Does Ben Carson Believe Most Evangelical Voters Are Going to Hell?

[GMDino]

I knew he has some whacked out religious ideas...but didn't know the full extent.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/ben-carson-seventh-day-adventist-evangelical-voters-Iowa

Quote:Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon and political novice, has leaped to the head of the GOP's 2016 pack in Iowa. The most recent Des Moines Register poll placed him in the lead with 28 percent, and this surge is undoubtedly fueled by religion. In the survey, he was backed by 33 percent of born-again Republican Christians, a hefty voting bloc in the first-caucus state. (In a Monmouth University poll this summer, he was the first choice of 29 percent of Iowa evangelicals.) Moreover, a whopping 89 percent of the Republicans in the Register poll said they found Carson an attractive candidate because he has vowed his actions will be guided by his faith in God.

Religion and politics can make a volatile mix. In the case of Carson, this overlap is an essential part of his success. Yet it is odd that Carson has done so well with evangelicals when he is a high-profile and devoted member of a church that teaches that almost all evangelical Christians will soon join with Satan to oppose Jesus Christ.


Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist who has publicly voiced his commitment to this church and championed its core beliefs, most notably the view that God created the world in six days (literally) and that evolution is bunk (and encouraged by the devil). He has spoken at Seventh-day Adventist events. In a 2013 interview with the church's official news service, he was asked, "Are there ever any times when you feel it's best to distinguish yourself from the Seventh-day Adventist Church and what it teaches?" Carson replied, "No, I don’t."

In this interview, Carson went on to say that he was "proud of the fact that I believe what God has said…that I believe in a literal, six-day creation."

Carson did not explicitly mention other Seventh-day Adventist tenets. But a central belief of the church is that most other Christian denominations will end up working with the devil. Seventh-day Adventists hold that the Sabbath should be worshipped on Saturday and that religions that observe the Sabbath on Sunday have been corrupted by Satan. The church's early prophet Ellen White cast much of the blame for this supposed perversion of the Sabbath on the Roman Catholic Church.

White's prophecies—rendered in the 1800s—are regarded as sacrosanct by the church. She predicted that when Jesus Christ returns to earth, per the Book of Revelation, and triggers the final and cataclysmic clash between God and the Antichrist, a paramount battle will be over the Sabbath. She foresaw the government doing the devil's bidding by outlawing the Saturday Sabbath, locking up Seventh-day Adventists, and even threatening them with death. And she prophesized that other Christian denominations would hold fast to the Sunday Sabbath and become handmaidens of Satan. Ultimately, Jesus Christ would vanquish Beelzebub, and only Seventh-day Adventists, because they stuck with the Saturday Sabbath, would join him in the kingdom of God. The other Christians? Well, they would be forever condemned.

In a 2014 talk at a Seventh-day Adventist church in Australia, Carson signaled that he believed this is indeed what's coming. He cited "prophecy"—which is how Seventh-day Adventists routinely refer to White's predictions—and noted that the "persecution" of the Sabbath was on the horizon.

A few weeks ago, a spokesman for Carson's presidential campaign insisted to me that it was not fair to interpret those Carson remarks as acceptance of White's prophecy. But the official position of the Seventh-day Adventists incorporates White's forecast that other Christian denominations will partner up with Satan. This is church doctrine. In 1997, the general conference of Seventh-day Adventists issued a declaration that is still featured on the church's website as an "official statement." It notes:

Seventh-day Adventists are convinced of the validity of our prophetic views, according to which humanity now lives close to the end of time. Adventists believe, on the basis of biblical predictions, that just prior to the second coming of Christ this earth will experience a period of unprecedented turmoil, with the seventh-day Sabbath as a focal point. In that context, we expect that world religions—including the major Christian bodies as key players—will align themselves with the forces in opposition to God and to the Sabbath.

This is a more moderate expression of White's hellfire-ridden prophecy. But it's a plain statement: Christians, other than Seventh-day Adventists, are damned and will wind up riding with the devil. And Ted Wilson, the global president of the Seventh-day Adventists, in a 2010 speech citing White, stated that in the coming End Times "anyone worshipping on another day than the seventh-day Sabbath [Saturday] will receive the mark of the beast."

Is this what Carson believes? In that 2013 interview with the church's news service, he appeared to endorse enthusiastically the fundamental teachings of the church. (The Carson campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

Here's the political question: Do the evangelical voters who are drawn to Carson because of his articulate and forceful professions of his Christian faith realize that he may well consider them future allies of Satan? And if they did, would this matter to them?

Fundamentalist religions tend to cast their way as the only way. That's the nature of such churches. It is not a huge surprise that Seventh-day Adventists say nonbelievers will be screwed in the End Times. Yet true-believing Seventh-day Adventists take a dim view of other Christian religions and hold what is essentially a dark conspiracy theory: that the government will target them for imprisonment and, possibly, execution.

Journalists and partisans are often reluctant to discuss the religious beliefs of candidates—though that has not been true in the case of President Barack Obama (sincere Christian or secret Muslim?). And days ago, Trump, in typically crude fashion, did question Carson's religion, saying, "I'm Presbyterian. Boy, that's down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about." Given that Carson is aiming to obtain control of the executive branch of the US government, his views regarding other Christians, the nearness of the End Times, and the Satanic Sabbath persecution conspiracy may well be relevant. (After all, if he shares his church's belief that the end of time is soon, does he have any reason to care about climate change?) Moreover, evangelical voters flocking to Carson's campaign might be interested to know whether he does perceive their churches as foot soldiers for the Antichrist.

Carson has yet to speak extensively and specifically about his religious beliefs and how they might shape his approach to governing the United States. Meanwhile, many evangelical voters—who attend church on Sunday—regard Carson as a Christian champion who ought to be placed within the White House. Perhaps they ought to wonder if Carson sees them as the spiritual enemy.

[StLucieBengal]

Lol you find some crazy stuff Dino.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-26-2015, 09:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol you find some crazy stuff Dino.

Religion is crazy, I concur.

[GMDino]

(10-26-2015, 10:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Religion is crazy, I concur.

Bingo.

[GMDino]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance

Quote:SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
Ben Carson’s Scientific Ignorance

For a man with an impressive educational C.V., Ben Carson makes a lot of intellectual missteps. In his September 16th debate performance, he displayed a profound lack of foreign-policy knowledge; last Sunday, when he said, on “Meet the Press,” that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” he may have seriously crippled his campaign. Still, there’s one area in which Carson’s credentials have seemed unimpeachable. Many people assume that, as a successful surgeon, he has a solid knowledge of technical, medical, and scientific issues.

With the wide release of video from a speech that Carson made to his fellow Seventh-Day Adventists in 2012, however, it’s becoming clear that there are significant gaps. In the speech, he made statements on subjects ranging from evolution to the Big Bang that suggest he never learned or chooses to ignore basic, well-tested scientific concepts. In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

Quote:You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.
He continued, “It’s even more ridiculous than that, because our solar system, not to mention the universe outside of that, is extraordinarily well organized, to the point where we can predict seventy years away when a comet is coming. Now, [for] that type of organization to just come out of an explosion? I mean, you want to talk about fairy tales, that is amazing.” Finally, he argued that the observed motion of the planets in our solar system would be impossible if there had been a Big Bang.

It is hard to find a single detailed claim in his diatribe that is physically sensible or that reflects accurate knowledge about science. His central claim—that the second law of thermodynamics rules out order forming in the universe after the Big Bang—is a frequent misstatement made by creationists who want to appear scientifically literate. In reality, it is completely false. Local order in parts of the universe is always possible at the expense of heat and disorder dissipated to the external environment. The human body is one example: we take in energy from our environment to build up complex molecules that help power our bodies, and, in doing so, we release heat to the world around us. A snowflake is another beautifully ordered example of what simple natural meteorological processes can produce. Stars form by gravity, collapsing into spherically ordered structures that can remain in this form only if they release tremendous heat energy into the environment. Carson elides these physical realities by creating a straw man: he says that scientists believe that, after the Big Bang, the universe was “perfectly ordered.” But no such claim has been made by scientists; instead, we describe how local order, including galaxies, stars, planets, and life, developed over time.

When Carson says that scientists rely on “probability theory” to explain how multiple Big Bangs, taking place over “billions of years,” have resulted in our “perfectly ordered” universe, he’s profoundly misstating the theory of the Big Bang. (In fact, he seems to have gotten his ignorant arguments confused—his metaphor about a hurricane creating a 747 in a junkyard is often used to deride evolution, to which it is equally inapplicable.) No one suggests that other Big Bangs have happened or are happening in our universe. Instead, all evidence implies that our universe originated from a single Big Bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago. Perhaps Carson was referring to the possibility of other universes outside of our universe, and to the so-called anthropic principle, which suggests that, if there are many universes, the fact that our universe supports life could be a probabilistic phenomenon. But those ideas, whether they’re true or not, have nothing to do with the reality of the Big Bang. We conclude the Big Bang happened because every piece of observational evidence we have about the universe is precisely consistent with predictions based on this possibility and none other. Speculations about other possible universes are irrelevant.



Perhaps his silliest statements have to do with our own solar system. Carson claims that our solar system is perfectly ordered—but, in fact, the motion of the planets is chaotic in the long term, and, although we can predict the motion of comets over the seventy-year period he discusses, for longer time horizons, such as millions or billions of years, the complexity of our solar system makes that practically impossible. Even more problematically, he points to the fact that some moons orbit in different directions from their planets and argues that those orbits would be impossible if there had been a Big Bang, because angular momentum would forbid it:

Quote:You know, you’ve got this mass bending and then it explodes. In physics, we have something we call “angular momentum,” and it is preserved, so it should be preserved in any orbit of anything that is affected by gravity around a planet, which means everything has to traverse in the same direction. Well, it doesn’t! There are many planets that have satellites and moons that go in opposite directions. So that doesn’t work with angular momentum!

This is akin to saying that, if there really had been a Big Bang billions of years ago, skaters today should be able to spin in only one direction. Local systems can exchange angular momentum with their surroundings by collisions, and many forms of chaotic motion are, therefore, possible. Bathwater rotates around the drain, sometimes clockwise and sometimes counterclockwise, happily independent of the Big Bang. The questions that Carson goes on to ask about the “debris” from the Big Bang—“What about all the debris from the billions and billions of explosions that were not perfect? Where’s that? I mean, we should be bombarded constantly by all this debris coming down; we’re not seeing it”—are meaningless if our entire visible universe arose from a single Big Bang, which is what the evidence suggests.

Carson’s wild delusions aren’t confined to physics, either. In the same event, in a more surprising and perhaps more worrisome statement, Carson claimed that evolution, as explained by Darwin, was actually the work of the devil. (“I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary, and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct.”) As if invoking Satan weren’t bad enough, Carson resorted to bad puns to sidestep his scientific ignorance: he went on to say that he was planning a book called “The Organ of Species,” which he said would “talk about the organs of the body and how they completely refute evolution”—an amazing claim that would require a rewriting of most biology texts. At another point in the speech, he uses a long stream of medical terminology to argue against the biochemical origins of life—something he doesn’t seem to realize has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution itself. Elsewhere, he claims that plants couldn’t have evolved before bees and that sexual reproduction shouldn’t have evolved at all, and suggests that geological formations provide evidence of a great flood, not an old Earth.

It is one thing to simply assert that you don’t choose to believe the science, in spite of a mountain of data supporting it. It’s another to mask your ignorance in such a disingenuous way, by using pseudo-scientific, emotion-laden arguments and trading on your professional credentials. Surely this quality, which reflects either self-delusion or, worse still, a willingness to intentionally deceive others, is of great concern when someone is vying for control of the nuclear red button.

Last week, when he was confronted, during a speech at Cedarville University, about his failure to understand basic and fundamental scientific concepts, Carson responded, “I’m not going to denigrate you because of your faith, and you shouldn’t denigrate me for mine.” What Carson doesn’t seem to recognize is that there is a fundamental difference between facts and faith. An inability to separate religious beliefs from an assessment of physical reality runs counter to the very basis of our society—the separation of church and state.

By his own admission, Carson’s remarkable hand-eye coördination allowed him to soar as a surgeon, and he used that success to build a lucrative reputation as a purveyor of advice for young and old. His book for young people is titled “You Have a Brain.” As numerous religious scientists have quipped, God wouldn’t have given us a brain if he hadn’t intended for us to use it. While many may debate whether his lack of public-service experience disqualifies him from serious consideration in this race, Carson’s ideas about religion, science, and public office, as revealed in the past week, suggest that there are far deeper reasons to be concerned about his candidacy for the highest office in the land.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-26-2015, 10:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Religion is crazy, I concur.

The only people who talk about religion on here is the supposed anti religion people. Very rarely is religion brought up otherwise and I have never seen a believer push their beliefs on another. I have however seen countless anti religion posters try to shame, bully, and mock any poster who believes in God and admits to it on here.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-27-2015, 04:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only people who talk about religion on here is the supposed anti religion people.   Very rarely is religion brought up otherwise and I have never seen a believer push their beliefs on another.   I have however seen countless anti religion posters try to  shame, bully, and mock any poster who believes in God and admits to it on here.

I feel like you bring up the Muslim religion a lot.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2015, 04:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only people who talk about religion on here is the supposed anti religion people.   Very rarely is religion brought up otherwise and I have never seen a believer push their beliefs on another.   I have however seen countless anti religion posters try to  shame, bully, and mock any poster who believes in God and admits to it on here.

Actually the issue of religion has been deeply embedded in the news recently.  Anyone who wants to talk about current events would be talking about religion.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2015, 04:53 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I feel like you bring up the Muslim religion a lot.

Which only proves his point. The only people who bring up the Muslim religion are the anti-Muslim people (like StLucie).

[StLucieBengal]

(10-27-2015, 04:53 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I feel like you bring up the Muslim religion a lot.

In topical situations. Based off news.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-27-2015, 06:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Which only proves his point. The only people who bring up the Muslim religion are the anti-Muslim people (like StLucie).

I am not anti Islam. I am anti oppression of women and anti mass killings. I do not begrudge anyone rolling out a welcome mat and praying.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2015, 06:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am not anti Islam.  I am anti oppression of women and anti mass killings.    I do not begrudge anyone rolling out a welcome mat and praying.

I'll try to do this as gently as I can as we tend to be on the same side on most issues, but most of your posts on Islam or Muslims belie what you claim above. Whether you truly are anti-Muslim or not, only you can know for certain, but your posts on the subject most definitely come across as anti-Muslims (the most evident, IMO, are the "savage" posts).

[StLucieBengal]

(10-27-2015, 06:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'll try to do this as gently as I can as we tend to be on the same side on most issues, but most of your posts on Islam or Muslims belie what you claim above. Whether you truly are anti-Muslim or not, only you can know for certain, but your posts on the subject most definitely come across as anti-Muslims (the most evident, IMO, are the "savage" posts).

It's just a word to describe uncivilized lol. Which based on their actions Muslims suffer in this area. Unless you think it's a civilized society to oppress women. (Which I know you don't)

I am very critical of them. Because of the way they treat women and anyone who does not agree with them. either you support women or you do not .... I don't ride the center rail because I am afraid to call a spade a spade .... Especially when those who defend these actions do so out of fear of being called a racist.

Too often now people want to throw an -ist label on anyone who does not play it safe when dealing with a non white/asian group. Personally I don't have time for that nonsense. I am direct when making my points for a reason. Is my points often missed because the word Nazi's are out ..... Yes .... But I see that as their inability to move beyond petty things. Whether I said savage or uncivilized .... Point still remains. The Middle East and other regions .... Are backwards and uncivilized.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-27-2015, 06:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: In topical situations.   Based off news.

And that's exactly what others are doing as well.  Some of you guys get a little miffed when someone is "attacking" your religion, but you seem to be perfectly fine with attacking someone else's religion.  I know you choose certain words for affect and "savage" is one of them.  Because you know it sounds worse than "uncivilized".  I've learned to ignore your "spicy" language, because it's all for affect.  Personally I think you like to see how far you can push the envelope with it.

I don't believe I've ever come down on any ones religion, simply because I don't care if you are or are not religious.  For me ones actions mean more than what they claim to believe as far as being a good person or not.  To quote a favorite person of mine, my dad;  "Give me a race or religious group, and I'll find you an asshole...there's always one."  Point being it doesn't matter if you're white, black, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever, if you're still acting like the asshole...and if there is a god, he's probably taking notes.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-28-2015, 02:04 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: And that's exactly what others are doing as well.  Some of you guys get a little miffed when someone is "attacking" your religion, but you seem to be perfectly fine with attacking someone else's religion.  I know you choose certain words for affect and "savage" is one of them.  Because you know it sounds worse than "uncivilized".  I've learned to ignore your "spicy" language, because it's all for affect.  Personally I think you like to see how far you can push the envelope with it.

I don't believe I've ever come down on any ones religion, simply because I don't care if you are or are not religious.  For me ones actions mean more than what they claim to believe as far as being a good person or not.  To quote a favorite person of mine, my dad;  "Give me a race or religious group, and I'll find you an asshole...there's always one."  Point being it doesn't matter if you're white, black, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever, if you're still acting like the asshole...and if there is a god, he's probably taking notes.

You have never done that.... And please do not take my comments as saying you have ...

You have always been able to move past what doesn't matter and stay on topic.

And also it's topical here as well. I dont know what's up with Ben Carson. I know seventh day Adventist are pretty serious about their religion and can sometimes push a little on others.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-27-2015, 04:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only people who talk about religion on here is the supposed anti religion people.   Very rarely is religion brought up otherwise and I have never seen a believer push their beliefs on another.   I have however seen countless anti religion posters try to  shame, bully, and mock any poster who believes in God and admits to it on here.

To be fair, I would have to say your PP threads have religious motivations.

Appreciate the new avatar btw.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-28-2015, 04:44 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: To be fair, I would have to say your PP threads have religious motivations.

Appreciate the new avatar btw.

Actually those threads are less about religion. And more being against killing. Btw got some more coming . They want to use them as an energy source now to heat buildings .

Thanks, loved that cartoon. the old one will return, in some way.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-28-2015, 06:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Actually those threads are less about religion.   And more being against killing.   Btw got some more coming .  They want to use them as an energy source now to heat buildings .  

Thanks, loved that cartoon.  the old one will return, in some way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Ok bud.  If its out there, no doubt you've dug it up.

[Vas Deferens]

Holy shit. Its out there.^^^^

We're going to need to call in the big guns for this one boys.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-28-2015, 06:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Actually those threads are less about religion.   And more being against killing.   Btw got some more coming .  They want to use them as an energy source now to heat buildings .  

Thanks, loved that cartoon.  the old one will return, in some way.

I might believe that if you started a thread against killing which didn't involve Planned Parenthood.  Plus you have expressed a very cavalier attitude toward killing in war.