walter Veith in his special field, although not the citation indices. May I tell you : With these eleven ( ! ) papers you never would have gotten the venia legendi - the permission to independently teach on an European university as a "Dozent", not at all as a "Professor".
But Walter Veith is a honest man - - - No, I would say : A irresponsible pathological liar under the diagnosis of "Pseudologia phantastica" with the tendency of hateful indoctrination.
But see II Tim 4 : 3. - - that is the pity.
Walter Veith is 'blowing smoke'
------------------------------------
1. Adventists who flock to Walter Veith, or anyone else for that matter are unAmerican by the Harry Truman /
Missouri standard of 'Show Me' IF they do not ask for the evidence.
2. Now if illiterate farmers in Missouri say 'show me' surely ignorant illiterate Adventists should do the same.
3. Now it is true that as Veith is flashing through his power points making serious allegations or 'claims' he may
not provide any source material. However he has a burden to provide evidence for his claims to the 'enquiring
mind'
3. So he has three choices
- here is the evidence/ source material ( called footnotes ) for each of my significant claims
- remember the premises of an argument generally are claims that can be substantiated.
- the argument structure uses the premises to draw a conclusion
- in most arguments, as can be seen from this list, people disagree on premises. To be fair most
people's arguments are fair
- the disagreements come on the premises as people cannot agree whether 'so and so' happened, or
this method of interpretation is valid etc. Premises generally of a 'factual' nature. That is why many
discussions are worthless.
- I have the evidence but I am not going to show you / can't be bothered to show / the people are a 'bunch of
peasants' and don't need or are not interested in that stuff
- I don't have the evidence
4. If Walter Veith PhD has forgotten how to document, I would be happy to show him.
NOW LET ME BE CLEAR. I AM NOT SAYING HIS VIEWS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG.
ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT EVIDENCE HE HAS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIMS
If he is such a 'renowned world scientist' then he knows what are the universal acceptable standards to present a case, whether it is science, history, Feng Shui, or crop circles.
I can say to Dr Veith, 'Doc you are blowing smoke' he can say 'No and this is why', 'Yes, this is why' or 'sonny / young man you need to understand' or the fallacy approach 'I am hurt and offended, Christians should not talk like that, let us pray. .... Blah blah blah'
Unless Dr Veith is an academic sociopath, has a bad memory, has sold out for cash, is deluded, or risen to a higher level, then he clearly knows the acceptable standard for arguing a case.
My concern here is METHOD not SUBSTANCE. If he wishes to argue for antediluvian genetic experiments, then 'show me' I don't consider DVD powerponts as evidence. In the 'Total Onslaught' (what a name) series he is presenting an argument, not showing the source or evidential strength of his premises.
Even if he wishes to put an obscure text (can he read Hebrew) or an EGW quote on the same level as carbon dating, or archaeology, is fine with me as long as I know that. I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW HE GOT THERE
Example
1. According to him Brigham Young met a Jesuit 'out West'. So what. How did meeting a Jesuit lead to the Catholic church is behind Mormonism? I have read quite a bit on early Mormon history, and unless you say that all the scholars I have studied are wrong / 'of the devil' / 'worldly, biased' etc then there is a real problem here. Maybe Dr Veith has access to Golden plates that I am not aware of. Show me.
2. In post 9/11 I am careful what I say here. The claim that the wife of the religious leader of Islam is mixed up with the Catholics is based on what? That is a very big claim. Dr Veith if he values his life wants to be very sure on that one and hope people in certain parts of the world do not hear about it. (Before someone calls me paranoid, let me inform you I have been to the city of Qom in Iran and was truly scared. Probably the most dangerous place I have been too)
How tough a guy is Dr Veith? Is he willing to stand in the center of a city in Pakistan, Afghanistan or downtown Mecca and argue his Islamic case? Ridley and Cranmer argued theirs in the middle of Oxford.
So my charge is
Dr. Veith 'you are blowing smoke'
Dr. Veith you are 'unAmerican'
He can say yes, no, 'it all depends'
Dr Veith SHOW ME
Dr. Veith, I am trained in the use of evidence and your public persona degrades the academic standard.
So put up or shut up.
Pax et Bonum
Edgar Drew MD
A little off topic but can anyone help me with a question posed by one of my professors. We are told, and I quote Ellen White that "Adam's height was much greater than that of men who now inhabit the earth. Eve was somewhat less in stature; yet her form was noble, and full of beauty." By inference, we can assume that most people before the flood were tall and well proportioned beings and yet, we have never found a single "fossil" and yet we find thousands if not millions of fossils of other creatures that were "buried" by the flood. Would love to hear an explanation.
_________________________________________
Quote:
Elaine Nelson - Wed, 11/02/2011 - 20:24
Maggie,
Re-read Ron's comment: "than Walter Veith's indefensible conspiracy beliefs."
He did not say "every single belief, but those conspiracy beliefs which are indefensible. He probably had some believable comments, but the conspiracy ideas are indefensible.
Those are issues, not ad hominem attacks.
__________________________________________
That's interesting. How do we know that, Elaine? Because you say so? Because Ron says so?
Do you want me to list the ad hominem innuendos?
__________________________________________
Ron Osborn:: "Veith, it goes without saying, is trading in a world of fantasy and myth that has considerably less logic than a Dan Brown novel and a great deal more creepiness."
_________________________________________
"It goes without saying" because you guys say so?
Is that actually any better than "it goes without saying" because Dr. Veith says so?
The one salient element of Adventist thinking that jumps out at me at every turn is polarizing, divisive black-and-white thinking.
With inflammatory thread titles like the above, comments like "put up or shut up" follow as night follows day.
"Conspiracy Theory" = Thought Crime?
_________________________________________
Quote:
Crimethink: To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."
Newspeak: The official language of Oceania. Newspeak is "politically correct" speech taken to its maximum extent. Newspeak is based on standard English, but all words describing "unorthodox" political ideas have been removed. In addition, there was an attempt to remove the overall number of words in general, to limit the range of ideas that could be expressed.
The most important aim of newspeak was to provide a means of speaking that required no thought what-so-ever.
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
_________________________________________
"It goes without saying" requires absolutely no thought.
I'd never looked at anything from Dr. Veith until a few minutes last night, so I am not defending what he says - just saying that "it goes without saying" doesn't cut it for me.
"It goes without saying" is a thought-stopping cliche worthy of a cult or totalitarian regime.
Respectful dialogue requires that nothing "goes without saying," it seems to me.
Dear May Ellen
Your question is impossible to answer because you are confusing history, science and myth. Ellen White was duplicating an unhistorical belief that was accepted by many evangelicals in 19th century America. The literary source may be Milton's "Paradise Lost" which seems to have idealized Adam and Eve's physiognomy. The tradition goes way back; in the Qu'ran, Adam is 60 cubits (approx. 30 metres) high.
As many commentators have noted, "height" means "power" in Paradise Lost. Although Adam Eve are idealized, and Eve is presented as "happy" in Paradise, the male has power over the female.
What do you think of my explanation?
I went to the website of Amazing Discoveries to learn about the organization's speakers: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-about-our-speakers.
The first speaker listed is "Professor" Walter Veith. He admits in his biography that viewers find his lectures to be "unique, eye-opening, and controversial."
There is Dan Gabbart, a practitioner of "Biblical Response Therapy," a term he has apparently coined and registered.
There is Rudy Davis, who having spent 30 years in the entertainment industry currently purports to be a "blood analyst and professional body cleanse specialist, with a creative streak."
For those enamored with Walter Veith, Mark Cleminson might be an interesting speaker to book. His credentials are that he was born into the "family line of the Illuminati" and learned to levitate his body at the age of 12 years. He cites as a major catalyst of his spiritual development his experiences with GYC and his studies at "ARISE Institute--David Assherick's Bible College in Michigan."
And also listed on the roster of speakers is Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, who was a major voice of the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists before his moral indiscretions came to light.
As a member of the Michigan Conference, I wonder what is the relationship between the Michigan Conference and Amazing Discoveries. I also wonder whether speakers for Amazing Discoveries have spoken to congregations in the Michigan Conference. Have any directives been given to pastors regarding whether such speakers should be invited to speak?
I also wonder whether Walter Veith's views about science and creation played an influential role in the decision made by the Michigan Conference to declare that La Sierra University is in apostasy.
Last year the Michigan Conference cut funding for Andrews University in the amount of $400,000 per year. I understand that there may be sound fiscal reasons for tightening the belt during this present time of economic uncertainty. But I am concerned that a perception is arising that there is within the Michigan Conference administration a bias against legitimate institutions of higher learning in favor of marginal organizations where qualities of intellectual rigor and precision are not stressed and upheld.
Ron Osborn, the parallels you draw between the dark fantasy world of Walter Veith and conspiracy creationism are apt and on point. But I have confidence that the rigidities of the excessive egalitarianism we find in the Church will not cripple our future advancements.
I appreciate what David Read did in his book Dinosaurs. He logically took the fundamental adventist position and explained why that position makes sense. The amalgamation statement has long been under attack and it was one of the first things I looked at when I considered leaving the church. I am sure many of you have read Francis D. Nichol's explanation of Ellen White's amalgamation statement. I think it is a very thoughtful and accurate portrayal of what she intended to convey when she used the word amalgamation. Given that Walter Martin described Nichol's as "the most able Adventist apologist" and that Nichol's himself was also chairman of the Ellen G. White Estate board of trustees, what Nichol's has to say on the topic should carry some weight...his thoughts on the subject can be read here http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/amalg.html
By the way his book "Ellen White and her Critics" influenced me tremendously I was honestly searching for answers to questions that I had. And I promise I was willing and ready to leave if the contradictions I saw and the questions I had did not have satisfactory answers. I respect people that take logic to its natural conclusion. There are many evangelical churches that deny a literal creation, and who don't have a prophet. Naturally if I believed like many people who post on this site, I would simply leave the Adventist church and join a mainstream evangelical one. Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? If the weight of the evidence suggested that the pillars of this church don't stand, why try to do a duct tape job to hold Adventism together? However I am convinced that evidence suggests that the pillars of Adventism stand. We have excellent apologetic resources in this church and I believe that the Great Controversy worldview promoted in this church is the best worldview for uplifting a God who truly is love!
To be honest I was not sure if it was worth my time to post on Spectrum. I often find myself agreeing with the likes of Clifford Goldstein, and David Read. I understand that spectrum in theory highlights all sides of Adventism, but if we are honest the conservative side is overwhelmingly overshadowed by the liberal perspective on this site.
For this reason I felt compelled to be one more voice to speak up in the defense of Walter Veith. I like David Read am not defending the conspiratorial nature of his talks. But as one who has watched the entirety of the majority of his lectures I can speak on the overall thesis he presents. He presents a God who is love! As a one time atheist and full blown evolutionist he has an authoritative voice when speaking on Creationism. Through his total onslaught series he has, (by his own admission) lectured in Masonic halls and hundreds of Masons have submitted to the gospel. He spoke abut this while he was at Loma Linda this year.
Walter Veith is a man, and like all men prone to making mistakes...some of which he has admitted to (you can see him talk about this in the video with Bruce Jenner). But it is my opinion that he is a man who loves God and hates deception.
I appreciate the specific examples pointed out here of some of the over the top conspiracies he had done. Continue to point those things out. But please pray for him, and others like him that have a worldwide audience, that they may lift up Christ and expose the devil.
One more thing, I attended the ARISE institute that David Asscherick runs. I know many people on here don't have a positive word association with the name David Asscherick, but check out the blog he wrote a few months back on the labels "conservative" and "liberal" I think it is something many of us might be be able to find some consensus on.
http://arisehub.org/we-are-both/Blessings
Kevin M
PS none of the teachers at ARISE where defenders of Walter Veith...we didn't even discuss him. Although I did have one conversation about him with fellow South African Ron Du Perez who said he agreed with most of Veith's conclusions but not all of the routes he took to get there.
__________________________________________
Quote:
Phil Brantley - Thu, 11/03/2011 - 09:42: "But I have confidence that the rigidities of the excessive egalitarianism we find in the Church will not cripple our future advancements."
____________________________________________
"Excessive egalitarianism."
Now that is one interesting phrase, Phil. Please explain, if you don't mind.
Actually "future advancements" is an interesting phrase too, if you don' mind....
Thanks.
Maggie
Sorry it was not the Green Hornet is was the Shadow that knows! Tom Z Both were off limits.
I did on occasion listen to jack Armstrong the All American Boy--the pre-advent of superman.
Tom Z
My last comment went from a +1 to a -1. :)
UFO's and Walter Veith PhD
--------------------------------
Has Walter Veith PhD given a public opinion on the UFO phenomena?
Is it true that he believes 'antediluvian' man actually or was capable of going to the moon? Does he propose a travel mechanism for that? Does he have any moon evidence to support that? I assume he has never been to the moon.
Serious replies RSVP
Edgar
Kevin McGill wrote
>>> To be honest I was not sure if it was worth my time to post on Spectrum. I often find myself agreeing with the likes of Clifford Goldstein, and David Read. I understand that spectrum in theory highlights all sides of Adventism, but if we are honest the conservative side is overwhelmingly overshadowed by the liberal perspective on this site.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide evidence to back up your opinions when you state them - opinions are not persuasive, and you can expect people to either tell you their contradictory opinion, or provide evidence showing why yours doesn't fit the evidence.
>>> As a one time atheist and full blown evolutionist he has an authoritative voice when speaking on Creationism
No, this does not give him authority. That is not how one gains authority. One gains authority by showing evidence and solid lines of reasoning.
>>> But it is my opinion that he is a man who loves God and hates deception.
which is why he practices deception so fluently in his presentations, books, and web sites...
/Bevin
Bevin ....
Seriously I need to provide evidence that Spectrum tends to lean more towards the left? I didn't think this would even be a point of contention. Just as it is understood that the Adventist review is overwhelmingly conservative, I thought it was understood that Spectrum presents from a liberal perspective...
I am not suggesting that Spectrum become like the Review. I think it is good to have an eclectic range of voices. But I am saying there seems to be a disconnect when people claim to be Adventist but what they are fundamentally saying is anything but Adventist.
My point was that if I didn't believe it, I would leave. I would not be a hypocrite and bash everything Adventist while I myself was also Adventist by name. If i believed the religion was a sham, I would leave it and then perhaps like Dale Ratzlaff proclaim the sham as an outsider but not as "Seventh Day Adventist" from within.
Discussion is good, there needs to be room for a wide range of varied opinions. But once people have become settled in their beliefs...if those beliefs are contrary to the denomination they are a part of...why stay? Is it not arrogant to say that the church has to change its pillars, its history, its reason for existence...simply to adhere to the opinion of a few "thinking elect" ....
I should not have used the word authoritative to describe Vetih in talking about creation. Nonetheless a paradigm shift such as he had should not be ignored. He did not want to become a creationist, he did not want to become a Seventh Day Adventist...so listening to the reasons he chose to do so despite his resistance is interesting at the least.
Sorry Kevin, I was not clear.
I was trying to provide you with guidance that would result in your being an effective conservative voice.
Too often what we hear is conservatives making statements without any links to reputable sources - and remember, Veith, AIG, EducateTruth, and Read's Dinosaur book are NOT reputable sources.
Veith made the change for obvious reasons - he likes people listening to him, be it about Creationism, Illuminati, or ... and feels no need to provide evidence backing up his inventions
How is it possible to get a negative comment for asking a reasonable question?!
Kevin McGill, my brother, I can totally relate to what you're saying.
It is a bit of an imponderable why people who have stopped believing in Adventist doctrine want to remain in the church. Nevertheless, I've pondered it quite a bit, and I'll share some of my thinking about it.
First, keep in mind that many of the most regular and frequent posters are NOT current Adventist members. This applies to Aage (former Adventist, but not a Christian), bevin (former Adventist) Elaine (membership dropped over 25 years ago), Tom Zwemer (former Adventist, now attends a Presbyterian Church), John Alfke (former Adventist), etc. This is a very incomplete list; there are many more. So don't mistakenly believe that every poster here represents current Adventist opinion.
But there are quite a number of folks who are very heterodox doctrinally, but remain members and plan to continue to do so. There are many reasons for this, including but not limited to: their family connections and many of their friends are in the church, the church is a familiar and congenial environment, they are pastors, teachers, hospital administrators or are otherwise employed by the church or by church-affiliated institutions.
This becomes problematic, at least for me, when they start agitating for the church to change its doctrines to conform to their own beliefs or lack thereof. Often they don't claim to want to change the doctrines, but claim that the church doesn't actually have doctrines. For example, it is claimed that the church does not currently believe in a recent creation in six literal days, or that this is perhaps a dominant belief in some areas, but not an official belief (which is why a process is underway to make the church's statement of fundamental beliefs clearly state that). Generally, they would like to quietly jettison Ellen White, become officially pluralistic on origins and accommodate Darwinism or at least theistic evolution, and jettison the 1844 doctrine.
You might think it exceedingly far-fetched that the they will be successful in transforming the church in the way they want to, and I thought so, too, a couple of years ago. Now, I think it not so far fetched. They are basically in control of much of the Pacific Union, LaSierra University, the Southeastern California Conference, and, oddly enough, the Ohio Conference. There may be and probably are others. (The only conference that is outspokenly conservative is the Michigan Conference.) They well understand that the election of Ted Wilson as GC President represents a conservative course correction for the church, but they are hoping it is too little, too late, and frankly they might be right.
They're much better at politics than the conservatives. They understand the importance of personal relationships and networks of contacts, and cultivate them assiduously (in part since such networks are what the church is to them). By contrast, conservatives have assumed that there was a shared belief system and shared authority (the Bible, Ellen White), and hence that politics were limited by those commonly held beliefs. We assumed that politics might determine who got what job, but that the church's doctrines and beliefs were largely removed from the fray of political power struggle. We are now learning that that isn't so. We'd better start getting much better at politics, and fast.
Am I missing something here?In the world that I live in, especially if one is responsible for making assessments or decisions, where a poor decision is not just a disagreement but where lives are at risk, one has to be methodical, thorough, open minded and rigorous. However there is not just the luxury of forming an opinion in making decisions that really matter.Now if religion is serious, 'eternal life' at stake, surely one needs to have a high standard of assessment and decision making?Am I to assume that the young set that flock to Veith, do so out of emotion, peer pressure, rebellion, etc AND have suspended all rational thought?A lot of religion is emotional, but a lot of what is taught is cognitive. 'the Masons' is based on information, argument, evidence etc.Is it a case that there is a certain educational level here? If they are church school people, what does it say about SDA education? Is critical thinking taught in SDA schools?I do not want to come over as a intellectual snob, or know it all, but people with a low standard of critical thought are not wanted and would never hack it in the real world. Even a WallMart cashier has to know what time to come to work, otherwise they get fired.
How are this lot going to save the world, a world of cynical people who do not buy the Brooklyn Bridge when it is offered to them?
Does Veith just cater for Adventists, or does his 'world famous scientist' status get him into the doors of rigorous thought?What am I missing here?This is a serious and sincere question.
Pax et Bonum
Edgar
Maggie, is calling Veith a "conspiracy theorist" who offers no substantiation for his many claims, an ad hominem? It matters not who the individual is, but the same claims by anyone here would be labeled the same. Absent any substrantiation it is correct to call them theories, and not the same as "scientific theories" that must be validated by many scientists before it reaches the category of "theory." Where are the reputable scientists who confirm what Veith claims? Surely, if they are to be more than "theories" how can one know the difference between what he claims and the man on the street who claimed that Christ was coming Oct. 21? How can one prove a negative? Can anyone here "prove" that someone wasn't a Jesuit? That someone long dead was a freemason?
Like an umpire: I calls them like I sees them. Thank God for Spectrum.
Elaine
even if i often have a different opinion than Walter Veith, i see a very coloured type of arguments here using the same " heavy use of crude but effective " way of reasoning, while criticizing other... Specific terminology would call it manipulation.
Hi Maggie,
I think the Charter of Human Rights attempts to supplant the Law of God with the laws of man. It attempts to act as a universal (catholic) umbrella for all creeds in which God’s Law may be (if it is not an offense to someone else’s human rights) lumped in with and placed on par with any and all other ideologies, it is nothing more than the written equivalent of the Roman Pantheon, or ‘temple of all gods’.
Consider this:
God’s Law:
10 Commandments (given by God) = first 4 laws regarding our relation to God + next 6 laws regarding our relationships to each other.
- God first then man
- never changes
- character of God
- plane and simple, even a child can understand
Human Right’s Law:
30 Articles of Human Rights Charter (given by man) = 30 laws regarding only our relationships to each other.
- man first, always
- changes as man sees fit
- character of man
- obscure, not so easily understood, requires others to interpret
i.e. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
- Who defines what acting “towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” means? Does it mean that if I refuse to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle to be taught to my children in grade school via books like ‘My Two Mommies’ then I am not acting in the “spirit of brotherhood” and thus guilty of a crime against humanity?
In regard to Article 7, and on the same subject, if in the course of a conversation or debate on the same subject above, I attempt to share my belief for from scripture as to why I believe homosexuality is wrong, will I be accused of propagating hate and being discriminatory and thus again be guilty of a crime against humanity?
i.e. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
- What does ‘arbitrary arrest, detention or exile’ here mean? If in the typical definition ‘arbitrary’ means unreasonable or unsupported, then who determines what is reasonable or acceptable.
i.e. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
-Is it ‘arbitrary’ or reasonable for a developer to seek expropriation of my property to do with it that which he believes is for the ‘greater good’? Who decides? If I refuse, am I again guilty of a crime against humanity? It would appear to me that tenant 2 in Article 17 is in contradiction of tenant 1. This seems to be a convenient loop hole that gives some the opportunity to take that which is not his, which is, in my reckoning, a violation of the Commandment #8, “Thou shalt not steal.”
I could go on but this should suffice.
What’s the problem? – God does not exist in the Charter of Human Rights. Not only does He not exist, the Charter holds the power to classify individual belief in Him or His word as ‘arbitrary’ if it is perceived that it infringes upon the human rights of another. This Charter and the body that enforces it as law has the potential (loop holes) to classify the Word of God as hate literature, depending on the cases brought before it. No wonder it is proclaimed as a Universal Declaration, after all it is as Catholic (Papal) as it gets - beautiful on the outside, but rotten to the core on the inside.
MichaelE
Elaine, calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is a thought stopper.
That's my issue.
I can list the ad hominems for you later if you need me to.
Michael, thanks for your response - catch you later!
David Read
"It is a bit of an imponderable why people who have stopped believing in Adventist doctrine want to remain in the church. Nevertheless, I've pondered it quite a bit, and I'll share some of my thinking about it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David
1. Thank you very much for your analysis.
2. Your careful and accurate observations coming from one who I believe has to suffer the labels of 'right wing', conservative, traditional has answered some very important questions for me and has assisted me in finding peace in my position. I believe you are 'spot on'
3. If you are generous you might understand why some people 'who have walked away' still 'hang around'. I cannot speak for those on your list, but I am sure there are some who intellectually are 'outside' but emotionally there is something that prevents a total, cool, surgical 'never look back'. It is so hard to give up the emotional, communal part of Adventism. I used to tell my 'worldly' colleagues and friends that 'Adventism is like being Jewish'. AND especially if one is not prepared to enter the world one can find much success, but it can be very lonely. People do not understand why Adventist fuss about all those non theological things.
4. Anyone who has been in love, and later it does not work out will understand a little of what I say.
5. I believe your analysis is correct. I believe political astuteness should be normal for all. I am not sure your fears are totally justified and this is why
6. The 'foundation myth' for Adventism is the Great Controversy theme drawn from an existential experience in a point in time. The Great Controversy theme holds the SDA belief in Seventhday and Adventist together. It is the glue. I am sure other people keep the Sabbath and believe in the second coming, so why should I join one group and not the other. Adventists do not just keep those two doctrines. The two doctrines are held together as part of the Great Controversy story. The 'myth' is what gives power and drives the mission.
7. Adventists who dump the myth but want to keep the doctrines probably end up like the liberal Spectrum crowd carping, complaining and sniping. A lot of them stay because they are terrified of living in the world, and so some try to 'reform from within' They have no glue and hence chaos.
8. In my opinion, I do not believe Adventism can be reformed. If you get rid of the glue it will all fall apart.
9. Now will Adventism continue or succed is a different question?
10. I believe that we are probably in agreement as to an analysis of the current situation and future scenarios. The key here is the 'foundation myth'. Is it true or not?
So David, surprisingly I agree with you. I believe what you say is lucid, well thought out and sound.
Because of the very nature of Adventism, I do not believe it can be reformed. It stands or falls on theology that brought it into existence.
So David, all I ask is that you use sound reason, be fair, be politically mature and forget not that preaching the character of God somehow changes lives rather than new conspiracies which are just rehashes of the past. So what if the Pope is a Jesuit. A lot of the popes were rotten. How does telling the world that the Jesuits run the show, transform people? Many people will say 'we know that already'
I have never met Dr Veith. So my aggressive comments are to his persona. He knows he would never make it at the University of ? with his Total Onslaught standard of evidence. If he wants to PowerPoint that is fine. Just don't call yourself a world famous scientist.
I was badgered into watching his 'testimony'. I noted he never mentioned Jesus once. I had to ask my friend 'is he a Christian'? Was his religious conversion that of evolution to creation? What was sad was to hear of his brutal psychological abusive youth. Mix that in with living in apartheid South Africa and teaching at an Afrikaaner Stellenbosch University, what do you get?
One last thing. Elder Wilson has not got good press from me. I am sure personally he is a good man and sincere and Godly. But that does not qualify him to be a leader. The SDA church can do better. Demanding sound leadership is not unethical. I am amazed at the cowering of so many who post. Supporting Ted Wilson does not equal traditional, historic Adventism.
I have been on the outside for many years. Two years ago as my life caved in I sat outside an ancient Swedish church in Stockholm. I read John chapter 3. I got it.
Pax et Bonum
Edgar
Michael E, I quite agree with you that the devil is in the details.
A declaration of human rights with a World Government to put teeth in it is altogether a different thing than a declaration of human rights as an affirmation of human dignity.
I cannot disagree that every person has a right to life, freedom from torture, medical care, housing, etc. How could I disagree with that?
But the fact is, there is a tremendous movement toward consolidating power in a World Government, and that seemingly benign declaration could become the death knell for freedom as we know it.
However...freedom-as-we-know-it has a lot of blood on its hands. A lot.
Nothing is simple. Nothing.
That's why I think thought-stopping phrases are unhelpful, from whatever source.
The idea of a "world government" certainly sounds strange today with the Eurozone floundering and failing, most governments need propping up, the bailouts that may be necessary just to keep nations afloat, does not present a scenario for world government, IMHO.
The Humanist document is ideal, but cannot be enforced anymore than God's Law are any law that is not prosecuted by a state, and even that is quite difficult. Here in the U.S. the courts are backlogged for years in trying to hear all the cases that have been booked. Yet, there is judgment for the worst of crimes and those are the only effective laws.
Religious laws are impotent and the only penalty today is dismembering, but in past centuries it was a literal dismembering if not open barbecues. Today, most nations are far more civil, but none are perfect. All in all, the U.S. is the best of all the others.
Elaine
>>> They're much better at politics than the conservatives
which explains why Teddie is prez and why LSU is having such a hard time
/Bevin
The US is the best of all the others? I think that's called American Exceptionalism, Elaine.
____________________________________________
Quote:
Howard Zinn - The Myth of American Exceptionalism:
About the M.I.T. Lecture:
Americans have long embraced a notion of superiority, claims Howard Zinn. Governor Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay Colony described establishing “a city on a hill,” to serve the world as a beacon of liberty. So far, so good. But driving this sense of destiny, says Zinn, was an assumption of divine agency—“an association between what the government does and what God approves of.” And too frequently, continues Zinn, Americans have invoked God to expand “into someone else’s territory, occupying and dealing harshly with people who resist occupation.”
Zinn offers numerous examples of how the American government has used “divine ordination” and rationales of spreading civilization and freedom to justify its most dastardly actions: the extermination of Native Americans and takeover of their land; the annexation of Texas and war with Mexico; war against the Philippines; U.S. involvement in coups in Latin America; bloody efforts to expand U.S. influence in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The battle against Communism, often bolstered by arguments of America’s divine mission in the world, was merely a convenient excuse to maintain U.S. economic and military interests in key regions.
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/258
_________________________________________
And...don't tell Pauli that! He's got the goods on us! :)
America is the best, the greatest?
You're joking?!
There are plenty of us who appreciate many things about America, but find that attitude that we hear too often both arrogant and misleading.
There are many wonderful other places in the world to live and that have amazing qualities.
Compare yourself with yourself and you'll always come up best.
USA has lots to learn from others, and also has some very dark shadows to it's nature.
To change or not to change?
Several here hold the idea that Adventist Christianity is a sealed coherrent package of beliefs which should not change and indeed cannot change, and further that those who verbalise elements of change should take the highway. To make matters worse there is a suggestion that anyone who works for the church and has an inclination toward change is some how dishonest. I understand that argument, but I also suggest that those who are in some form of leadership would be dishonest if the did not speak candidly about the great issues that Adventists and Christians face, and have the decency to reflect on the struggles they have reconciling mysteries.
People today, particularly young people respect authentic honesty, they fully understand that there are paradoxes, depths to fathom beyond their minds. They respect those who say they don't know it all, but are searchers. They are suspicious of those who claim to have sealed answers. Sadly there are some who want to steal the answer book without going through the problem solving process.
One of the great themes behind Revival and Reformation, and the thrust of argument in the Great Controversy is that the powers that be in the orthodox church of the day acted to conceal truth from the common worshipper. The GC argument is that reformer by reformer new understanding was unveiled and indeed the return to Sabbath and a renewed understanding of the Sanctuary were among the truths that were lost in thousands of years of Christian Orthodoxy. Each unfolding brought about revival. There is also a focus on the supremacy of the the Bible.
Each revelation came about with a fresh understanding of what the Bible really meant, sometimes more literal, sometimes historic, sometimes prophetic.
I rather appreciate David Larson's reference to Moral Flow and suggest that there is also a Theological flow. Tubulent it may be, but within Adventism it was always so.
To be honest, I see no reason to be ashamed of being part of the flow.
It is true that some changes may result in historic theodicy, but we all have to balance that with what appears to be future theodicy. Forecasting the destruction of the wicked eternally is hardly pleasant prospect.
One of the observations that Bull and Lockhart make in their criticism of the church is about the attraction of Adventism to the poor, and the social and economic uplift that materialises, and their departure from faith in prosperity. High theology aside, that's not such a damning observation.
I interface with thousands of Adventists in my work, some despondent, some euphoric, some crazy, some deadly serious, but the church and the gospel adds something to their lives. I am not in the business of kicking them, rather to challenge them, and hopefully help protect them as they take licence to engage in lifes formation.
Maggie, since you are very worried about what you call "thought stopping" speech, I'm wondering about some of your own. You say, "that seemingly benign declaration could become the death knell for freedom as we know it." Why "as we know it"? As opposed to what? Freedom "as we don't know it"?
Maggie, do you think your grandchildren are the best?
In that same way, I love being and American; a citizen of the U.S. and its benefits. That does not mean that in other parts of the world they should not feel the same about their birthplace. I've traveled in many foreign countries and find them all both interesting, beautiful and charming, but when it all is over, this is the way I feel about the country of my birth. I do not believe that this nation was "ordained by God." This does not mean that we should police the world or extend imperialistic powers or fight every country with which we choose.
Tell me, is there another country which you would be willing to religuish your U.S. citizenship and file to become citizen of another country?
Elaine
Elaine, calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is a thought stopper.
*****************************
Thought stopping?? If one indulges continually in promoting and promulgating conspiracy theories, then saying they are a conspiracy theorist is simply stating the obvious.
Sorry, Maggie. To me, this just starts to smack of politically correct semantics.
Thanks...
Frank
I think it is possible to like ones country or ones kin without needing to compare them against others.
Also it is possible to acknowlege that such comparisons say more about the person doing the comparison than the things being compared.
/Bevin
If you want to defend freedom for people to think differently from the GC, then you also have to defend the freedom of people like Veith, regardless of what you think of his "interesting" ideas.
Religious laws are impotent and the only penalty today is dismembering, but in past centuries it was a literal dismembering if not open barbecues.
Thanks Elaine, I needed a good laugh! Hope I'm cracking jokes when I'm your age. :-)
Kevin McGill I'd like to discuss your experience with you off line.
If you have time email me at drhoehn@.msn.com
Jack Hoehn
David, a little humor makes all the controversies seem rather innane. We all take ourselves too seriously.
Elaine
Hi Matt Burdette:
See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
I'm not sure why you would be shocked at the idea that selective breeding could change behavior. AFAIK, it should work in humans no different than any other animal. I'd be shocked if it could be shown that any given trait (physical or mental) was invariant to selection. That would be worth a Nobel IMHO.
See also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_K._Belyaev
The quote I recall from long ago in reading about this was that he got both the behavior and somewhat the appearance of a border collie. They were surprised that the behavior and appearance came together, but there are some theories at to why.
Kevin and David,
I think the reason so many of us refuse to leave, and instead push for reform in the church, is that we still see enough good in it to want to try and fix those things which we believe have become problematic... just like Ted Wilson wants to reform some of the problems that he sees as problematic. How, in a supposedly democratic church, is our desire any less legitimate than that of Ted Wilson? It's not hypocrisy; having the conviction to stay and campaign for what you believe is, in fact, integrity!
I was raised believing that Adventism was a non-Creedal church, that our beliefs weren't set in stone, so that as the spirit moved we would be able to adjust our beliefs (as they often did in the early days of Adventism... don't forget that if the doctrines of the church hadn't changed there would have been no "second generation" because the first Adventists believed that if you weren't a part of Miller's movement in 1844 you could not go to heaven)! But maybe I was misinformed by my underhanded, liberal parents and teachers... The model of Adventism that you suggest doesn't appeal to me. I cannot abide any person or organisation that cannot accept when they are wrong and make the appropriate changes to bring themselves into line in the future... that kind of behaviour puts you in the same league as Wall Street banks...
Finally, I think we need to stop the liberal/conservative diatribe. We're not arguing over liberal theology or conservative theology, although there are elements of those things in the argument, what we're really arguing over is Progressive theology (the desire to move forward in our understanding of God), Moderate theology (the desire to remain the same) and Regressive theology (the desire to put things back the way they were... or at least an idealised version of what we believe things were like). So stop the liberal bashing... you can be a progressive liberal, just as much as you can be a moderate or regressive liberal; you can even have progressive conservatives (a label I'm sure many in the Spectrum flock would prefer to attach to themselves). Personally I'm a progressive liberal, I think we got lost somewhere along the way (probably even before the good sister White left our number) and I think it's time to make up the lost ground, to move forward and maybe, finally, find a place for Adventism that isn't so caught up in conspiracies and the desire to prove that we're right (Christ's return should be all the proof we need)!
odysseusonthestyx,
Thank you for a very well reasoned and articulated comment.
To Kevin McGill and David Read :
it is just necessary to boast for me being a fifth generation Seventh-day Adventist; that I am a conservative old man; that we from time to time meet, dear friends of yesteryear, we serve in the pulpit, we serve in the ministry of the aged, we are concerned about the youth growing up in our environment and we feel very uneasy about the new ( ! ) (pseudo)conservative trends, the increasingly flat and even vulgar speech on the rostrum, in the pulpit (and on Youtube) and in printed material, about "Amazing Discoveries" - the title is characteristic - all has to be amazing - be it true or not. Veith is nowadays highly cherished, Henner Ertel, with his sensational discoveries - about the "new brain" since about 1980 - never giving distinct scientifiucally sound evídence - is highly cherishend (Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen), the hostility preached (" - there are some, I tell you - " , Heinz Hopf, EAD, on a conference in Vienna 1983 - - and then his article " Lord, to Whom Shall We Go" in Adventists Affirm, about 2005, with a cluster of false allegations - - -.. The overflowing indecencies and meanesses around LSU - - -
Ad priscam virtutem Romanorum -: back to the old virtues of the forefathers - was Senecas outcry in the time of Romes decay. Where today are those fine gentlemen who led us decades ago, where are those lay members , who asked their fellow believers : "Brother, did you get a new light, will you share it ?"
" - let us clleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" II Cor 7 : 1.
It's funny, I go to a few different Adventist websites and it's the same people arguing, or airing their differences on both. Why don't you all get a life and get out in the world and preach Christ to the lost and needy. The SDA church is going to never change, and have problems till judgment day, learn to live with it!
Thanks, Bill. On the one hand I'm sad to see Veith is still in the limelight, on the other it is good to know his conspiracy theory ministry continues to be challenged.
Kevin McGill - Thu, 11/03/2011 - 11:59
... Discussion is good, there needs to be room for a wide range of varied opinions. But once people have become settled in their beliefs...if those beliefs are contrary to the denomination they are a part of...why stay? Is it not arrogant to say that the church has to change its pillars, its history, its reason for existence...simply to adhere to the opinion of a few "thinking elect" ....
_______
Kevin, the challenge is, what is “Adventism”? What version of “Adventism” is the official, orthodox version? The 28 fundamental beliefs? Perhaps we should revert back to the 27 Fundamental Beliefs (I have that book in my library, and it is barely 20 years old)? Or perhaps the 28 fundamental beliefs, but only after the anticipated “modification” to mandate belief in a recent, literal, contiguous days of creation (it is NOT just liberals who are trying to re-define the “fundamentals”). Perhaps we should revert to the Adventism before the 1957 book “Question on Doctrines” (Adventists had not yet settled their beliefs regarding the nature of Christ and salvation). Perhaps we should go back to 1863, the official founding of the SDA church (it did not yet have the health message, nor did it have consensus on the Trinity); or perhaps the great disappointment of 1844 (Adventism did not have the Sabbath).
The one, great, historical thing I love about Adventism is this thing, built into its DNA, called “progressive truth/revelation”. It should keep us humble and teachable. A denomination born out of a Great Disappointment (call it an error if you wish) has a very dubious claim to “ultimate truth”, but it can confidently claim to follow Jesus wherever he leads.
I take exception to the premise of the phrase you use, “once a people get settled in their belief…”; it is actually quite anti-Adventist!
That’s my major objection to an evangelism that focuses on superior knowledge of doctrine, superior science, secret conspiracies and interpretation of world events; the focus is off of who and what the church is all about. It emphasizes superior knowledge but creates fear of end-time events instead of a humble confidence and assurance in Jesus.
CI,
I understand the relationship between breeding and aggression. The problem with what Veith said was that the artificially selected animals are somehow a picture of original creatures. It seems to suggest that artificial breeding, even among humans, is how to solve the problem. And that clearly implies that eugenics is a good idea.
change last phrase of my previous post to:
"...instead of a life of service and humble confidence and assurance in Jesus.
Hi Matt:
"The problem with what Veith said was that the artificially selected animals are somehow a picture of original creatures. "
I don't know what Veith was trying to say, but in some odd sense Belyaev's work did show that behavior and looks go together, at least in this one case. So if Veith was referencing this study, he might have been keying in on that aspect, and implying that the bred appearance was the "original" version.
I've always found the eugenics arguments interesting, because clearly evolution does show that you can radically alter species, so the people claiming eugenics are discredited are incorrect in that respect. If on the other hand, one is pointing out that we don't have the foggiest clue how to breed a better form of human, then its quite true that eugenics is discredited.
Interestingly Belyaev's work suggests that a big problem with any such grand ambition is the law of unintended consequences. It appears difficult to select for change only in one trait. It should be clear that "better human" or "master race" is hardly a well defined single trait anyway, so its a bit strange that anyone would think a program to select for such had any hope of success.
It seems to me that "politically correct semantics" these days is to label anyone who questions commercial media's presentation of news as a "conspiracy theorist," and dismiss them out of hand, a la "it goes without saying."
This has a suppressing effect on dissidents. Dissidents are invaluable watchers on the wall, but if we socially marginalize dissidents, then the only ones who will dare come out of the woodwork, with few exceptions, are the unbalanced loose-cannon-on-the deck ones.
It seems to me that liberal Adventism is especially queasy about this "conspiracy theory" label, for quite understandable reasons, and is at great pains to distance itself from it.
Adventism has a lot of hard thinking to do, IMO.
Elaine, since the post-9/11 orgy of jingoism and the bloodbath that continues to ensue, I can't rouse myself to the level of enthusiasm, even of the sentimental sort, of proclaiming the US "the best."
Tyranny is the norm in world history. Best we face our shadow, I think.
The US has a long shadow, the Adventist church has a long shadow, and my shadow sure ain't lookin' so good either.
I admire Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
____________________________________________
Quote:
The Human Toll of the U.S. Drone Campaign
The article quotes the international human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith arguing that because Pakistan is not a war zone, these killings are “murder.” That’s an argument that — in the extremely unlikely event it were ever heard in America’s establishment media organs — would be treated with mockery and contempt. Everyone knows ["it goes without saying!"] that the American President cannot commit “murder”; that’s only for common criminals and Muslim dictators (whom the West starts to dislike). But however one wants to define these acts, the fact is that we have spent a full decade bringing violence to multiple countries in that region and — in all sorts of ways — ending the lives of countless innocent people.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/the_human_toll_of_the_u_s_drone_campaign...
_____________________________________________
Killing a half million children was "worth it," Madeleine Albright?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
Deal me out of the jingoism game.
It's time that a great wail of grief and remorse arose collectively from the United States.
David Read,
I appreciate your thoughts on my comment. I was under the impression that the majority of people commenting on here were Adventist, understanding this is not necessarily the case is helpful. I am definitely not saying that only Adventist should be allowed to comment, as I mentioned earlier I value eclectic ideas as well as freedom to think for oneself. However I could not understand why people would bash what is intrinsically Adventist while still holding on to the title Adventist themselves. Your thoughts were also helpful in this regard.
Neville:
I appreciate you addressing my statement ... "Discussion is good, there needs to be room for a wide range of varied opinions. But once people have become settled in their beliefs...if those beliefs are contrary to the denomination they are a part of...why stay? Is it not arrogant to say that the church has to change its pillars, its history, its reason for existence...simply to adhere to the opinion of a few "thinking elect"
I appreciated hearing an honest answer from your perspective to this question. I want to clarify I know our history in not wanting to form a set of creeds. I understand the danger in saying that we have arrived at "ultimate truth" that would be preposterous. I appreciate that every 5 years at the GC we have the opportunity to address our beliefs and as a world wide movement vote on them...that makes sense. But any organization that can be taken seriously has to have a mission statement and a foundation upon which to expound. Take away historicism, take away the Sabbath via the denial of a literal creation week, and deny the significance of the prophetic ministry of ellen white, what are we left with? Nothing that is not all ready available in abundance. I value the evangelical community one of my favorite speakers is Ravi zacaraias whose ministry's motto is "Helping the thinker believe and the believer think."... there is much that is good in the evangelical world.
This is why I have repeatedly said If I believed Adventism and its pillars don't stand I would leave and perhaps expose the farce as an outsider, but not as a hypocrite from within. I have more respect for Elaine Nelson now knowing that she does not claim to be an Adventist. Personally I stay because I have questioned the pillars and have found solid answers to the questions I have had. There is excellent apologetic resources in this church, that honestly look at the tough issues and give compelling answers. Don't just read what the critics have to say, Don't just read what the apologists have to say read both prayerfully and determine for yourself.
Seventh Day Adventists are a part of a movement, a progressive movement. A movement that was based on the bible, formed out of the reformation, and unapologetically protestant. Watch Veith's "Rekindling the Reformation" and be reminded of why martyrs died for beliefs that we are all too willing to sweep under the rug of insignificance. And by the way this series has nothing of a conspiratorial nature in it. Its history and well sourced history at that.
Would love to write more...but I have probably written to much as is.
Neville I agree we should be a progressive church...but not at the expense of being contradictory to previously established pillars, that have withstood the test of time, critique, and persecution.
A "progressive conservative"
Kevin M
Odysseusonthestyx,
I thought your reply to myself and David was well reasoned and it gave me more insight into some of the paradoxes I have perceived on this site. I like your comment "I think the reason so many of us refuse to leave, and instead push for reform in the church, is that we still see enough good in it to want to try and fix those things which we believe have become problematic" Indeed staying under such circumstances sounds more heroic than hypocritical.... I was specifically addressing the over the top bashing of what the current Adventism position is, while still holding membership.
Would I be write to say that when you express, "those things which we believe have become problematic" in part you would be talking about the literal creation week? Please clarify what parts of Adventism have become problematic...
Because this topic is about Walter Veith...check out his response to a question about how to deal with evolution in our universities. The video is from his time at La Sierra and also addresses the question of integrity...the part I am talking about starts at 1:23 into this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGxalIHEvU&NR=1
Maggie, you write as though we were unaware of the atrocities the U.S. has practiced in other nations. They are too well known for anyone to be unaware. You are preaching to the choir--no one condones much of the U.S. has done.
That said, would you rather live in Iraq? Iran? Syria? France, England?
When I say I love the U.S. and am proud to be a citizen, that does not mean that we are perfect and have a very sordid history and continue to. It's the question I initially asked: Are your grandchildren favored over others? If they are not special because they are yours, why?
Elaine
I just finished rereading J. B. Phillips booklet "Your God is Too Small" As I read, a thought kept bringing me back to this thread: "The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith" as vain, manipulative, and distorted as it is: It is nothing compared to the three point agenda of the parent body The Seventh-day Adventist Church. Of the 13 unreal and distructive gods that Phillips describes--three stand out
as crystal clear descriptions of the fundamental assertions of Adventism.
1. God- In- A- Box The idea that Adventism possesses the exclusive rights to the Eschatological God.
2, Resident Policeman The idea of total conformity to a personal life style of denial.
3. Absolute Perfection The replication of the life of the Model Man-- Jesus the Pale Galilean.
The mesmerizing power of "inside" knowledge is the capstone of the exclusivity of Adventism.
Revival and Reformation is a call to bring triumphalism front and center. At a time when the world is falling apart for the lack of focus beyond the next stock report. The "Church" would have the world focus of the evils of man centuries ago. A focus they contend will drive them to a corporate body built upon the same political structure and same ego-centric dogma.
Walter Veith, without apology, is merely carrying the message of Adventism to its illogical conclusion.
Tom Z
The thing about conspiracy theories is that you often find out--suddenly--that one of your dear friends actually believes in them. It's a very disheartening thing to discover, but it brings you to the realization that you cannot reason people out of believing in these things.
I have seen this experience on this thread.
Many other people believe in conspiracy theories and are too embarrassed to admit it. I believe that this is one of the reasons that many have jumped in to aggressively defend Dr. Veith. This thread is not about evolution and creation at all. I believe that topic (unfortunately inserted into the article) was just a springboard for a proxy defense.
I also would like to say that although I believe in creation in six days, I don't believe that that is the best basis for the literal Sabbath.
Everyone thinks differently and so an attack on the six-day creation might undermine the Sabbath for them--but to me that idea belies a narrow and inadequate Sabbath theology.
After I heard Graham Maxwell and Tim Jennings talk about the Sabbath two things happened:
1. I couldn't care less about "proving" the Sabbath anymore to anyone.
2. The creation/evolution debate became even more irrelevant.
Cl and Matt, eugenics follows logically from Darwinian theory, and in fact it follows logically from centuries of selective breeding practice and experiments that creationists do not dispute. Why then does the current zeitgeist so emphatically reject eugenics?
Because humans are different. There are certain things that you do with animals that you do not do with humans. Humans have a dignity, a freedom, an autonomy that cannot ethically be interfered with, even for the seemingly good cause of breeding a better breed of people.
That humans are different follows logically from creationism, which holds that humans were created in the image of God, and have moral freedom and accountability; animals were not created in the image of God and hence what can be done with animals cannot ethically be done with humans. It is much harder to justify opposition to eugenics from a Darwinistic worldview.
Both creationists and Darwinists now generally reject eugenics, but Darwinists cannot really reject it on principles flowing from their worldview, but mainly reject it because they recognize that there is something creepy and not quite right about it, or at least that this how the overwhelming majority feels about it. There's nothing wrong with eugenics from a Darwinist perspective, but Darwinists realize that it is impractical and impolitic to advocate certain logical implications of the Darwinistic Weltanschauung---such as eugenics and the absence of freedom and moral accountability.
Tom Zwemer,
I lost you here:
" At a time when the world is falling apart for the lack of focus beyond the next stock report. The "Church" would have the world focus of the evils of man centuries ago. A focus they contend will drive them to a corporate body built upon the same political structure and same ego-centric dogma.
Otherwise I think I understand what you are trying to say. The point about Gnosticism is well taken. We have a lot of "peculiar" habits that we defend only because they are unique. Few outside of Adventism care about them--and we are making no effort to change that.
I am tired of worshiping "the pillars" in abstract.
Maxwell helped me a lot in understanding exactly what (who, rather) I was supposed to be worshiping. What he says has relevance to people outside Adventism. He took the emphasis off of Adventism and put it onto Christ--where it belongs. I could hardly believe that God was so good.
"Because humans are different. There are certain things that you do with animals that you do not do with humans. Humans have a dignity, a freedom, an autonomy that cannot ethically be interfered with, even for the seemingly good cause of breeding a better breed of people"
-------------------------------------------------
In practice creationism has never been a defense against the worst kind of barbarism against other human beings--especially slavery.
This time, God created Africans to be slaves (or they were not human at all). I heard a Boer imply to Louis Theroux that other races were some of the "animals" that got on the ark with Noah--since we don't have their lineage in the Bible from Adam.
Hi David:
"There are certain things that you do with animals that you do not do with humans. Humans have a dignity, a freedom, an autonomy that cannot ethically be interfered with,..."
Only because humans are unethical in their treatment of the rest of God's creation. Oddly enough, evolution teaches us about kinship with all other living things, so perhaps its a better basis for morality.
“once a people get settled in their belief…”
"Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His Word. . . . This has been true in the history of the church in all ages,
and thus it will continue to the end" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 706).
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Cl, I take it you are a vegan, or at least a vegetarian, do not approve of selective breeding of dairy cows to get more milk, or any type of selective breeding (even the silver foxes example you referred to), do not use fur or leather products, do not approve of the vast and varied array of scientific research on animals, and do not approve of zoos?
If you eat meat or approve of any of these practices, but don't advocate eugenics, then you're acknowledging that animals and humans are different. But they aren't different in the Darwinist worldview, only in the creationist.
Kevin asked: "Would I be write (sic) to say that when you express, "those things which we believe have become problematic" in part you would be talking about the literal creation week? Please clarify what parts of Adventism have become problematic..."
While personally I don't believe in a literal seven-day week during creation, my issue is not with that position per say... what I have a problem with is that there are people who would suggest that I cannot be an Adventist and I cannot believe in the Sabbath because I don't believe in the literal creation week. I keep coming back to the point that every time I see someone saying that if we don't believe in a literal creation week then the fourth commandment falls down they use the Exodus record of the 10 Commandments and ignore the fact that the justification for the Sabbath in the Deuteronomy 5 iteration of the Commandments says that the Sabbath should be kept because God "took you out of Egypt" (which is a metaphor for God rescuing mankind from sin). Personally I would not have FB6 changed, and I am saddened that there are people who would have me leave because I don't believe in the rigid, inflexible interpretation that they've put on a tiny portion of the bible, and of Adventist belief (there are 27 other fundamental beliefs and 1187 other chapters in the bible... and at no point did Jesus say, "... that who so ever believes in me, and a literal creation, shall not perish but will have ever lasting life." my version).
I also have some issues with some of our eschatology... and while I understand that many feel that it is our eschatology that gives us our unique character I feel that we have misunderstood a lot of what the bible is trying to teach us about on that point. The desperation, post-1844, to justify the actions of the Millerites and prove that we weren't wrong has left us with some wildely outrageous claims about 1844 and what happened, just for disclosure I do agree with Ford. I think we really do need to revisit this with openess and transperancy and not fear any change that could happen, but rather embrace it as God revealing himself to us.
Veith has come a long way. I listened to his nonsense at Claremont church in Cape Town in the eighties. He was the latest trophy of the South African Union at that time - a professor from one of the universities of the Cape (I thought it was Stellenbosch University) who had seen the light. I shall not forget leaving that talk with many misgivings and still recall turning to a veteran SDA minister to express my concerns - he too was not taken in but could not quite articulate his worries in scientific jargon. But as you mention in your article, the SDA church is full of conspiracy theories; might I suggest that 'The Great Controversy' tops them all?
Mr. Read is correct. STRICT Darwinism leads to nihilism. But strict Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing.
http://theotherjournal.com/2011/03/23/ultra-darwinism-and-creation%E2%80...
Maggie, it goes without saying that "it goes without saying" simply means that someone is saying something that should be obvious. That is what the expression means in common usage and there is nothing "cultic" or "totalitarian" about it:
“It would be strange for an ordinary human being to commonly refer to himself as a ‘son of man,’ which means simply ‘human being.’ This is so obvious it goes without saying.” - Roy Gane
“It goes without saying that the real object is to live, and God is concerned with what happens to us and the lives we live.” – Jan Paulsen
Hi David:
Yeah, more or less. Except I don't per se think that selective breeding is necessarily evil, it just tends to have many negative side effects. Think of pet breeds and all their genetic problems, so yes, humans selectively breeding animals for our own quirky enjoyment usually causes problems for the animals.
This conspiratorial/doomsday rhetoric is pretty ubiquitous among the seminars crowd. For instance, consider this promotional poster for "Babylon Rising" from It Is Written.
odysseusonthestyx said:
While personally I don't believe in a literal seven-day week during creation, my issue is not with that position per say... what I have a problem with is that there are people who would suggest that I cannot be an Adventist and I cannot believe in the Sabbath because I don't believe in the literal creation week.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in a literal six-day creation (as far as I can understand it) but I agree with this.
Everyone should be allowed to make up their minds for themselves--and I believe that God can and does work with people who hold "wrong beliefs"--myself being the first of them.
I think there's a lot we will have to unlearn in heaven.
You are correct about the Sabbath. The Sabbath is defined too narrowly--and as a result if this we're always on the defensive about it: Who changed the day? When did they change it? Who wants to change it? What should we not do on that day?
On top of that we believe it'll be a "test" in the last days--all the more reason to be flaky/jumpy.
In order to survive, Sabbath has to go on the offensive. It has to make its case with the beauty of its self-expression.
To sound like a stuck record (gladly)--after listening to Tim Jennings and Graham Maxwell (and others like that), for the first time in my life I appreciated the Sabbath.
Jared Wright said:
This conspiratorial/doomsday rhetoric is pretty ubiquitous among the seminars crowd. For instance, consider this promotional poster for "Babylon Rising" from It Is Written.
----------------------------------------------------------
I listened to "Babylon Rising" while it was going on.
To the speaker's credit--he spoke briefly about not believing in conspiracy theories and other speculations.
As a matter of fact, this series was timely. Our church had just had exposure to some conspiracy theories from the pulpit. This came just in time to help lower the temperature (well, at least in my head).
Also
My point was here we have a world in real pain. So what does the Church propose---to rehearse the pains of the past and duplicate that policital church structure and promote a doctrinal dogmatism not unlike that of the villians of yesterday. Instead of burning heretics at the stake---they poison the well of their economic future. They do all this with nothing more than a Little Orphan Annie secret ring. Which one can get with the lablels of two vegalink cans.
So what does the academy do in response? Double Talk.
The Church has a thirst for recognition, The university has a thirst for money, the faculty has a thirst for tenure, and the students have a thirst for a money based career. Truth, as always, is on the Scaffold.
So the gambit is alway a lock on secret knowledge of which Veith is a master.
The game is as old as man. Triumphalism in a dozen forms. "We are the ones!"
Tom Z
David
Evolutionists and political liberals are adamantly set against eugenics because we don't believe in evolution as a political model, the way many creationists do. Evolutionists believe that Darwinism belongs in biology. Huxley, Darwin's so-called bulldog, made this very clear way back when.
Creationism, as Trinidad says, did not keep Christians in the Western World from treating Africans and Native Americans as sub-humans and slaves. American Christians thought segregation, the most Darwinian of all politics, was just what God wanted. Just think back to the Scopes trial in 1925. Here you had American fundamentalism bearing down on a biology teacher because he taught science in his classroom, while they themselves practiced jack-booted Darwinism in their interaction with African-Americans. In the United States the practice of Darwinism has always had strong support among political and conservative Christians; it's only the TEACHING of Evolution that has been seen as problematic.
Humans have always been torn between advancing the interests of the community (our neighbors) and our own interests. I come from a part of the world where democratic socialism contributed more to advance the interests of the community than the church ever did. Democratic socialism and liberalism have done more to curb political Darwinism than Christianity ever did. Even hard-core American communists of the Earl Browder type were against segregation. The immorality of that evil system was so self-evident that even these atheistic revolutionaries who had never cracked a Bible recognized it. So why didn't American Christians do so? Or were they so enamored with Darwinism that they willingly shut their eyes to a morality imperative spelled out in ten-foot tall letters.
Aage
I found your article very interesting, Ron, and I agree with what you said,, concerning Veith and his conspiracy teachings. My family has been heavily involved in conspiracy teachings for nearly 20 years...When it was getting close to Y2K, some in my family sold their property and moved to the most desolate place they could find....Conspiracy theories have really torn my family apart. My husband never bought into these theories....(thankfully!)...and at one point, he was asked by some in my family WHY he didn't believe in these things? So, he decided to write them a letter and try to explain it to them....well, after he wrote it, I said, "Honey, we ought to put this in a book...it isn't just MY family who needs to read this....there are tons of SDA's who really need to read what you wrote!" So, he did. He wrote a book called, "The New World Order, Part of Adventism?" Here is a link to it - http://www.thenarrowwayministries.org/Page/The-New-World-Order-Part-of-A...
If any of you have SDA friends who are wrapped up in conspiracy theories....you might consider sharing this with them.....
Not only does this statement apply to the Catholic Church....it also applies to those who thrive on conspiracy theories....What they desire is a method of forgetting God which shall pass as a method of remembering Him. ... {GC 572.2}
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12.
www.thenarrowwayministries.org
440-224-2227
"Because this topic is about Walter Veith...check out his response to a question about how to deal with evolution in our universities. The video is from his time at La Sierra and also addresses the question of integrity...the part I am talking about starts at 1:23 into this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGxalIHEvU&NR=1"
--Kevin McGill
I watched this, Kevin. The question from the audience claims that LSU profs "indoctrinated" students about evolution. This isn't true & yet Veith doesn't correct it. He simply responds w/ a long anecdote complimentary of himself supporting creationism against opposition. The situations/issues aren't comparable. Veith's response falls in w/ the ET unfair agenda against LSU. Veith also makes a point of describing the university where he formerly taught as a world-class one, which isn't accurate.
Integrity?
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Oh! and I forgot to tell you...if ANYONE wants a FREE copy of this book, we would be more than happy to send you one....and if you want to pass them out in your church, we'll send you as many as you need....all for FREE! Please feel free to email me at choose_the_narrow_way@yahoo.com or call me at 888-332-6343.
Have a blessed Sabbath!
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12.
www.thenarrowwayministries.org
440-224-2227
I agree with this article's take on Veith, but I don't think conservative Adventist thinking requires the Veith mentality. I agree that there are similarities which have allowed Veith's ideas to spread like a plague among young conservative Adventists. However, there are also serious differences. Veith's ideas require the entire world to be under the thumb of Satan through essentially one organization. In his view it is impossible for a Christian to ever enter into political society, because Satan has complete sovereignty over every facet of society. I don't think this is the picture drawn from the Great Controversy and traditional Adventist eschatology. The picture I have seen from these sources is that there is a struggle between God and Satan at every level of society, not that Satan monopolizes every level. I also do not see that traditional Adventist eschatology falls prey to simplicity of the Veith paradigm. Ellen White claims that all false religions have the same master, but I do not know of anywhere where she claims that Satan only uses one "club," to accomplish his purposes.
You do have a point that many conservative Adventists deal with facts in the same way that Veith does. I think this is due to an attempt to declare that the Bible is the ultimate authoritative truth, while at the same time holding to the modernist idea that empirical facts are the ultimate truth. This causes a problem when the Bible and the weight of empirical fact do not coincide. This leads to conservatives being intellectually dishonest about the facts, and liberals who are intellectually dishonest about the Bible. However, if one is truly a believer they should be comfortable with empirical facts not backing up their position. If we have a connection with an Omniscient God, then what he says outweighs all the evidence that we see, no matter how lopsided it is. Say you have a murder trial and the prosecution has built up an astonishing mountain of evidence, but then the defense submits a video showing someone else committing the murder. A connection with an Omniscient God would be like the video, and yet many believers insist we must still go disprove all the prosecution's evidence.
They could just accept that God has bigger view than we do and there are explanations that we simply do not see. However, those like Veith insist that humans must have a full view of reality so that it makes sense to us from where we stand. In this sense, they are no different than the modernists who believe that knowable reality is limited to what we can be explained. As God does not submit himself to be studied and explained, the modernist unbelievers are probably the most consistent. Modernist liberal believers twist themselves into pretzels trying to say that the Bible says what it clearly does not say, and Modernist conservative believers twist themselves into pretzels trying to say that our human view of the evidence is something that it is not - in order to say that it supports the Bible.
Aage, I guess you can always say that people will do whatever people will do, regardless whether it is consistent with their beliefs, such as their beliefs about where we came from, and I suppose that is true to an extent. But that it is a curiously anti-intellectual argument, and leaves out people who do want to order their lives around a coherent, intellectually consistent worldview.
The core of the anti-slavery movement in Great Britain were the evangelical Christians around William Wilberforce. They got the slave trade banned in the British Empire, and eventually got slavery itself banned in the empire. The core of the abolitionist movement in the U.S. were evangelical Christians, and Ellen White advised Adventists to disobey the fugitive slave law. See here:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/04/27/peacemaking-heritage-series-.... Slavery is a ubiquitous evil, that has existed in some form or other throughout human history. A culturally Christian world order enforced by Great Britain and later by the United States has done much to end slavery, including in Saudi Arabia in 1962, when President Kennedy pressured Prince Faisal to end the practice.
It is basically insane to blame racism on creationism, given what Darwin wrote about the races. Even Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "Biological arguments for racism increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Darwinism saw racial diversification as a precursor of speciation, and hence one race could be closer than another to becoming a “higher” species. Darwinists viewed the African race as being closer to our putative simian ancestors---still do, according to the "out of Africa" theory of human origins---and viewed the white race as being more advanced.
A creationist who mistreats other races contradicts his own worldview, which teaches him that we are all of one blood, created by God and all descended from Noah just a few thousand years ago. A Darwinist who mistreats other races has an array of exculpatory rationales, if he needs them.
Thank you Tammy.
bbbazusa
Aopology accepted. Thanks! Keep participating.
RonOsborn
Good on you!
Jared Wright
Look forward to tomorrow and your presentation on "Paul the Radical."
You do have a point that many conservative Adventists deal with facts in the same way that Veith does. I think this is due to an attempt to declare that the Bible is the ultimate authoritative truth, while at the same time holding to the modernist idea that empirical facts are the ultimate truth.
John Mark, I think your first paragraph was very well thought out and insightful. You then pivoted---in the sentence I quote above---into a discussion of faith and evidence that is way off the mark. You argue that people follow Veith because he gives them evidence for what they believe. Citing evidence and making arguments in support of faith is a perfectly valid Christian occupation called apologetics. Genuine apologetical argument is not objectionable or out of order. But that isn't what we're talking about here.
Unfortunately, Veith is sometimes arguing for new beliefs that are not part of biblical faith or of the counsels of Ellen White---e.g., 9/11 truther garbage, Saddam Hussein has been dead since 1999, Islam is a creation of Rome. These ideas are not supported by trustworthy evidence or valid argument, and they are not part of the Adventist faith. They are a distraction, and detract from Veith's ministry.
I think you've made a very insightful observation about how Veith tends to view all worldly institutions as controlled by Satan, when in fact a cosmic struggle is still underway. But you go wrong when you say that Christians must be content with blind faith, contrary to all evidence, and imply that apologetics is illegitimate.
David I wouldn't say it's blind faith, ignoring the evidence. An encounter with Jesus Christ, who is The Truth ,and The Logos, is it's own light and its own evidence. This does not deny apologetics but its a different approach to it. As I remember from an essay I did a while back, there are two basic schools in apologetics - the evidentialists and the presuppositionalists. The problem with the first group is you start with evidence, but you have no way of proving the validity of your evidence. Ultimately you have to start with a self proving presupposition, for me that is Jesus Christ.
Hi David:
"Darwinists viewed the African race as being closer to our putative simian ancestors---still do, according to the "out of Africa" theory of human origins---and viewed the white race as being more advanced. "
Not true. In fact, there is generally more diversity between Africans than there is between the rest of humans. Location has nothing to do with it. Africa has had pockets of isolation for longer than the rest of humans have been gone from Africa.
This fellow would make an excellent sci fi writer. All he needs to do is throw in a bit of the Space Jew Lizards, and the tale would be complete.
It's a shame that such bizarre extra Biblical nonsense gains such support with the rank and file of Adventist members.
Conspiracy theories offer an easy black and white vision in a world filled with morally ambiguous institutions, politics, figures, etc.
It offers a clear cut enemy, in Veigh's case nearly every political group known to man, and it offers its followers the opportunity to be the "enlightened ones" who know the truth.
With a conspiracy theory, everything makes sense. This is why conspiracy theories are used so much in thrillers. They give a sense of closure.
@Tammy, "the Narrow Way" sound a bit kooky to me. How is that the journey need be difficult?
John Mark, I'm familiar with the presuppositionalist school of apologetics. I just used a presuppositionalist technique with Cl, above, in pointing out that while in Darwinian theory man is just another animal, society is organized as though humans and animals are very, very different, as though man were created in the image of God and divinely commissioned to rule over the animals. (Gen. 1:26-28) And in fact Darwinists are happy with the sharp divide between humans and animals, and would not really want society organized in accordance with their claimed beliefs (assuming such a society is conceivable).
But presuppositionalists do not abjure evidence or reasoned argument. To the contrary, they have very sophisticated philosophical arguments. One of them is that we must have faith in something in order to make sense of anything. "Nothing is true" is a self-refuting statement. Something must be true, and we must make a leap of faith. Apologists of whatever school do not deny the primacy and centrality of faith, they just deny the necessity of blind, unreasonable faith.
But none of this has aught to do with Walter Veith, and his conspiracy theories. Such theories do not bolster anyone's faith in anything. To the contrary, unsupported as they are by evidence and rational argument, they call for new outlays of faith. More precisely, they call for unwarranted faith, for credulity, even gullibility. Faith is a precious commodity that ought not be squandered on beliefs unworthy of it.
For some, aspects of Adventism also "call for unwarranted faith, for credulity, even gullibility."
@017, the Bible says in Matthew 7:14:
(RSV) For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
(NIV) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
(NKJV) Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
(NLT) But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.
I hope you are not on the BROAD, EASY path, 017...
(NLT) "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. Matthew 7:13
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12.
www.thenarrowwayministries.org
440-224-2227
@Tammy, and @017... Jesus is not demanding a list of things we must do. Jesus is wanting a relationship - He is the narrow gate. He is the way. He is life. (John 14:6)
It is human instinct is choose ourselves over him - seemingly the "easy" way. But a way that has no eternal value.
David
Evolution is an explanation of how life on Earth has developed. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. Auto-mechanics is another descriptive system that is not prescriptive of anything that has to do with behavior (although there are people whose driving style is just as explosive as that of an engine). But evolution accounts for more than biology; it also explains much of human psychology, e.g. the prevalent need to dominate and subjugate. David, you're certainly right when you question anybody who'd suggest that creationism created racism. Racism is our Darwinian past impinging upon our present, with its suspicion and fear of those who are different from our group, those who compete for the resources that keep us alive. My point was that creationism does not protect people against the urge to dominate and destroy, in spite of the divine origin it ascribes to humans, and I used the wholesale sell-out to racism on the part of much of US Christendom during the days of segregation as my key witness. It's fine to bring up Wilberforce and 19th century abolitionists, but it's far more difficult to talk about church-going uncles and aunts and parents who thought it self-evident that God did not intend for the cursed race of blacks to intrude upon their world as if they were worthy of the same rights and dignity. The fact is that US Christians (let's keep Wilberforce out of this) have, to a disturbing degree, used Darwinism as a prescriptive system of behavior. As one religious scholar recently observed, white, male Evangelicals is the group in our society least likely to embrace the compassionate values associated with Jesus of Nazareth.
Instead of attacking scientists for providing an explanation of how life has evolved, creationists should explain why they so often embrace evolution as a model for behavior. How is it that today's Evangelical is far more likely to support the Darwinian winners at the top of society while turning their backs on the poor. Clearly one's theory of origins is no guarantee of which values one will embrace in life.
Aage
3 TYPES OF ADVENTISM
How keep it all Together ?
------------------------------------
Have I got it right?
1. Cultural Adventism
Committed to - just a lifestyle/culture resulting in enjoying a way of life.
Growth dependent on breeding.
Own the Institutions
The Quiet Majority.
2. Progressive Adventism
Committed to - the Gospel/Christ
The Adventist church is just a witnessing faith community with internal factions and attempt to
redefine itself. The gospel is central. Context irrelevant.
Growth dependent on attraction.
Own Spectrum crowd.
3. Historic Adventism
Committed to - the Church
The Adventist church historically called to bring a final message and expose by
divining the times and societal structures the forces of Satan in the cosmic
conspiracy. This drives it's message. The gospel is contextualised in the 3 Angel's
message. Context is part of the message.
Growth dependent on missionary persuasion.
Own the Leadership
The Vocal Minority.
How does this lot just stay together let alone grow?
Edgar
Aage Rendalen said:
My point was that creationism does not protect people against the urge to dominate and destroy, in spite of the divine origin it ascribes to humans, and I used the wholesale sell-out to racism on the part of much of US Christendom during the days of segregation as my key witness. It's fine to bring up Wilberforce and 19th century abolitionists, but it's far more difficult to talk about church-going uncles and aunts and parents who thought it self-evident that God did not intend for the cursed race of blacks to intrude upon their world as if they were worthy of the same rights and dignity.
-----------------------------------------------
That's what I was trying to say as well.
Don't think slavery--think Jim Crow. That's the one everyone forgets. Wilberforce was long dead when counters were segregated and blacks were lynched for being "uppity". There are vast numbers of people alive who remember segregation.
The "Mark of Cain" and "Curse of Ham" doctrines were well established and believed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians in America. It may well have been the prevailing dogma up until 35 to 40 years ago in many quarters.
@Rusty....
I believe you don't have it quite right, Rusty....there is a "list"....as Jesus Himself said,
(NIV) "If you love me, you will obey what I command. John 14:15.
But you are correct when you say that "Jesus is wanting a relationship" with us. Without that relationship, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to obey Him and "keep His commandments". In fact, without that relationship, WE WON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW what those Commandments are....
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12.
www.thenarrowwayministries.org
440-224-2227
"The gate is narrow and the way is hard." This was quoted so often by my father-in-law. It was applied to almost any problem that disturbed his world view and was a powerful conversation ender. Was a win/win for him but no one else.
I see similarities with this attitude and those who have nailed down the inside information of the goings on of conspiracies. Essentially, it's a way of being exclusively special and at the same time creating wall of safety.
Thank you very much for this outstanding and well researched article on this trouble maker, especially for the church in Europe. He still has hundreds of congregations who want him as blessed speaker, despite regional restrictions.
He got several preaching restrictions within the EUD territory in the past years, but it was mostly ignored - even by both parties (Veith and some local congregations). More recently restrictions were changed in several countries. He now is allowed to speak to most of his subjects, but with the strict exception of his conspiracy theories...
Chris
The answer is enlightenment, not bans. Banning this nut case from pulpits is a pathetic way of arguing with crazy.
Aage
Tammy quoted: "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Remember Jesus was talking to a culture that was indoctrinated to a prescribed way of finding Salvation through rituals and laws. I believe He might have precisely the same words today for many within the Adventist church.
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
Aage Rendalen said:
Chris
The answer is enlightenment, not bans. Banning this nut case from pulpits is a pathetic way of arguing with crazy.
Aage
-----------------------------------------------------
I know that this is the correct answer (with milder language). Who will do it though? Those who should be at the forefront are pursuing other "enemies" (who in my humble opinion hold no threat); and in addition to that (as someone else said), much unorthodoxy is tolerated if an individual holds certain prime beliefs.
Individuals like Veith reminds me of grade school children in a group chanting to the others "we know something you don't know" and then having those who aren't "in the know" begging to know the secrets.
It is power and control when someone claims to have "insider knowledge" limited to only a few which gives them the ability to share with others, for a fee, and implicit faith. As Alvin Toffler wrote:
"The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn." Those who are unable to separate fact from fiction are the ones who simply play "follow the leader."
Elaine
Mr 'World Renowned' Scientist
Are you a BSing pseudo-academic sociopath?
----------------------------------------------
So Mr 'World Renowned' Scientist
1. If your so good, why don't you face a collegial group of your peers to see how good you are. You won't get that in a real jury trial.
2. You might persuade the uncritical masses with your Powerpoints, bombast and name dropping but you have not persuaded SOME of us who have a modicum of critical thinking.
3. We are NOT Right wing, Left wing, Progressive, Jesuits, Masons, Illuminati, Spiritualists, Catholics, Apostate Protestants, Green Peace, Amnesty International, Korah Dathan and Abiram, 'march on Wall Street' crowd, Vatican Bank investors, 'the truth and only the truth'ers', Branch Davidians, ... Just REGULAR FOLK who think critically. The type of skill used in the everyday world doing a 'real' job. We are the workers that keep you and the World Order going by doing 'real' work.
4. If your stuff is so good then persuade us. Are not critical thinkers who do 'real jobs' worthy of your 'conspiracy ministry'. Is the Kingdom of Heaven just for those who accept what you say from your powerpoints and DVD's.?
5. Are we 'thoughtful' people who toil in the 'real' world to provide you electricity, water, flights, PowerPoint slides, computers, websites, DVD's, food, health care, Loma Linda Linketts... not worthy of knowing the will of God?
6. Or are we 'real' workers doing 'real' jobs in the 'real' world summarily dismissed as colluding with the 'World Order'?
7. We will patiently and respectfully hear you, and respectfully engage you in a civil, rational conversation befitting the scientific expert you are. This needs more than a 30 second sound presentation on YouTube.
8. Name the place and time and we will be there. I am sure a mutually convenient place and time can be found if there is a will. I am sure from your sales you can afford a reasonable short period of time. Or we can come to you.
9. How about it tough guy? How good are you? You are publicly tough and unrelentingly critical of many. Your public behavior shows no spiritual or sincerity problems denouncing people and groups and savagely cutting them down to size. You appear to have no Christian concerns in this brutal psychological abuse of your 'opponents' So can you take the thoughtful heat from your peers?
ARE YOU ABLE TO PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE?
WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Issue here is INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Question
Has Spectrum or like entities asked Mr 'World Renowned' scientist to present his views to a group of his peers in a colloquium setting, and then publishing the discussion in a format that is accurate and fair?
2. Banning him and controlling him as long as he has a ministerial license is probably unethical and counter productive.
3. Smoking him out and getting him to engage dispassionately with equals is a productive approach in my opinion.
4. Condemning my attitude or suggestion as non Christian in my opinion is a crock. In the 'real' world where I work, with most of the world's population, many are streetwise and do not buy the Brooklyn Bridge when it is offered them.
5. If he refuses fair dispassionate academic engagement, then in my opinion he is a BSing pseudo-academic sociopath.
(I have met and engaged multitudes of BSers and sociopaths in my professional work over 20 years)
Edgar Drew MD
Board Certified Psychiatrist
David Read,
I never suggested we should reject reason and I certainly never suggested that there is no truth. The question is, where do we start. Do we start with assuming the validity of human reason and evidence and proceeding to demonstrate the validity divine revelation, or do we start with the validity of God's revelation to us, and determine the validity and limits of human reason and evidences from that point? The problem with the first approach is that the validity of human reason is not self-evident. For all one knows their senses could be delusional. For that matter the senses of all mankind could be delusional - and to some extent they are. Now if we start with an encounter with the Truth, Jesus Christ, Then human reason and senses gain some measure of validity because we know they were created by the Living Truth.
The problem with relying on human evidence to build faith rather than the other way around, is that such a faith is always tentative. If faith is a human bridge of, choosing to believe, that hangs between probabilistic evidence and certainty, then you must always be open to discarding the faith depending upon where the evidence goes. If, however, faith is a divine experience, that is its' own evidence than faith may give us a certain knowledge of the unseen things hoped for. Hebrews 11 tells us that faith is the title deed of things hoped for. A title deed is not someone choosing to believe they have a house because the evidence gives a probability of it - rather the title deed is itself the evidence that they have the house.
We cheapen faith by thinking of it as a bridge filling in the gaps of evidence. It is with such a model that we declare that it takes more faith to be an Atheist than a believer, as if faith were a necessary evil - and the less faith involved the more real the idea. If we reject this conception of faith for seeing faith as a Divine assurance of reality, we accept that the Atheists have no faith, but that faith does not lessen the reality of what is believed, but indeed is its' proof. This second model is the model which will lead people to sacrifice their lives for Christian truth, it the faith that will call down miracles from heaven. The first model of faith gives no justification for Abraham sacrificing His son. All of Hebrews 11 requires a faith that is a divine assurance of heavenly reality not a human leap off the diving board of probabilistic evidence into the unknown.
Bbbazusa - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 12:09
Contact Walter Veith
-----------------------
1. Since I need to put my money where my mouth is I wish to send my above blog entry to Walter Veith PhD and ask for an interview once I have prepared myself
2. I am unable to find an email contact. There is a phone number, but I assume Amazing Discoveries are keeping the Sabbath.
3. Does anyone know Dr Veith's email or the best way to contact him?
4. I do not want to be stonewalled by some intermediary
5. This is written in good faith.
6. It is easy to criticize someone or challenge them, but harder to follow through.
7. Bullies and amateurs mouth, professionals take care of things.
8. If he is willing to have a serious interview - focused on intellectual integrity issues ie the claim of being a world renowned scientist, his specific Conspiracy claims, his evidence; the nature, strength and use, then I am willing to do the serious homework and willing to present my findings.
9. I am appealing to Dr Veith's scientific intellectual integrity and his Adventist / Christian commitment to the 'truth'. I believe I have the scientific and Adventist credentials to do this. I am also appealing to him as a man to put up or shut up. If his work in 'conspiracy ministry' is genuine and sincere, then commercial interests should not override an academic and Christian/Adventist commitment to accuracy, soundness - the nearest we can get to the truth.
10. I will willingly inform him that some serious thinking people think he is a fraud and I want to find out if that is the case. I want to be fair, thorough, dispassionate and honest. All the traits I was taught being brought up as a committed Seventh Day Adventist in an obscure part of England.
11. I will not release any findings until I have reviewed them carefully with him. I will not comment on his person, work while undergoing this proposed project.
12. I will accommodate any reasonable request to be fair, thorough, precise, accurate and honest.
If I am denied access to Dr. Veith purely because of my 'Un Christlike' character or some such sincere, devotional blocking technique, then I will inform him that my opinion of him has firmed. What is he afraid of?
For those offended by my 'BSing pseudo-academic sociopath' description, you need to understand that I can professionally argue that case. I am trying to smoke out Dr.Veith. If he is a 'world renowned' scientist then he will know that. He knows the rules of the game.
SO IF ANYONE HAS AN EMAIL OR OTHER CONTACT FOR WALTER VEITH PhD please email me at Bbbazusa@aol.com
My concern is INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY
This is written in good faith
Thank you
Pax et Bonum
Edgar Drew MD
Board Certified Psychiatrist
Bbbazusa@aol.com
They can't preach about something they know nothing about! Their whole objective is to sow seeds of division and controversy- kind of like the Jesuit creed. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Spectrum was jesuit based filled with Adventist haters.
Fr. Jim - Tue, 11/01/2011 - 08:19
“Yeah we Catholics run everything. That's why we oppose abortion, but yet it still remains legal. Oh and all that great press coverage we got on the scandals. How did this guy get in on our big secret?”
*********
Excellent point! If all these conspiracy theories were true abortion would be illegal! Evidently, the Catholic Church is not that powerful. Protestants have described Rome as a power persecuting and killing heretics on the basis of what the Catholic organization did centuries ago, and Adventists inherited said tradition. My question is: Who is the Pope persecuting today? Is Rome today behind the killing of innocent human beings? On the contrary, this power is doing what it can to protect innocent unborn children from being the victims of the abortion genocide.
I am a second generation Adventists, but I believe that credit should be given whenever credit is due. Who else is behind the pro-life movement? Many evangelicals. Unfortunately, my own church is on the wrong side on this issue. In fact, the Adventist Church led the way in the legalization of abortion. One of its hospitals was allowed by the General Conference to offer abortion on demand when the State of Hawaii legalized this abhorrent practice back in 1970—three years before the killing of innocent children became legal in the rest of the U.S.--and other Adventist hospitals took advantage of this wrong policy.
I know this, because I just published a book dealing with this topic. Here is the title of my book and some links to it. It is available through Lulu.com and eventually it will be available by other book outlets like Amazon.com.
“From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion.”
A. http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fListingClass=7&fSearch=%22From+Pr...
B. From Pro-life to Pro-choice - Lulu1.com.htm
C. http://www.lulu.com/browse/books/7 and then type my name—Nic Samojluk- or the firs few words of the title of the book—From Pro-life—in the search blank space.
Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com
Oh good Lord help us. Nic's off on the abortion kick again. I swear the topic could be about the lack of rainfall in the Sarah Desert compared to tropical climates and Nic would somehow bring it around to abortion!
"The first model of faith gives no justification for Abraham sacrificing His son."
I'm not sure that is a ringing endorsement for the second model. Trying to kill your children because God told you to is not admirable. It's either lunacy or evil (or both), but still not the kind of faith to be admired. Unfortunately, there are those who don't see it that way. They fly planes into buildings and, yes, kill their children because God told them to.
But Beth...that story has always been held up as the epitome of a close relationship with God, that we should all aspire to; the illustration of great faith. Why did we feel forced to wrap our hearts and minds around that, and somehow give assent to it?? Fear. Religion can make healthy people do sick things
"Adventist young people are highly vulnerable to Veith’s conspiracy theories", Osborn wrote. I observed this in Melbourne, where I was shocked by how many young people eagerly absorbed the teachings of Veith and his fellow countryman Mark Woodman (sadly died of cancer induced by Jesuits).
Colin MacLaurin God in All .org
Well put Colin.
the almost murder of Olde Abes own child....."has always been held up as the epitome of a close relationship with God, that we should all aspire to; the illustration of great faith."
if the story is literal, why did we never question how God could inspire his biographers to depict Him as a baby killer..? but then write that He changed His mind, and suggested they just slaughter lots of innocent animals to please Him instead? Why? because He liked the smell of burning flesh?? .What kind of loving God is this, who commands the murder of ones child, then changes his mind, and says he will be happy with the pleasing aroma of burnt goat instead.
but it IS the kind of God who will ask his later followers (at least, that's what THEY tell us) to brag, celebrate, and feast about how GREAT He was when He killed innocent children in Egypt.
Isn't it much less morally repulsive to reinterpret those stories as the ancient hebrew's way of reassuring their kids around the campfire how much better off they were by being a member of a tribe whose God has changed his mind...and kids no longer have to be "passed thru the fire" like the neighbors still did.at the time....and possibly like the Hebrews USED TO DO..... that way Hebrew families get to keep their two legged kids, tho the four legged ones become mince meat, boda bags, sandals and matching handbags ..... to honor their God, they said.
isn't this another one of THOSE STORIES that could benefit from a bit of non-literal reinterpretation?
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
"Woodman (sadly died of cancer induced by Jesuits"
Surely, this should be written up in medical journals. Cancer that can be induced by Jesuits! Think of the possiblities! Adventists could invent a new anti-Jesuit pill to keep the cancer-causing Jesuits away. Has no one thought of that yet? Great possibility for profits and the ABC already has the retail stores set up to carry it.
Elaine
Really? Is this what's considered Spectrum humor? Now the articles are starting to make sense!
David Reed/John Mark
Isn't there is an interactive relationship between human faith [people trusting] and human reason [people thinking] such that it matters little where one begins so long as each informs and tests the other?
It is impossible to live successfully without trusting. It is also impossible to live successfully without thinking. Thus faith and reason are both human endeavors and like everything human they are both finite and fallible. Therefore:
Test! Test! Test! Everything! Everything! Everything! Always! Always! Always!
Jack Hoehn wrote:
"Aage, " Small and irrelevant" would apply at one time to little Karl Marx sitting in a cafe in Vienna in 1916."
If you by Karl Marx mean THE Karl Marx, famous for marxism,
would you be so kind and tell us, when and where did his resurrection happen?
I'm curious, as the general opinion is that Karl Marx died in 19th century (1883, if I recollect correctly).
And if there really was a resurrection for him, is one free to make the assumption that all the resurrected ones - except Jesus - are small and irrelevant?
John Mark,
About human reason and God's revelation.....
"And the moral of the story is_"
When teaching kids to read you try to have them understand the point of the story, otherwise, why bother reading the jumbled mess of words. The older the kids get, and the more complex the stories and the information in the text, the more thought has to go into reading. Poetry, especially, takes some thought and some soul.
Jesus had to point out to the literalists of his day (and they were all literalists), the moral of the story as he delivered his "Sermon on the Mount". For Jesus it wasn't enough to say, "God said it; I believe it" and be done with it. Jesus pointed out, that murder was more than killing; and love was more than passive surrender. He made victors out of victims when he told them to "walk the extra mile" and give them "their coat also". We had never thought we could vanquish our foe by loving him. These are complex issues. We have forgotten how to find them in the fine print of the Bible. We get hung up on exactly how many miles we should walk with the perpetrator; and do we have to give the guy our boots along with the coat. We have forgotten how to find the moral of the stories we read in the Bible.
How many times do we have to remind ourselves that the Bible was written in the midst of a totally different culture and time than what we are familiar with. Our ability for find the point in any Bible text seems to be non-existent for many who parrot "God said it; I believe it" - end of story. It's not the end of the story - it's far from being the end of the story.
David Read - Tue, 11/01/2011 - 00:49
“Veith's conspiracy theories are inherently damaging and problematic. But also problematic is your attempt to use them to impeach biblical creationism, which is really the whole point of your article. I don't think it will work, because it is just guilt by association. It is saying in effect, "Walter Veith is a creationist, and he also believes and teaches nutty conspiracy theories, so creationism must also be nutty." But of course that is both guilt by association and a non sequitur”
*********
You brought a very good point. I was impressed with Ron’s eloquent and well written article, but his veiled attempt to minimize the biblical doctrine of creation seems undeniable. I don’t buy the conspiracy theories used by Veith and others. Nevertheless, we should realize that those theories have been taught by other Adventists who preceded Veith by many decades.
Some of you might remember our own Roy Allan Anderson. He used to mesmerize his hearers with similar presentations about the activities of secret societies, but he was highly respected by our brethren in spite of this idiosyncrasy of his because his other fundamental doctrines were beyond reproach.
Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com
Darrell C - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 16:59
“Oh good Lord help us. Nic's off on the abortion kick again. I swear the topic could be about the lack of rainfall in the Sarah Desert compared to tropical climates and Nic would somehow bring it around to abortion!”
*********
You must be partially blind because I did not introduce the topic of abortion into the discussion. I merely responded to a comment by Fr. Jim. Is this a mortal sin?
Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com
Beth - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 17:44
"The first model of faith gives no justification for Abraham sacrificing His son."
I'm not sure that is a ringing endorsement for the second model. Trying to kill your children because God told you to is not admirable. It's either lunacy or evil (or both), but still not the kind of faith to be admired. Unfortunately, there are those who don't see it that way. They fly planes into buildings and, yes, kill their children because God told them to.
*********
Beth: If you consider that the sacrifice of one’s son was the maximum expression of loyalty to the pagan deities when Abraham was living and the fact that God knew that this would not end in another human sacrifice, but would hopefully dissuade others from sacrificing their children to their gods, the alleged lunacy of the whole event becomes a mirage.
Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com
John Alfke - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 19:47
“the almost murder of Olde Abes own child....."has always been held up as the epitome of a close relationship with God, that we should all aspire to; the illustration of great faith."
if the story is literal, why did we never question how God could inspire his biographers to depict Him as a baby killer..? but then write that He changed His mind, and suggested they just slaughter lots of innocent animals to please Him instead? Why? because He liked the smell of burning flesh?? .What kind of loving God is this, who commands the murder of ones child, then changes his mind, and says he will be happy with the pleasing aroma of burnt goat instead.”
*********
You missed the whole point! God did not change his mind. He knew all along what he was planning to do and of Abraham’s response to this test of faith. He was in control over the entire event and knew in advance that this would not end with another child sacrifice. Child sacrifice was rampant in that pagan environment, and the Lord wanted to put an end to it. This must be interpreted taking into account the cultural milieu of the time.
Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com
Edwin - Tue, 11/01/2011 - 14:26
“Michael, there's nothing wrong with running a business.
It begins to become troubling when one's business is making personal profit from "evangelism".”
*********
Is Veith personally profiting from the business or is the profit used to make his materials available to a larger audience? We are told that Ellen White died with a $25,000 personal debt which took years to pay off with the profit from the sale of her books. Was her business for profit or designed to advance her ideas?
Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com
Bbbazusa - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 06:56 posted on 3 TYPES OF ADVENTISM
Bbbazysa, change the word "Adventism" in your post to "Judaism", "Islam", "Roman Catholicism", "Presbyterians" etc. and you have the internal struggles of most faiths and denominations. Diversity, rather than being a detriment and a sign of a denomination fracturing at the seams, may actually be a sign of healthy checks and balances within a growing, "maturing" denomination.
What you may have left out in your oversimplification (I'm not being critical here, simply elaborating on the nuances) are the younger, for lack of a better term, I'll call "emergent/postmoderns", who do not easily fit in your 3 categories but rather blend into all three. While their numbers (proportional to the denomination) may be smaller, they may be more influential than their numbers indicate. These individuals may exist within congregations that fit neatly into your three categories, or may belong to congregations that, as a whole, may be characterized as emergent/postmodern.
One of the Jewish congregations I have visited is led by a young Rabbi who is recognized by her peers as one of the top 50 most influential Rabbi's, and also by the national media. There are equivalents in Islam, Christianity and even Adventism. While one could consider them very progressive, these congregations are also quite orthodox in embracing the fundamentals (but not necessarily the way older traditionalists interpret it), traditions and the history of their faith.
Having said that, I'm not saying there aren't any kooks and crazies in the bunch.
@Edgar Drew: plse don't loose your time (points 9&10). BRI and other Division committees and officers, as well as German theolgians did it before.
The Fundamentalist makes the same mistake as the Modernist: confusing objective interpretation with personal belief, interpreting Scripture in light of his own beliefs rather than those of the author’s.
To add to my previous post, many emergent/postmoderns are highly contextual in applying their faith beliefs and traditions in the local context. “Think globally, act locally” fits them to a T. “Growth“ and “attraction” are not in their vocabulary, although in practice they do a lot of it. They simply apply their faith practices in the local context (often in service, social justice issues and community involvement) and let the growth and attraction chips fall where they may.
Is Veith JUST a bullshitter?
---------------------------------
Chris
My beef with Veith is not a fundamentalist religious thing.
I am an MD trained at Loma Linda and UCLA. I have worked professionally 20 years in the real world with real people. I have had to appear in Court, before groups of my peers. I know what acceptable scientific evidence standards are even though I am not a professional scientist
I do not like people in the name of science let alone in the name of God who bullshit. I have seen the pain, the misery, the abuse caused by bullshitting. There is a price for looking away from or excusing bullshitting.
There is a book by Harry G Frankfurt, an emeritus professor of Philosophy at Princeton title 'On Bullshit' the term Bullshit is academically acceptable. He points out that Bullshitters in some ways are worse than liars. Liars respect the truth, that is why they lie. Bullshitters have no respect for the truth. They have no interest in the truth. Their interest Is in what they wish to persuade you of.
I am amazed people are not disturbed by Veith. He seems to be lumped with the other Adventist 'nut jobs' The other Adventist 'nut jobs' do not claim to be world renowned scientists.
VEITH USES HIS SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS TO ESTABLISH HIS AUTHORITY
That is where you confront Veith.
So ideally I would like to ask Veith, are you a bullshitter? Are you a fraud?
He can get upset with me or he can say, Dr Drew I understand your concern so let me answer you. He can say yes, no, it all depends AND here are the reasons why.
Then I form my own opinion or draw my own conclusions.
That is it.
This is not un Christian. This is what if you are even just street smart do - "you want to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, well ......."
Pax et Bonum
Edgar
Nostradamus v. Jesus Christ
---------------------------------------
1. I ask myself, 'What salvific value is there in informing someone through persuasion that the Pope is a Mason, that the Illuminati run the Vatican Bank, that Spectrum has been infected by Jesuits, and that ante and post diluvians amalgamated, that Adam was 10 feet tall, that La Sierra University has sold out,that Carbon dating is a fraud and that the science that supports me is good but the science that disagrees with me is of the devil with DVD's not footnotes to support what I say?"
2. What does all of this have to do with proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the 'last days'?
3. Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ too simple, boring, the same, demands a change and commitment?
4. Is it easier to educate oneself about conspiracies than to be challenged, changed by the Gospel and then have to live and serve in the name of Christ? Is it easier to watch Adventist TV than to live in the 'real world' as a disciple of Christ?
5. Jesus lived the Gospel, Paul preached it. Jesus associated himself with harlots and publicans, Paul warned of their danger.
Has a part of the Adventist church got overwhelmed with divining the times, the need to prove we are in the last days that somehow the Gospel if there is time for it is just tacked on.
HAS JESUS CHRIST LOST HIS APPEAL?
Is the Nostradamus cult just for insiders? Do we see people being turned to the Gospel even in the Third World by being informed that Nelson Mandela is either a Jesuit, a Mason, an Illuminati or even pro Apartheid?
Yes there is a war going on not just in the world but in the Adventist Church. Several wars. Nostradamus versus Jesus. Paul versus Jesus. Daniel and Revelation versus Jesus.
WHO WILL TAKE THE SIDE OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST?
From my experience in life, that is the ONLY thing that changes lives.
Has Nostradamus read too much of the National Enquirer?
Pax et Bonum
Edgar
I forgot to make my real point in the previous posts (I thought "it goes without saying.." : )
To many postmoderns who have grown up with Michael Jackson, Lindsay Lohan, Steve Jobs (LSD/Timothy Leary), etc., they are quite savvy and have a pretty well-tuned BS meter. But they don't see things as black-and-white as older generations do. They recognize kooks and crazies but tend to let them be rather than calling them out.
Jesus way v. Ted Wilson way
----------------------------------------
If I understand correctly
1. God became a man
2. Jesus embraced people, lived among them, ate their food drank their wine, spent his relaxation time with them
3. I do not believe God sent a Great Controversy to mankind to save them.
4. I do not believe Jesus used Palestine mail to spread his message from some country outpost
5. Ted Wilson wishes to follow the EGW blueprint and appears to have got his PhD on this theme while working for the Church in New York. Apparently the experiment in New York failed.
6. Has Ted Wilson thought of using the Jesus blueprint? Some would argue it has been successful over two millennia.
I am somewhat perplexed by many bloggers, whether they agree with Ted or not, do not seem to be disturbed that millions of dollars of hard earned money, given by people who do not live in the country, an outpost but the city, may just be wasted and "...oh yes let us wait to 2015"
HAS TED WILSON EVER LIVED IN THE WORLD LIKE GOD AND JESUS?
Has Ted Wilson ever given a Bible study, pastored a city church, worked a non SDA job, mixed with non SDA people
He says he has lived in major world cities like Cairo, Abidjan, New York now Washington. BUT was he just brought up in Cairo, and just a church worker in the others.
In New York did he have a newly minted MDiv do the pastoral work while he did administration and worked on his PhD?
DOES TED WILSON HAVE ANY PASTORAL CLOTHES?
Why would Adventists entrust their leadership, the reputation of their history and institution and millions of dollars to a 'sincere' man who is the son of a former General Conference president, who lobbied for almost a decade to get the job (hearsay)', whose position was voted on by a quorum of world delegates(the rest were shopping) in 90 seconds flat?
Maybe Ted Wilson should study the blueprint of Jesus AND how He lived.
Preaching the Gospel is so much easier than living it.
Pax et Bonum
Edgar
DC and BC are, for the most part, irrelevant to most postmoderns (Adventists).
Edgar,
Many people are enamoured with the idea that the Bible tells us what to do.
Any suggestion of choice or judgement on the part of human beings is suspect.
As a result of this, they feel more comfortable with the idea of a "blueprint" that transcends time and place and context.
People are also looking for a guarantee of success.
This is not unique to Adventism, but I'd say that SDAs place a high premium on guarantees (simply because the nature of some of our more traditional beliefs--as traditionally taught for many years--denies some people any sense of surety).
However, I seem to have read somewhere on this site that Ted Wilson intends to modify (somewhat) what he sees as the blueprint for the NYC project. At least he seems to have given the impression that there'll be an intelligent application.
One more point. I think our isolation from those around us has hurt us a lot.
Our church has a lot of work to do when it comes to making itself a safe place for people who are outside the mainstream and who need support simply because we are a subset of a subset by design and very much averse to any "weirdness" that falls outside our comfort zone.
Add your comment