advindicate

Open full view…

Glendale City Church bans me from church property

Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:50:51 GMT

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:43:09 GMT

Ken, You did not quote my whole sentence which was: "I am not assuming any private sins of any individual, nor even the group Kinship." At the time I was hoping to learn that Kinship leaders were warning their members about high risk sexuality. I was hoping to learn that Kinship had done studies of their members and they had much less HIV & AIDS that other secular clubs of homosexuals that have absolutely no connection with any religion. I had hoped that the SDA homes that many of these members came from had led them to drink & smoke less, maybe have more nutrition minded members than other clubs of homosexuals. I was hoping that at Kinship Kampmeetings there were safe sex posters up that are designed for homosexual gathering places. I was hoping that many Kinship members had made a decision not to be analists and Bill Wientraub was one of their heros. From his reaction, I sense I was wrong, but I am still not sure. I probably was naive. As Kevin h as said, some sins are "unspeakable." If making them so does not prevent sin, then this silence must end. We must "educate, educate, educate" & warn with a deeply concerned voice.

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:46:15 GMT

Glen, I have never denied that homosexuals do not have high intelligence, talent, skill & wonderful personalities. But God has given us clear instruction that those who practice sodomy are not to lead the church. In 1 Cor 5 those who have violated God's sexual standards are described as leaven. We are seeing that in society & the church today. People are “evolving”. These changes are slow & subtle such that “even the very elect (like you) are being deceived” as predicted. I also must apologize as I misread your sentence. I had left out the “to”. So I can agree with you there is a lot more TO gay men and women than unclean sex practices. But God does not see this portion of their life as small in impact or of little consequence. God has instructed His church how to deal with them INSIDE His church. Ken, I am puzzled by your position. Suppose you had a neighbor, Bob, a devout Protestant. He studies the Sabbath with you. After much study Bob says, Ken, I've decided that Sabbath or Sunday doesn't make any difference. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Would you ever say to him, Bob, “I have noticed you work constantly. After your Sunday church, you return to work. You need more rest & family time. Might you at least spend closer to 1/7th of your time resting? Ken, would you see giving such advice as sinful spiritual compromise as you have seen a Christian advising a promiscuous gay, after better advice is rejected, to at least practice safe sex, avoid ”uncleanness" or take HIV prophylaxis?

defunct account
Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:30:34 GMT

Yes, this advice would be sinful spiritual compromise. How is this: > @eliziskander > Sabbath or Sunday doesn't make any difference. any different from this: > @eliziskander > at least spend closer to 1/7th of your time resting By suggesting this, after having studied God's Law together, is to agree with his final assessment; the day is not what's most important, but the "principle" of resting 1/7th is, so do this whenever you want to and you'll be better off. You are sounding like the Pope here. Sabbath rest is not separable from any other part of the commandment. Sabbath rest is not centrally about physical rest and family time. Doing these things doesn't bring one closer to Truth. Doesn't the Pope preach what you are suggesting. For any SDA to suggest that resting 1/7th of your time is a reasonable step in the direction of righteousness is very misguided and unreasonable. Let me also point out that this last analogy you have given is also (like the drunken swimmer) oranges compared to the apples of "a Christian advising a promiscuous gay... to at least practice safe sex..." Resting 1/7th of one's time does not (in and of itself) result in breaking God's commandment, but practicing "safe sex" does involve breaking God's commandment. However, since keeping the Sabbath holy can never be set aside, advising to rest 1/7th of one's time must either clarify that the 1/7th falls on the Sabbath, or that it is in addition to the Sabbath. The basic concept here Elizabeth, is that a Christian (no matter how well-meaning) can never justifiably advise anyone to do anything that includes, or assumes the inclusion of, the breaking of God's commandments. If you are not gathering, you are scattering, if you are not for, you are against. You cannot serve two masters, etc., etc. You are allowing for sin. A Christian does not, under any circumstances, allow for sin. It's really just that simple. Again, can you provide any biblical or SoP support for this idea of teaching people to sin in a better way?

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:00:40 GMT

Ken, Can you not justify ameliorating advice from the standpoint of protecting another person. If you know your promiscuous gay friend who is not even checking his HIV status is putting others at risk, can you not advise him that it is doubly immoral to put others health at greater risk by not getting tested & practicing safe sex? If he knows he is HIV + can you now show great concern that he is honest with all partners? He should not compound his sin of breaking the 7th commandment with the breaking of the 8th & possibly the 6th? Of course you should be absolutely clear this is not condoning sin, but since he is clearly rejecting your Biblical advice, then attempt to reduce the harm to others? Can you not say to the alcoholic, if you must drink, don't drink and drive? Would it be compromising your integrity to say to your alcoholic friend: "Call me if you're drunk. I will come get you and take you home." Would you feel you were facilitating his sin by making such an offer?

defunct account
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:08:47 GMT

Elizabeth, One cannot maintain morally integrity while allowing for sin, in any way. So, basically, the answer to most of your questions here, is, as before, no, one cannot justifiably do these things. > @eliziskander > Of course you should be absolutely clear this is not condoning sin, It is impossible to "be absolutely clear" you are not condoning sin, when your words and actions carry a tacit message of allowing for sin. In all the instances you describe, the Christian thing to do is to call the person out of sin, completely. > @eliziskander > but since he is clearly rejecting your Biblical advice, I think you should consider not focusing on this. Leave it up to God whether or not the person rejects His calling, that is not your responsibility. What is God's advice to us regarding our behavior in the face of those who do not receive the Gospel? Are we to enter into compromise with them? Can you imaging Christ saying, "if you must drink..." or, "call me if you're drunk..." or, "if you're going to fornicate..." A Christian cannot advise someone to do anything, anyth ing at all, no matter how good one's intentions, if in so doing, they communicate a tacit understanding of the continuance of sinful behavior. Do you find any biblical or SoP support for what you are suggesting?

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:47:51 GMT

Thanks again Ken. I appreciate your thoughts. I sense we have many tangled ethical issues here and I want to attempt to tease them apart. I am thinking that in all the scenarios I have presented the issue is doing good to your neighbor by ameliorating the harmful effects of wrong acts. You are seeing in the attempt to do such good as the approval of bad. So I am making a list of behaviors whereby one tries to reduce that bad effects of sin. I am hoping I can get a clearer picture of your ethics. Please tell me which #s are unethical behavior. 1. The Good Samaritan (S) passes the injured Jew. S recognized this Jew as a man who had cheated many people. S decides he is interfering with the justice of God & passes by. 2. A patient with a bad lifestyle sees his doctor. He is given lifestyle instruction by his doc & dietician for several visits. Nothing changes. His doc prescribes BP, cholesterol and gout meds. 3. A doctor treats an AIDS patient even though the patient will not stop being promiscuous. Strong advice is given to change. 4. A doctor strongly advises then treats a HIV - promiscuous man with prophylactic antivirals to help him not become HIV +. 5. The SDA Church communicates with Kinship. They express their concern for the health of its members. They offer to pay for lifestyle educators to help Kinship members to be healthier if Kinship will accept & promote these speakers at their meetings. One of the speakers is someone like Bill Weintraub who will promote cleaner & more equal sex. The SDA Church makes clear statements that cleaner sex is still sin & God wants them to overcome all same sex behavior; but if this is refused, the Church makes this gift in the hope of getting more time & health to Kinship so eventually full repentance may occur. So Ken, which #s do you feel are unethical?

defunct account
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:20:42 GMT

Assuming a biblical world view, and based on the very limited info given, all these examples involve unethical behavior. 1. The Samaritan acts unethically. He should not presume to act for God, but should be a neighbor to the wounded, applying the Balm of Gilead. 2. The doctor acts unethically. He does the patient harm (contrary to his hippocratic oath) by facilitating the continuance of poor quality of life and the premature death of the patient. And we haven't even touched on the spiritual implications. Does any doctor honestly think that it's ok to treat a patient for even a very short time, much less for 10 -20 years, with pills for these things? Will such a doctor stand justified before the Great Physician? 3. The doctor acts unethically. He does the patient harm by facilitating the continuance of poor quality of life and the premature death of the patient. And we haven't even touched on the spiritual implications. The doctor's "strong advice" is easily disregarded by the patient, and is immaterial given the doctor's behavior. Ever heard the saying, "Who you are spe aks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying." 4. The doctor acts unethically. His behavior tells the patient he has license to sin (see #s 2 & 3). 5. The church acts unethically. The church effectively says, "we are going to do this for you whether you repent and change or not." The take home message is, "we'd really like to see you practice safer sex, that's really the most important thing to us right now." "For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?" "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:27:16 GMT

So you are saying that the doctor who does his best to educate a patient to a better lifestyle but the patient utterly fails to control his appetite, you are saying this doctor is unethical if he treats the hypertension, gout and high cholesterol with medications even if he succeeds in prolonging his life compared with no medications. (Lest there be any confusion, lifestyle change will prolong this patient's life much longer than medications.) I am unclear on your answer on #3. I want to make sure you know that if an AIDS patient does not get antivirals he will be highly infective & die rapidly. He can live almost a normal life with antivirals & infect less people. It would be like a death sentence to not give an AIDS patient medications!!! If I have misunderstood your ethics, please correct me, but I fear I do understand them and it makes me sad. IMHO we should be all about promoting health & longevity even if we don't agree with people's lifestyle. We should be able to explain that option B is offered only after the best option A is emphatically refused or failed. Option B need not be presented as a "license to sin"!!!!!!! Option A is always upheld as the best plan and encouraging the patient to switch from Option B to A should continue whenever the doctor refills medications. Thanks again for sharing your position.

George Evans
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:38:17 GMT

Elizabeth, your approach can be viewed as Christlike since He sends rain for the righteous and the wicked. I feel Kenneth approach, while appropriate for young children, is too coercive for adults.

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:04:12 GMT

George, I would never present any of these adult ethical issues to "young children". I don't think Ken would either. This discussion of the ethics of moving to Option B from best Option A is a difficult ethical dilemma. I am guessing what you mean is that children need a more black is sinful & white is saintly and there is no such thing as shades of grey. Is that what you meant? The SDA church has never involved itself in discussions that behavior B is sinful, but less sinful than behavior A in any SDA literature that I have seen. Yet Jesus does exactly that in his comments about the future fate of Sodomites. Jesus said that Sodomites will suffer less punishment than those who reject His messengers. (This may be another way of saying that when the Holy Spirit is working through people and the sinner rejects those people, he is committing the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit)

George Evans
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:30:13 GMT

Elizabeth, as hard as it may be to believe, I was simply trying to agree with you. You can be punitive with your own young children, but not as much with adults.

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:35:43 GMT

"Here is another Option B: Orifice microbicides reduce HIV: "American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). "Novel microbicide gel for vagina, rectum shows potential for HIV prevention." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 November 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131114101915.htm>." Might the SDA church ever go to Thailand to the youth prostitution area and offer these EVIL pimps that they can keep their youth in better health if they use this gel that does not decrease the pleasure to johns like a condom. Now the SDA church should be wisely using all their efforts to get the Thai government to stop this, but might this be an immediate benefit to these youth? Would our "black & white" understanding of ethics stop us from ameliorating their suffering?

defunct account
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:55:48 GMT

Our black and white ethics should stop us from being partakers in their evil deeds. 2 John 1.10-11 > @eliziskander > Yet Jesus does exactly that in his comments about the future fate of Sodomites. I believe you are making several significant errors here. Christ does not say that some sin is more sinful than others. Sin is sin. And final punishment is final punishment. Arguing that people should choose an option that results in less punishment in the fires of hell, is, well, poor advice. Christ never gave anyone such advice, and neither should we.

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:58:57 GMT

Ken said: "Christ does not say that some sin is more sinful than others. Sin is sin." Ken, Do you not believe that God will judge some as worthy of many stripes and some of few? EGW even describes some slaves who were so ill treated that they never reached an age of accountability and will be as though they had not been. EGW says some will burn in hell longer than others and Satan will burn the longest. Does not the Judge of the Universe's diverse degrees of punishment show that the Judge sees some men as guilty of more sin than others? Ken, IMHO we are not to judge the final destiny of another person. That is for God and God only. We should be mingling among them as one desiring their good as EGW said. We should strive to improve the health and life of others as far as they will allow us to lead them. We should not refuse to help them if they refuse or fail to make the entire journey. If they take 2 steps forward, we should encourage them to do that and receive the health benefits that those 2 steps brings them. If they fall back 2 steps we should call t hem like Jesus called Mary out of sin 7 times. Anytime you have influenced a person to be less sinful, less harmed, and to harm others less, you have benefited them. God says He hates sin. If you decrease the amount of sin & harms in His world, you have made God's world a little better. But you always must make your message clear. 2 steps is only 2 steps. There is a much further journey God is calling them to make. If they have made a successful 2 steps, encourage them to turn around and call their addicted brethren to also make the 2 steps. Never allow your efforts to be characterized as approving sin. Constantly clarify that 2 steps is only 2 steps and there is no guarantee any fleshly victory will be a ticket to heaven. God only is the judge. I pray the SDA church will begin encouraging, by even small steps, our fallen gay members towards a better life and health.

George Evans
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:49:29 GMT

Elizabeth wrote, >EGW says some will burn in hell longer than others and Satan will burn the longest. This may not be worth bringing up right now, but I think we need to be careful about details. I'm not sure if it's right to say people will burn different lengths. Read the passages carefully. It seems to me like the time differential has to do with the word "torment" which isn't necessarily physical burning. Torment could be more psychological.

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:02:41 GMT

I agree George. God is going to show the damned how they hurt others, themselves & Him. That will be an excruciating movie. That movie will be longer for some & longest for Satan. The damned will leave this mind- theater and cry for the rocks to fall on them. They will not repent but attack the Holy City. God will show the saved how did good things to Him in the person of others. Helping someone act more responsibly, not hurt themselves or not hurt others, even if that person is not eventually saved, is still something that pleases God.

mario-one
Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:47:55 GMT

I call this "Discipline by Cop" and I know of four times that Manhattan Church in NYC actually called the police and attempted to unjustly arrest Adventists for trespassing. In April 2011 there was no church board action, the pastor gave a false report about a member of the congregation to the police the first time and a member called the police and repeated the lie the 2nd time. The pastor was transferred to another church on April 24th and the victim was not threatened with trespassing again. In Sept. 2012, the police were called twice on two Adventist ladies, the police did not find reason to take action against the ladies so they closed the church and asked everyone to leave. The second time a letter from the conference President & Exec Secy authorized police involvement and the police asked the ladies to leave and not come back. The ladies accused the conference leaders of misconduct (violating Church Manual p. 61) by dealing with a grievance situation by authorizing the police without even talking with them to hear their side. The conference leaders squashed the i nvestigation into their conduct, and the church leaders above the conference level neglected their duty to deal with this all the way up to Dan Jackson, President of the NAD. 'Discipline by Cop' is happening more are more and I feel it is a disgrace to the cause of God.

Lynn Detamore
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:52:07 GMT

What you neglect to mention re: the SDA church's lawsuit against SDA Kinship International is that the SDA Church LOST the lawsuit and SDA Kinship International WON the lawsuit. The Church also lost trademark claims in that suit, the court stating that "Seventh-day Adventist" refers both to the church entity and the set of beliefs that the 7th day is Sabbath and Jesus is coming again. Since you CANNOT trademark a set of beliefs, the term SDA cannot be trademarked.

Eugene Shubert
Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:26:34 GMT

Elizabeth, I recognize the strategy that your church used against you. The same thing happened to me. We should suppose therefore that every SDA church follows the same playbook. http://everythingimportant.org/dupery

godisspeaking
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 05:57:40 GMT

You are obsessed with "religiosity," angered that people do not believe as you do and foolishly believe that God needs you to fight a battle that need not even exist. We live in a free country where all people can worship freely. GET OVER IT!

next
last page