Contributor

About Contributor

Posts by Contributor :

Fundamentalism: A Hinderance to Spiritual Evolution

July 15, 2021

Webster defines Fundamentalism as a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

Growing Away From Fundamentalism

Like many Christian denominations the SDA Church fits this definition. It limits the notion of life and humanity to the pages of an ancient text. The reliance on such dogma is a hinderance to spiritual evolution. SDAs are spiritually bigger. But live a stunted life.

When religious institutions free themselves from strict dogma, society can move closer to accepting a series of undeniable facts. We can grow up. It’s simple really. We exist, the earth exists, the universe exists, and no one knows how or why. This is cosmic truth. If there is a god, how did that god come to be? If there was always a god, then there was always a universe.

Releasing the chains of dogma, especially fundamentalism as related to the literal words in the ancient, Bible texts, will free the mind. This freedom will allow acceptance of our tiny place in the cosmos. The splendor and fantastic state of it all. We are quite alone. Ours is the world, a speck in the ever-expanding universe.

The universe is greater and more phenomenal than notions of god. We are the cosmos, from it we became and we cannot escape from it. Even if there could have been a greater intelligence, a god, it too would have been tied, bound and made of and from the cosmos.

Inside the unknown is a basic truth. We are now. Humanity is a twinkle in the eye of time. That is a fundamental case for goodness.

Anonymous

Unknown Author
Submitted by A-A

Contributor / Science & Religion /

Thoughts on Creationism: Science Theory

March 17, 2021

Here are my Thoughts on Creationism. There are some good points here. I have never said that Creationism is History, I have said it is Philosophy – i.e Worldview.

Creationism is Not Science

It is also very important for everybody to understand that Creationism is not science. Centuries ago, science was pretty much a synonym for knowledge. Nowadays, Science means something narrower and far more specific. Primarily it means the Scientific Method—which is a seething broth of speculation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and conclusions.

Secondarily, Science is about models, e.g. mathematical models, or descriptive models, and not necessarily about truth. And as such, the concepts of natural and mechanistic have a large defining role in Science. One could go so far as to say that SUPERnatural cannot ever be science. That would throw the Scientific Method on its head. We have all seen and understood the cartoon of the mathematician scribbling on a blackboard – many equations and diagrams to the left (which are apparently the beginnings of his argument or proof), and many more on the right (presumably the conclusion), and then a big cloud in the middle with the words “a miracle happens.”

The same logic applies to Science in general. No progress in any discussion of these topics can be made until everybody “gets it.”

Finally, it is important to understand that in a very real sense, Science is what Scientists do. Science is not an objective category created by God. It is an artificial man-made category and therefore men get to define its boundaries and subject matter.

Scientists Model our Universe

Since the early 1900’s (and the advent of Quantum Mechanics, in particular), Scientists have largely come around to the idea that the models they use may not be actual core truth but only computational conveniences. The criteria for success has ceased to be some sort of beauty or truth but practical results.

Quantum Mechanics may or may not be “true” but many things you use every day were discovered or invented by turning the crank on QM equations. And no competing theory does better. Therefore QM is currently The Theory of physics. There are many holes. Physicists would say this does not prove it wrong, just that there are areas for further research and analysis.

Similarly, Evolution is The Theory of biology. Again, holes prove nothing, just areas for future PhD theses. And like physics and QM, Evolution is used because it works and there is no better alternate theory. Medicine (esp. pharmaceuticals) are particularly dependent on theories of evolution.

The Limits of Science

The important thing is that Science can neither prove nor disprove religion or creationism. We very quickly get into a philosophical realm in which we think about sources of knowledge, definitions of truth and reality, etc. There are philosophical schools of thought in which truth and reality are largely denied, in favor of perceptions and transient concepts and models.

There is another school of thought in which the philosophers believe that Science and reality are the same thing and that no other definition of reality makes sense. These are the people who hate religion and Creationism the most.

Listen carefully and deeply – this is NOT a scientific principle and is not science. It is philosophy. i.e. it is somebody, who according to his philosophy and worldview, believes Science is all there is. This opinion is no more or less valid than someone who believes there is more than science.

I would love for there to be required curriculum, starting no later than high school, that deals with these philosophical issues.

Now, let us take an extreme view for the sake of argument. Sometimes this approach is very informative. Let us say that Scientists were to prove (at least as strongly as they have proven the former heresies that the earth is round and that the earth goes around the sun) that the geological earth is billions of years old, and has rather uniformly evolved, and that the biological earth is millions of years old, and has rather uniformly evolved.

What then? It still proves nothing. It just means, if all this stuff were created several thousand years ago, with distinct species, etc., that God created things already aged, i.e. “already in progress”.

Science vs Religion

Most even radical church goers and extreme bible thumpers believe Adam had a belly button and adult teeth, etc. and trees had tree rings. The critical question is what a Scientist would say if he visited the Garden of Eden soon thereafter. He would be interested in what the evidence was telling him. There would be no place in his logic for “a miracle happened a few days ago”.

Finally, let’s take the Religionists and Creationists to task. Their fault has been (for centuries) of attempting to use worldly knowledge and “science” to prove religion. This is a fatal approach for many reasons. Foremost include: Worldly knowledge and science is ever boiling, seething and changing. Therefore not suitable for dogma, and non-scientists (including priests and popes), usually get even settled science either wrong or off-kilter. And then there have been numerous battles between Science and Religion over the centuries and Science always wins!

Even in the estimation of the Religionists. For instance, consider the heliocentric theory of the solar system. That used to be the very worst and most hated heresy. Now, everybody agrees it is true.

Bottom line to all these thoughts on Creationism:

Creationism (or any other religious sentiment or “truth”) is not science.
Religion cannot use science to prove itself.
Science cannot use itself to disprove religious beliefs.
Science cannot even use science to prove or disprove itself (in the sense of absolute truth). Therefore, at its core, science is about models and not necessarily truth.
Religionists (esp Creationists) cannot disprove science. At most they can point out incompleteness or inconsistencies. Scientists will choose whether to ignore such observations, put them on the list of things to explore, or as the basis for new theories. But in any case, miracles will never be part of science.

A Few More Thoughts on Creationism

PS: The reason Religionists hate scientists is a little weird in my opinion. In the old days, Religion was boosted by having many unknowns and mysteries. This was used to brainwash the great illiterate masses that a god (The God) must surely exist to create and/or control all these mysteries.

As more and more mysteries get explained by Science, the church loses this argument. It is my strong opinion that the church erred greatly in this approach. Shot themselves in the foot actually. You must believe in God for reasons of faith, and love, and salvation – not because you cannot imagine how a planet can roll around on its own without an angel pushing it.

A Tiny Bit More Thoughts on Creationism

PPS: Having been raised in a very strict and fundamental manner, and having been taught by, and having taught at, an Adventist college science department, I am very sympathetic to the views of the Creationists – as Fact, as Philosophy, and as History. But I think they are their own worst enemy in their chosen tactics. Creationism is not, will not, and cannot ever be science. Just leave it alone already. The best and only way to deal with the issue is via the channel of philosophies, beliefs, and worldviews.

To make it even stronger, it does Creationism no good whatsoever to criticize evolution or even proving parts of it wrong. People wrongly want to make it a two- party game: i.e., there are only two competing theories and one is right and the other is wrong.

They cannot both be right. Under this scenario, proving evolution wrong then of course bolsters Creationism. But that is a very wrong – and frankly, very amateur – set of assumptions. (There are many versions of Creationism – ranging from exactly specific, to largely allegorical.

Similarly, there are a nearly unbounded number of possible evolutionary versions, and likely even other mechanisms not yet enumerated.) Even if you could prove ALL of evolution wrong, scientists would still not embrace Creationism. I can also credibly be extreme in the other direction.

Evolution, like Quantum Mechanics, is almost certainly “wrong”. But both will evolve (no pun intended) and someday we will be using newer and improved theories. But I can be 100% certain that there will be nothing “supernatural” in the new theories. Scientists are not interested in non-repeatable and non-experimental miracles. Only analyzable natural events.

A-A Editor’s Note:

The following is published here with the permission of the author. It was taken from a couple of emails and was not intended to be a polished essay. Nevertheless the author is quite articulate and what he says is definitely worthy of consideration. It started out as a reaction (sent to a friend) to this news article and in particular to the second reader’s comment (“Philip M., Australia, 21 September 2011”). Other than to fix a few trivial typos I have left the author’s words unchanged.

Get the Paper: Thoughts on Creationism

Ted Park

Contributor

Contributor / Contemporary /

It’s All Mr. Newton’s Fault

December 15, 2020

Hit on the head by Newton’s Law. The other day I was cleaning and reorganizing a small storage area. Small enough that I kept banging my head into objects that were even harder than my head.

Feeling Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

This project involved moving heavy objects from one place to another and stacking things on top of other things. If I dropped something or knocked something over it would come (go?) crashing down onto the floor. And, I confess, that, in spite of being a vegetarian, there were a few times that I muttered non-vegetarian swear words.

Well, a day or two later I realized those frustrating things that happened were Mr. Isaac Newton’s fault. They were all because of his laws. His laws are why boxes are heavy, why they fall down towards your toes if you drop them, and why my bald head was bruised because two solid objects can’t occupy the same space at the same time.

So, I got to thinking about what would happen if we could turn his laws off just for the situations when they work against us. Say I want to lift a heavy box up off the floor to put it on top of another box. Just turn off the law that makes it heavy so instead of dropping it, I would easily get it where I wanted it. But, of course, I would need to turn Newton’s Law off very carefully and selectively.

Using the Newton’s Law Switch

If he was all the way off even for a few seconds the world would come apart. Very quickly. So, it would be necessary to turn him off just for the box. Certainly not for me because I want to keep my feet planted solidly on the floor. Now, if the box was temporarily not subject to gravity it should be easy to lift. It would work like this: (1) need to lift heavy box; (2) turn off the gravity switch for the box; (3) put it up on top of the other box; (4) turn gravity switch back on so box stays put when I let go of it.

Sounds easy. Then I realized that if gravity temporarily did not apply to the box, maybe instead of it being heavy it would try to fly up away from the floor and I would find myself hanging on to it trying to hold it down. That means that instead of needing an on/off switch for gravity I would need a dial allowing me to adjust the level that gravity would apply so I could dial it back part way until I had the box where it was going to stay put.

Obviously this idea is getting too complicated. Looks like I’d better not mess with the laws of physics, just stand aside and let them do their thing. Nor does it make any sense to think about which ones I like and which ones I don’t like. They all work together to provide a consistent and predictable environment that allows us to go about our everyday lives knowing what to expect.

So what’s my point?

Well, it’s like this. I keep up-to-date with the material posted on the Adventist Alumni web site where you found this. Thus, I read Wonderly’s paper (see similar paper) on the ice core, the the one with all the graphs—graphs that I studied carefully. They made sense to me. Then, I heard recently that a top level church administrator actually looked at some sections of the Greenland ice core at the place near Denver where they are kept. And of course, he heard the little presentation that was part of the arranged tour. He saw the layers. Then he walked away saying, “I don’t believe it.”

What that means is that he doesn’t believe Isaac Newton’s laws and a few other laws of physics that explain the seasons and the weather patterns. These behavior patterns of Mother Earth are what made the ice cores with their annual layers. Maybe he is high enough up there that he can ignore Mr. Newton’s law. Not me. When I ignore him, I drop things on my toes and that hurts.

By Ben Franklin [a pseudonym]

Anonymous

Unknown Author
Submitted by A-A

Contributor / Adventism, Contemporary /

Adventist Alumni: Thoughts on Who We Are

November 15, 2020

Adventist Alumni are all types of Seventh Day Adventist. I’m writing about this web site… and using A-A thoughts as an abbreviation for both Adventist-Alumni.com and Adventist alumnus.

Reading about who we are before continuing here might give more insight into these comments because they build upon what’s said there. What is this web site about? Yes, there’s the Mission Statement and the Not Mission but they need to be enlarged upon because it is important that the people who come here have the right understanding of where it is that they have come.

Some of you have been A-A for many years and you know where you are and you’re happy and content there. That is good. I hope you enjoy this virtual gathering place where freedom of thought and expression are highly valued. We seek and will value your input and your experience.

We Welcome You

This little essay is aimed more at those of you who are not sure you belong here; not sure you want to be here. The door is open so come on in. We promise, we will not close the door behind you. Stay for a while and observe people who have set their thoughts free to explore other possible ways of looking at the world.

Who are Adventist Alumni: Don't Panic

The nice thing about A-A’s virtual world is that you can stay where you are and be here too. Like being two places at once.

Let me use the symbol T-A to designate “Traditional Adventist.” Now traditional is not bad. It’s a place where people are. I was once there myself. In fact, almost by definition, every A-A was at one time a T-A.

T-A is a respectable place to be. If you’re questioning the T-A position, or easing away from it, you are already, and perhaps unwittingly, headed in the A-A direction. Note that “unwittingly” is not “bad.” I was unwittingly becoming A-A long before I heard of the term A-A.
There are lots of people who are “other religion” alumni. They are welcome here too. If you are one of those you will discover you have much in common with A-A’s. The only problem is that you may not understand Adventist inside jokes—and we may not be able to explain them to you. Feel free to tell us “other religion” inside jokes…

Who are Adventist Alumni: Breathe

The people here are friendly.

In fact, that’s about the only requirement for being here. The big points I want to make and emphasize here are these:

A-A is not here to convince you to leave T-A and become A-A.
A-A is here to help you make the transition from T-A to A-A, if you are contemplating doing so. If you already made the transition, A-A is offering you a new friendly place to be.
If you don’t know yet that you are really A-A instead of T-A that’s fine too. Maybe you need help to figure out why it’s difficult to seek out non T-A ideas.
You don’t have to “leave” the SDA church to become A-A. A-A is an “intellectual odyssey thing”. No, that does not mean that A-As are smarter than T-A’s. Be aware that lots of people are both SDA and A-A.
You don’t have to believe any certain thing to be A-A, although it probably helps to believe in intellectual freedom.
A-A is a big tent place. Both by plan and also because A-A’ers taken as a group hold a very wide spectrum of beliefs.

That’s enough big points.

Is it really hard to let go of those traditional ways of thinking?

Young Folks Wanted

Being old (whatever that means) is not a requirement for becoming A-A. One of the sad facts about the SDA church is that many bright young people, some of whom are highly educated, are leaving because they need a big tent and the church is not providing it for them.

We welcome young people into our big A-A tent. We look forward to the ideas they will submit.

Submitted by Ann Alumnus – A pseudonym

Anonymous

Unknown Author
Submitted by A-A

Contributor / Adventism /

Glossary of North American SDAs

February 15, 2020

The Glossary of North American SDAs is a humorous look at the labels Adventist give themselves. These little definitions are good examples of humor as reflected in religious life.

A Little Adventist Humor

Religion is serious business. But it’s important to step back and laugh at ourselves sometimes. Humor is a way to reduce frustration, to see the other side and most of all to keep from taking ourselves too seriously.

Glossary of SDAs: A through C

Addventists – Add rules and regs to denom life. Example: After church you may take a Sabbath day’ s journey (Acts 1:12) to a lake, river or ocean, and wade, but not swim.

Badventists – Swim on Sabbath afternoons. Polish shoes or press pants on Friday night after sundown or Sabbath morning before church. Skip Wednesday evening prayer meeting. Attend ballet, movies, opera, live stage theater, rock concerts.

Watch professional sports events – baseball, basketball, football, golf, hockey, Indy-500, NASCAR, soccer, women’ s tennis – at least on TV, Rent R-rated videos. “Sample the slots” when driving through Nevada or an Indian reservation. Dine out on Sabbath. Eat burgers, New England clam chowder, hot dogs with yellow mustard. Drink caffeinated coffee and cola, black tea, white wine. Wear finger rings (not just wedding), dangling earrings, necklaces, bracelets, makeup. Bleach, tint, dye, braid hair. Wear hair pieces if not wigs.

Use hair styling gel, nail polish, foundation, eyeliner, mascara, lipstick. Play checkers, chess, and real cards instead of Rook. Dance ballroom, barn, break, contra, country, hip hop, line, square. Read novels from Tolkien to Tolstoy to Twain, while leaving unread the “red books.” Ride bicycles. Play tennis. Enlist in one of the five military services, bear arms and work on Sabbath.

Cadventists – Believe, preach, teach, lecture others on, but don’ t live, Adventism
Cladventists – Think to have “put on the whole armor”, but…
Cocoadventists – Think chocolate boasts less caffeine than coffee, so it must be proportionately less sinful.
Comradventists – Aging former Pathfinders who hark back to the “good old” days before the Soviet Socialist revolution in Russia created the C-word ( “Communist” )
Curadventists – Try to put band-aids on church cancers.
Cycadventists – Have retired to Palm Springs or other desert hot-spots to avoid “the wrath to come”

Glossary of SDAs: D through M

Dadventists – Full of “headship theology” they raise Ladventists to be full of “headship theology”
Dyadventists – Marrieds who think to actually control an uncontrollable God and prevent the Second Coming by deliberately not “finishing the work”.
Egadventists – Use “Guy”, “tinkled-off”, “scared witless”, “bullspit” and other euphemisms
Fadventists – Got pumped by Net-90-Something. Raised hair, popped eyes and dropped jaws at Revelation Seminars. Switched from Morrie Venden (the SDA “Martin Luther”) to Doug Batchelor (of “Amazing Fiction!”). Carry the NIV instead of the KJV. Attend celebration church where they enjoy dancing. Fatten up on Little Debbie health foods (hell foods?) because they’re made by Adventists, not to mention such food substitutes as Gardenburgers, Mock Turkey, Fakin’ Bacon, Wham, and Phony Baloney.

Gadventists – Scuttle about among various local congregations as part of the Advent movement.
Gladventists – Grin and bear the “Adds” (see Addventists, Scadventists)
Goodventists – Wear broach jewelry, play Rook.
Gradventists – Church alumni, some of whom hold the RA* degree. They have learned, for instance, that the Clear Word Bible is 100% egg white.
Grrr-adventists – Put the VENT in AdVENTism
Hadventists – Have had it with Adventism.
Jihadventists – “Holy warriors” who want Jesus to come soon and destroy their enemies with lethal radiation from the sky.
Ladventists – FDAs (Future Dadventists of America raised on “headship theology”)
Madventists – Envy Badventists
McAdventists – Plaidventists
Meccadventists – Immigrate or at least pilgrimage to Adventist “hot spots”, such as Berrien Springs, College Place, Collegedale, Hagerstown, La Sierra, Loma Linda, Nampa, Silver Spring, and St. Helena
Mochadventists – Believe caffeine at Starbucks to be proportionately less sinful than caffeine at home

Glossary of SDAs: N through S

NASDADventists – National Association of SDA Dentists (NASDAD) who convene after the annual American Dental Association (ADA) meeting for a prayer breakfast and a dentistry-update class permitting the entire trip to be written off their taxable incomes. Example ADA convention venues: Anaheim (for Disneyland), Orlando (for Epcot Center), Chicago (for Miracle Mile), and Las Vegas (for vdesert cactus tours)

Noncombadaventists – Defend country by leaving the trigger-squeezing to such fellow enlistees as agnostics, atheists, Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jews, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.

Packadventists – Fill convention centers to hear Doug Batchelor tell his cave conversion story
Padventists – Committed to Sabbath-afternoon “lay activities”
Papaladventists – Recognize the hierarchy’s “First Minister” (GC Pres) as Pope incognito
Plaidventists – McAdventists
Radventists – Liberal Adventists, often falsely confused with Badventists
Sadventists – Veteran Gladventists
Scadventists – Historical/Hysterical Adventists (HAs) who emburden themselves with “scads of adds” (see Addventists)
Schmadventists – Dismiss anything even remotely connected to the SDA church as “Adventist Schmadventist!”

Glossary of SDAs: T through Z

Tadventists – Dabble or toy with Adventism
Toscadventists – Hold season tickets to the opera
Try-adventists – “Good worksers”, such as BenTrying of Battle Creek, who study to show themselves approved and perfectly sinless without Mediator or Intercessor
Vegetadventists – Avoid animals as food, but not as:

Afghan wraps (from the hair of slaughtered camels)
Angora scarves, shawls and sweaters (from the fur of slaughtered rabbits)
Boar bristle shaving brushes (from the bristle hair of slaughtered pigs)
Cashmere finery and kid gloves (from the hair and skin of slaughtered goats)
“Catgut” strings for tennis rackets, musical instruments and surgical sutures (from the intestines of slaughtered sheep)
Avoid fish caviar eggs (because that is flesh food) while indulging chicken hen eggs (because that is not flesh food)
Detergent, fabric softener, “glitter” makeup and nail polish (from ingredients such as scales of slaughtered fish)
Down comforters, parkas and sleeping bags (from the feathers of slaughtered ducks and geese)
Glue, candle, crayon, lipstick, lubricant, paint, rubber, shaving cream, soap and wax paper (from various ingredients of slaughtered cattle)
Leather billfolds, briefcases, belts, Bible covers, cell phone cases, La-Z-Boys, Lexus or Lincoln Town Car interiors, Sabbath shoes, Sunday boots and saddles at cowboy camp meeting, suede handbags, wristwatch bands (from the hides of slaughtered cattle)
Perfume, cologne, and scented soaps, candles, lip balm, sachets, etc. (from the glands of slaughtered beavers, civets, deer, muskrats and otters)

Vladventists – (from “Vlad the Impaler”, q.v.) Vampires who suck lifeblood out of all other Adventists.

Adventist are a serious lot. But when we can, we will and do laugh at ourselves. The best of us are able to see the importance of add humor to our religious life.

Contributed by Nor the Son of a Prophet

Anonymous

Unknown Author
Submitted by A-A