The Danger of Dobbs

I wasn’t debating theology here. Just saying the idea of a “CREATOR” was interwoven in the fabric of the new nation, as the opening paragraph of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights suggest.

Do we have to raise the specter of current partisan politics yet again. It seems the left wing of Adventists have politicized the “evangelic” group of Christians to the point of chasing them into the hills in the end, (instead of the other way around). Just because Adventists have seated God on a throne in a heavenly edifice, doesn’t mean we have more validity than those who saw God to be a mystery.

BTW, we should review the beliefs of other faiths before we relegate them to the dust heap.


It is important to recognize the fact that genuine Christians, that is, the saints of God, who are born of the Spirit of truth are always at war with principalities and powers, with spiritual wickedness in high places, with the rulers of the darkness of the world. All these make up the army of satan. Christian soldiers, especially the Ministers of God are the major targets of these principalities and powers who muster their unseen arrays waiting for their unguarded hour. And so they cannot afford to be at ease in Zion and entangle themselves with the affairs of this life. They live their lives in accordance to the scripture in II Timothy 2:4, which reads “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.”

True Christians must recognize the fact that the whole world lieth in wickedness because the world and its vain glory belong to satan, the prince of this world. Satan tempted Jesus Christ with the kingdoms of the world and their vain glories. That would have meant bowing down to satan, if he had allowed Himself to be enticed by the glory of this world.
Even when Jesus perceived the intention of some men to forcibly make Him a king, because they saw all the miracles that He did, Jesus avoided this earthly honour, by departing from them to hide Himself. John 6:15 He declined the earthly honour because He knew that His kingdom was not of this world, where people who desperately aspire for a political ambition make use of their “loyalists” to defend themselves against their enemies or their opponents. John 18:36

In Isaiah 42:2, Prophet Isaiah, prophesied of Jesus Christ who is the perfect example for all Christians, who are conscious of heaven. And what was that prophecy? “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” The meaning of this prophecy is this: Jesus would not contend with opponents neither would He raise His voice in the street to cause a mob “spirit” that would incite the people to fight for Him against His opponents. Therefore, speak up , be active, be real!

As I’m sure you are aware, this is the very argument that was used by the south to argue against the outlawing of slavery by the U.S. federal government. It was framed by them as a matter of states rights. However, they were also very aggressive in trying to legalize slavery in all states. They initiated a civil war over it…supposed states rights.

This is the present agenda. Abortion is now being criminalized in many of the same states, and there are plans to criminalize and thus prosecute women in those states who cross state lines to receive an abortion in states where it is still legal. And, the push isn’t over, as many anti abortionists are pushing for a national ban of it.

The real agenda behind this crusade isn’t about states rights. It’s about swinging the pendulum to the opposite side through a national outlawing of abortion…much as the wealthy southern plantation owners used states rights as a cover for the universalizing of a slave economy in the nation at the time.

And they used the Bible to support their arguments, too.



For me also, please : Three texts ? I only have always heard of one ! (Gen 2 : 7) - And - so Sirie - there we have no scientific determination.

(What about the machinery keeping you “alive” when you no more have your own spontaneous breathing ? Or my mouth to mouth help in case you are an emergency right before my feet ?))

As has been already said, the framers of the Constitution overwhelmingly weren’t. They were largely deists, masons, Unitarians, etc. These are far removed from a Christian conception of God. Christian Nationalism, the movement behind this legislation, is pointing to a false narrative and paradigm upon which this country was founded, and Constitution was framed.

The problem is that theology is tightly interwoven into this entire issue and the Christian Nationalist involvement in politics and the Republican Party. It cannot be skirted around as if it’s not part of the discussion. It is integral to it.



Why? To put down women just for the heck of it? There is no bigger issue at stake for them?

They may be wrong, but the other side of the issue makes it sound like these numbskull evangelicals just want to make life hard for pregnant teenagers.

Just like the liberal crystal ball predicts a crackdown of all kinds of freedoms by the court if this is allowed to stand; erasing the “states rights” issue is equally dangerous that could lead to a cognitively compromised president pushing the red button thinking he’s ordering his lunch from the kitchen. There has to be PROCESS. If we don’t like what the current process produces, change the procedure with some serious deliberation that doesn’t include wild posters and a lot yelling.

Listen to Boebert, MTG, and the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Pa. Boebert is publicly saying that the church should control the state. Greene just called herself a Christian Nationalist and is also behind a theocratic move. And, the candidate in Pa. basically went on record saying the same, and that atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc., should be marginalized from government and the process, as you put it, because this is essentially a Christian nation.

These are high profile people from the Republican/Christian Right, saying things that no politician would have dared to utter a generation ago. They have a willing and eager audience for it. A large one. Anyone who is trying to paint this as liberal overreaction isn’t paying attention. This agenda is afoot.



Yah, that’s not good. But she’s hardly the face of the Republican agenda. Both sides tend to compare the worst of the “other” to the best of their “own”.

I think you will find the average Republican looking a lot like the average Democrat. That’s actually a problem when it comes to making real progress on anything, but at least you know what to expect - politicians voting to keep their donations flowing.

The end will come whether we enter the fray or not. One side or the other wins; and in the end it makes no difference who.

1 Like

The other side of the isle, on the other hand, will end up with a dystopian world that looks a lot like China. Six of one; half a dozen of the other. I think religion, in general, is going to come under attack. Of course, if you still think the “remnant” are going to be singled out for not keeping Sunday…

I thought that was supposed to be the end game anyway. :woozy_face:


I hear you that the garden variety voter generally has their own concerns, no matter what party. The one big concern is that we are in a climate where such public figures as these would even dare to say the things they are about abolishing the wall between church and state. They have a receptive audience, or they wouldn’t say it.

This seems to be a sea change.


1 Like

As they say, we shall “see”.

Several decades ago polio was everywhere, and many ended up in iron lungs. Surely we can’t say that because they couldn’t breathe on their own, they are officially dead - by that definition.

I, myself, had had a hard time taking that first breath - that slap on my behind didn’t work, nor did a shot of adrenalin. They dunked me in warm and cold baths, and finally the second shot of adrenalin worked. The doctor called me Lazarus on my later visits. That means, even though I couldn’t take that first breath, I was alive.


I never said Jefferson coined the phrase “separation of church and state”. And your right. It was Jefferson, in a letter which he spoke of a wall of separation. The entire group were against a church state union. But Jefferson was a unique, at best, kind of religious person. He took his bible and cut out more than half of it because he didn’t like what it said. He was not a church attender either. Adams was. Adams was a regular church attender, and he was probably the most religious of the group. But he was adamant that the church should be separate from the state, but he didn’t necessarily coin the phrase. The fact is that none of them wanted the kinds of entanglement that took place in parts of Europe where people fled to this country to be free to worship or not worship as they saw fit. The pilgrim’s plight was not lost on any of them. Although they might have taken issue with the Salem witch trial, had they known about the details of it.


[quote=“Sirje, post:18, topic:23046”]

Ok, but that’s hardly a scientific determination.

Who said it was? I agree. As I stated, I hate the proof text mentality. I hate people putting a list of texts to prove this or that. Unless you are a very shallow biblical scholar, you already know that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of contradictions in scripture. If you try hard enough, you can prove or disprove almost anything with a verse or two. But more to the point…there is one concept from Jesus himself that should be paramount. DON’T JUDGE. It’s not our job.

1 Like

I totally agree, but you lost me on the rest. What’s your point?

In the Sixties, as the people was called to the ballot also on the matter of “abortion” - a big promise to this people - we have struggled for a an anthropology out of the Bible, really not with the “proof text” method ! We have been seeking for a guideline in the framework of our SDA community - and NOT any hostile arguments against those mighty in the (our) “world”, as our constitution says : “All the power is in the hands of the people” - and they simply are the maiority - in this “world” - -

While I agree with almost everything you’ve said in many of your comments, you typically get to a point where you make an absolutist statement like this one which is not only not absolute but which also contradicts what you’ve just said.

For example, I agree-as does anyone who’s read the Bible objectively-that the Bible, using the copy-and-paste text method, can be used to “prove” anything and therefore quoting scripture proves nothing

But then you claim Jesus’ message is DON’T JUDGE.

Putting aside the fact that Jesus didn’t write one word of the old or New Testament, there are plenty of other alleged quotes where Jesus himself is very judgmental and even uses ad hominem attacks like a kindergartner at recess. This, combined with other passages where he encourages his followers to emulate him and speak plainly, can and have been used by “Christians” to pronounce judgements not only of their fellow men but to even question the judgment of their fellow Christians.

So we’re in a pretty deep rabbit hole to start with but now we’re asked to decide what’s Jesus’ position on abortion?

Well I’d like to think his thinking is just like mine which is that as a man-and particularly at my age-I’m unlikely to ever have to make that decision, so I’ll let each pregnant woman do whatever her conscience tells is the right thing to do.

But everyone thinks they think like Jesus, even though he hasn’t said anything specific about anything for the past two years, so again I can’t prove I’m right and-again like you- have said virtually nothing absolute.

Bruce, why would you question that we are not supposed to judge people as an absolute? I think it is pretty clear that was Jesus’s carved in stone position. Even He left that to His father. We can’t see people’s hearts, we don’t know what their life’s trials have done to shape their thinking, and even if we did, we don’t have the intelligence to make eternal determinations as to where they should end up. There are some things that are simply above our pay grade.


Sirje, The point is simply, don’t cut and paste bible texts to prove why you should, or could hurt someone by calling them sinful, by ostracizing them from our society. Jesus associated with some pretty tainted characters, and the Pharisees were quick to point it out. It didn’t keep Jesus from loving them, forgiving them, as only He could do. We don’t have the power to forgive them unless they directly harm us, but we can love them and encourage them and offer them a seat in our churches. The whole notion that churches are only for saintly people is wrong. Churches are hospitals full of broken people who need our love and acceptance, not our judgmental finger pointing.

1 Like

Did I call someone sinful???