Samuel or God? Who Bears Responsibility for the Amalekite Genocide?

So who administers justice after Israel? Did you read the original article “Saying NO to God”? I think that explains this very well.

We, Adventists, forget that we are “followers of Christ”, (Christians). This means we weigh and define God by looking at Jesus. If the Jewish definitions and examples and HISTORY doesn’t square with the character and representation of God by Jesus, we can’t attribute cultural cruelty to God just because the Hebrews declared they were just “following God’s orders”.


That’s not it. My problem isn’t with people in general who hold opposing views. My problem is with people who think to take money from the church while actively attacking the church’s primary goals and ideals as paid representatives of the church. I’m especially disturbed when these same people wish to hide their actions from the parents who are sending their own children to our schools with the full expectation that the professors at these church schools will actually support the church. Yet, these professors get very upset when their actions are made public - when they can no longer hide what they are doing from the church at large.

Do you really think it’s a “little thing” when our own professors are attacking the primary goals and ideals of the church from the inside? - and expect to continue to do so without the church at large being informed? Even Mrs. White called out Battle Creek for doing such things so that all would be aware - advising parents not to send their children there until these issues could be resolved…

1 Like

That’s fine. My point is that parents need to be well informed as to what they are buying with their money when sending their children to our schools. Then, they, like you, can make up their own minds where to send their children based on full information…

Again, even if this were true, it’s irrelevant to my point (and to the position of George as well). Regardless of how a person became broken (we all are broken after all), God offers a way out of such a broken state…

1 Like

Your reference point for gays automatically defaults to sex. You see us just as a sex act, and give no quarter to the idea that we are, most of us, just normal human beings no different than straight people, for the exception we are same sex attracted rather than opposite sex attracted. I left the SDA church 4 years ago, for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the predominate thinking within the ranks of the hostile position you take here. I wonder how many corpses of homosexuals you may have examined through the years who may have just decided to commit suicide rather than live with a noose of shame hung on them.


That’s for sure, and that was OUT of that ecclesiastical debating society I had been a member of my entire life. The church broke me to pieces.


Our world has changed. We now have the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization, whose aim is “maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.” Gone are the days when faith had carte balance. When faith and social issues clash, our obligation is to respect and give dignity to our fellow human beings as a wise rabbi admonishes. Anything less is a disgrace.


You keep on saying this Sean but you still have to give us a case of a successful conversion of a homosexual. We’re waiting. Tom @bigtomwoodcutter is a good example of one who went through a number of interventions with hopes of converting but how to you convert someone who needs no conversion. It is an insult to question someone’s sexuality. Would you take offense if someone asked you sincerely if you were gay?


Yes, yes, yes, very well said Elmer. Even if your not in this line of science; how do you embrace conversion therapy.


The approach that religion takes against any non conformist thoughts on their particular orthodoxy reminds me a lot of the scorched earth approach Samuel attributed to his concept of god in the amalekite story


Sadly the legalistic approach of religious organizations will not or can not accept a loving God whose deference to Freedom of Choice would dare to accept all without preconditions. This is where Christ found the religious leaders of his day, and unsurprisingly time has not changed man’s preference for exclusivity and the feeling of superiority it fosters.


Agreed! WHo would just toss their daughters out to be abused? And no laws against molesting children puzzles me, too. It’s very damaging to the child it happens to–but silence from the Bible. It’s like, just do whatever you want to women and children. I’ve heard some people say some of the words translated to mean homosexual actually mean pederasty-- which specifically is about male children. No laws to protect us female children.:disappointed_relieved: there is a lot in the Bible or not in the Bible that I don’t understand.


It is times like these when developmental theories of the mind come in handy and can shed insight as to why this behaviors even exits. This phenomenon is frequently seen among children exposed to trauma during their formative years. They cling to a utopia or trauma and have a difficult time relinquishing the object without a replacement. These individuals become dogmatic and do very well in sales, military or even in religion because it serves as a cover-up to their deficient self. We also see these behaviors when children are exposed to over demanding parents. They feel compelled to maintain the status for fear of losing the love of their parents. These are but two of many theories that can explain how “legalism” develops and can keep a long life.


You’re not the main problem here. I’d have no problem with you personally and what you personally believe at all except that you are a professor in an Adventist school - Pacific Union College.

It’s this school who presents itself as being in line with the primary goals and ideals of the Adventist Church, when it really isn’t. I have friends of mine who have gone to PUC and talked to the leadership about sending their children to PUC. They’ve specifically asked about the situation at La Sierra University and asked the PUC leadership and heads of departments what their position is on teaching the theory of evolution as “the truth” - and if the teachers at PUC support the SDA position on origins and other issues? They were told that PUC does not condone what happened at LSU and that the professors at PUC are fully in line with the SDA position on origins and all of the other fundamental positions of the church.

Of course, you know and I know that this just isn’t true. You, for one, publically speak and teach against the church’s position on origins as well as human sexuality. This reality is not being presented by the leadership of PUC to the parents of potential PUC students. This reality simply isn’t being advertised to the general church membership at all. What PUC should be advertizing to parents and the church membership at large is, “Yes, we do maintain professors who teach our students that the church’s position on various fundamental doctrinal issues is in fact wrong and should be changed to reflect the more popular secular position on these topics.” That’s what it should be telling everyone, but this just isn’t what is being done.

Since it was placed as one of the church’s “fundamental beliefs” by the church (Link). When you publically publish an article stating that the Church’s position is clearly mistaken and should be changed, that’s an attack on the church’s position.

You call it a “plea for compassion”, but this plea for compassion is presented as a clear statement that the church’s position is absolutely mistaken - that the church’s position is not at all “compassionate” or even biblical. Now, you may be very honest and sincere in your views here, but that doesn’t mean that you’re not attacking the church’s position as being clearly mistaken. You are making a very clear attack on the church’s position while accepting money from the church as a representative who is supposed to be supporting the church as a paid employee.

That’s not my goal. However, if a person wants to know what the Bible has to say about what they are doing, I’m not going to pretend that the Bible has nothing to say when the Bible does in fact have something to say. If what the Bible says “causes pain” to a person living in what the Bible says is a “sinful” lifestyle, that’s between them and God. The very same thing is true of me and my own sinful tendencies. If what the Bible says about what I’m doing causes me pain, I can either respond to that by ignoring what the Bible has to say, or I can ask God for help in changing my ways.

Jesus himself said that He did not come to bring peace to those who are living in rebellion against God’s ideals for humanity, but a “sword” (Matthew 10:34). The denial of self and what we naturally want to do given our fallen condition, in order to follow God and what He calls us to do, is often quite painful indeed. That doesn’t mean it’s not the best path to follow. There simply can be no peace between God and those who wish to hang onto what God has said to give up. God does not condemn the sinner for being born broken, but He does warn those who refuse to accept His offer of help to escape their broken condition that, eventually, such refusals of help will not end well for those who are determined to follow their own way.

1 Like

I’ve given you a case (and there are many) of a successful conversion of the lifestyle of a homosexual man - the case of Becket Cook. His story is quite fascinating and enlightening - at least for me. Sure, as is the case for most of us, Becket did not experience a sudden loss of tendency or temptation for his former lifestyle. Yet, he did experience a significant decrease in his need to continue in that lifestyle as he started his daily walk with God. That’s been my own experience as well as I’ve chosen to walk with God on a daily basis…

1 Like

Me too, Melissa! :scream:


Sean, I understand the tendency of certain fundamentalist mindset to consolidate everything into a monolithic oversimplified concepts of otherwise complex reality, but Academia isn’t like a factory job where you are hired to to one thing.

And that’s why this is a straw man argument you are repeating, since it doesn’t apply to the realm of Academic research, or debate and criticism of either orthodox or progressive concepts. You can’t get to the truth if we fail to honestly discuss these issues in some broader forum that’s not limited to the board-room judgement meeting to the like of the Diet of Worms.

Speaking of that, was Luther stealing from Catholic Church? How about Copernicus or Galileo? What are you REALLY talking about here? Do you think that obscurantism is the way to go in our organizational discourse?

Have you asked yourself, certain questionable positions are really as sound as you make them to be, why isn’t there dedicated space in public SDA discourse for official debates on these issues that all Adventist body can engage in and contribute to?

I’ve already pointed out that such structures are necessary for efficiency :slight_smile: You are not injecting anything new as a counter to my argument. You are merely agreeing with me, and you point to these extremes to make it seem like that’s what we want here.

My point was not that we shouldn’t have that structure. My point was that such structures are not there to stifle broader dialog and debates on matters of theology from the POV of people who disagree with each other. What the current structure does is setting up the illusion of uniformity. And it minimizes any channels of opportunities for broader exposure of perspectives on these issues.

You understand that OEC doesn’t necessarily integrates evolution, right? It’s a range of perspectives that attempt to reconcile the seemingly old age of Earth with Creationism.

In the Adventist realm, it generally translated into an idea that the VS 1 of Genesis isn’t merely a summary, but a reference to a pre-existing process of various geological processes that took place prior to Creation on Earth.

So, the idea is that it obviously took some time for Creation of other worlds, including the one of Angels with the “war in heaven” couldn’t happen between Gen 1 and Gen 3.

There’s a range of Adventist positions on this subject that still retain literal days, with some postulating some gaps, but not where traditionally these are stretched creation process itself.

I think if you are not sure what it means, a proper thing is to ask questions. The tendency with YEC apologists to be jump the gun and argue against something that other people don’t believe. And fail to ask before addressing the imagined issues.


We seem to have a ‘catch-22’ going on here with a certain poster. Also a desire to repeat over and over the same words in different sentences. Passive, aggressive…maybe? Time to ignore, if I am allowed to say such!


If he were to apply for a faculty position at PUC, would you give him an unqualified recommendation?

Would you support him if he were to join the SDA church?

Can you elaborate on this please…

as i’ve said, the amalekite story and homosexuality both hinge on whether to accept and obey the voice of god, or whether to filter that voice through our own experience and understanding…

tom, no-one’s having a difficult time here at Spectrum…just because people disagree with you because you fail to make your case or use faulty premises doesn’t mean you’re having a difficult time…

our fallen nature is more than a temptation…it’s a condition that, in and of itself, is condemned and estranged from god…this is why it isn’t enough to clean up our exterior and modify our behaviour…all of us need to die to what we are and start all over with the new nature christ gives to us as a gift, and which we protect and nurture for the rest of our lives here on earth through the strength he also freely gives us…

if our fallen nature were merely a temptation, the merciful thing would be mass infanticide, in which people could be saved because they were prevented from knowingly yielding to the temptation of their fallen nature…egw clearly teaches us that babies are saved on the basis of their parents’ faith, which would not be the case if their infant natures were a clean, uncondemned slate…

and while doing wrong is definitely a biblical definition of sin, so is knowingly not doing right…but aside from the relationship of willful or even unconscious deeds or non-deeds to sin, inspiration is very clear that our starting condition is what makes us sinners…in fact from the moment we’re conceived, and growing in our mother’s womb, we are condemned sinners…this concept, correctly factored in, forces the realization that jesus’ ministry in the MHP, and even in the HP, has been much more than interceding for the confession of known sin…even if egw hadn’t spelled it out, which she has, we can see that jesus of necessity intercedes for us even when we knowingly do good…the big lesson in passages like Haggai 2:11-14 is that our sinful fallen nature contaminates even the praises that we offer to god for forgiving us when we sin, which is echoed in famous egw passages, like 1SM:344…this in turn shows us that christ’s imputed righteousness is an ongoing part of our sanctification through his spirit, which is directly antithetical to LGT…

what seems to you, or anyone, is irrelevant…inspiration is clear that while jesus, like us, had a fallen nature during his time on earth, it is equally clear that while our fallen human nature is sinful, jesus’ fallen human nature was sinless…in addition, inspiration is very clear that jesus’ fallen human nature was never a source of temptation, although his divine nature, which we don’t share, and which he never relinquished, was…

upon reflection, it is evident that christ could not have been our sacrifice if his fallen nature was sinful, like ours…in this event, he himself would have needed a saviour, which he clearly didn’t…

sean, to me you seem reasonably bright…i think you owe it to yourself and the people you may be influencing to make the effort to understand what inspiration really teaches on the subject of original sin, the nature of christ, and the mechanics of our salvation…it isn’t, at all, what the conservative segment of our church has been loudly screaming for yrs now…

I am done discussing anything further with @seanpit. I find that conversations I have been having here, with every expectation that they are part of this discussion and not some other, are being snipped and posted on his Educate Truth site, and he never even asked my permission to do so. This is highly unethical behavior. I do not plan to address him at Educate Truth, nor do I plan to have one more conversation with @seanpit here either. My suggestion to all others here is to just ignore his intrusions and let him stew in his own little realm. It should be apparent by now that anything anyone writes here may potentially be snipped by @seanpit and used to further his own goals. I am deeply disappointed in this level of unethical behavior, and I don’t know whether this runs counter to Spectrum policies, but in case it is, I would appreciate it if the @webEd would look into it.

I do not say any of this because I ever assumed what I write here to be private, but I should be able to expect that outsiders will not be allowed to use my words out of context in other venues without first obtaining my permission to do so. If others want to see what I have said here, they should come here, not see it second hand in an out of context personal attack…