Showing posts with label Conscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conscience. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 06, 2026

How the brain uses memory to imagine what might have been


October 3, 2026

Philosopher and 2026 MacArthur “genius grant” recipient Felipe De Brigard explains how our brains use imagination to reconstruct the past

By Allison Parshall edited by Claire Cameron



PM Images/Getty Images

Neuroscience

A month ago philosopher Felipe De Brigard received a strange phone call. “Are you in a private place where you can have a private conversation?” the voice on the other end asked.

He was on a work retreat surrounded by colleagues. “Just say you need to talk about your taxes,” the caller said. De Brigard excused himself to find a private space, panicking the whole time about his taxes—but it was actually the MacArthur Foundation on the line. De Brigard had been awarded a prestigious “genius grant,” an $800,000 fellowship with no strings attached.

“I just was floored. And I had to put everything back together and walk back in like nothing happened,” says De Brigard, who is a professor at Duke University and originally from Bogotá, Colombia. He is only the second philosopher to be awarded the fellowship in the past 30 years.

De Brigard would be the first to tell you that his recollection of that day may be flawed. As a philosopher and cognitive scientist, he studies the fallibility of memory. Our brains don’t work like digital cameras recording our experiences to a mental hard drive, he explains. We store only some parts of our experience—gestures, stories, the gist. When we go to retrieve those memories, our brains need to fill in the gaps.

De Brigard’s research shows just how intertwined our brain’s memory is with imagination. We use some of the same mental machinery to reconstruct the past as we do to imagine the future—and to imagine what might have been.

Scientific American spoke with De Brigard about why false memories form, why we dwell on the roads not taken, how forgiveness influences memory and whether we should worry about artificial intelligence becoming conscious.

[An edited transcript of the conversation follows.]

Thursday, October 01, 2026

Faith That Is Forced Is No Longer Faith": Papua New Guinea PM's Bold UN Message on Religion at UNGA | AC1G


"Faith That Is Forced Is No Longer Faith": PNG PM's Bold UN Message on Religion at UNGA | AC1G

DRM News 

Sep 25, 2026  

Papua New Guinea's PM James Marape delivered a passionate UN appeal for freedom of conscience, declaring "faith that is forced is no longer faith" and urging every nation — Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist — to protect religious minorities, while warning that "no nation is so powerful that it can live apart from the earth." For more details, watch our story and subscribe to our channel, DRM News.

"Faith That Is Forced Is No Longer Faith": PNG PM's Bold UN Message on Religion
PNG PM to Christian Nations: "You Don't Promote Peace, You're Not Sons of God"
"No Nation Is So Powerful It Can Live Apart From Earth": Marape's UN Warning
James Marape Defends Religious Minorities Worldwide in Passionate UN Speech

UN General Assembly Day 4 live, UNGA 2026 Day 4, Shehbaz Sharif UN speech, Pakistan PM UNGA 2026, world leaders UNGA live, United Nations General Assembly live, UNGA New York live stream,

#UNGA2026 #UNGA #UnitedNations #WorldLeaders #UNGA81 #BreakingNews #LiveNews #GlobalPolitics #Diplomacy #DRMNews #UNLive #Geopolitics
 
UN General Assembly 2026 LIVE: Shehbaz Sharif, Edi Rama and World Leaders Address the Assembly |AC1B

USN: ADOQG0788


Thursday, September 17, 2026

National Reform and the Rights of Conscience (with text) | A. T. Jones

 

National Reform and the Rights of Conscience (with text) | A. T. Jones
EllenWhiteAudio - English

Sep 16, 2026  Pamphlets – A. T. Jones Audiobooks

National Reform and the Rights of Conscience, by A. T. Jones (1889), answers the National Reform movement, which sought to amend the United States Constitution and set up a so-called Christian government. Jones shows that such a scheme would shut every honest dissenter out of citizenship while rewarding hypocrisy, and that the "liberty" it promised is the same kind the Papacy and the Inquisition were willing to grant. A clear, timely defense of religious liberty and of every person's right to worship God according to conscience. This edition shows the full text on screen, so you can read along as you listen.

📖 Listen to more pamphlets by A. T. Jones:
   • Pamphlets – A. T. Jones Audiobooks  

💝 Help us make more materials:
https://www.aplib.org/donate/

🎧 Listen online or download this and other audiobooks to your device at:
https://www.ellenwhiteaudio.org/

📱 Follow us on our social media:
• Facebook:   / ellenwhiteaudio  
• Instagram:   / ellenwhiteaudio  

📚 To know and learn more about our pioneers, visit:
https://www.aplib.org/

Alonzo Trevier Jones (1850–1923) was a prominent Seventh-day Adventist minister, editor, and theologian who played a central role in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference. Known for his powerful preaching on righteousness by faith and religious liberty, his writings remain an important part of the Adventist theological heritage.

Monday, September 07, 2026

The Wall That Made America Great and The Prophecy That Ends It


September 3, 2026 Gary Blanchard



Were Daniel and his three friends disobeying God when they refused to bow to the golden image, and when Daniel refused to stop praying to anyone but the king for thirty days?

Years earlier, the prophet Jeremiah had spoken to the children of Israel. He told them the Babylonians were coming and that, rather than resisting, they should “put their necks under his yoke.” In other words, they were to submit to Babylonian rule. This was not merely Jeremiah’s opinion. As a true prophet, he delivered a directive that came from God Himself:

“If, however, any nation or kingdom will not serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon or bow its neck under his yoke, I will punish that nation with the sword, famine and plague, declares the Lord, until I destroy it by his hand. … But if any nation will bow its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will let that nation remain in its own land to till it and to live there, declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:8, 11, NIV)

Jeremiah repeated the same message to King Zedekiah: “Bow your neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon; serve him and his people, and you will live” (Jeremiah 27:12).

So why, then, did Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) refuse the king’s command in Daniel 3, and why did Daniel himself refuse the king’s decree in Daniel 6? On the surface they appear insubordinate to the very authority God had told His people to accept. They would not bow to the golden image when commanded, and Daniel would not stop praying to God when ordered to petition only the king for thirty days.

Their response in the furnace episode is clear:

“King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18, NIV)

Daniel, knowing the decree had been signed, continued his lifelong practice of praying three times a day with his windows open toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6:10).

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

SabbathRest: Final Line of Liberty | Promotional Video (Tim Rumsey)

Pathway to Paradise Ministries

Jul 28, 2026  

The Final Line of Liberty is a timely Bible prophecy weekend event designed to help people understand the connection between the Sabbath, Sunday legislation, religious liberty and the freedom of conscience, so they won’t be deceived in the final moments of earth’s history. The Final Line of Liberty is a turn-key weekend event your church can host with confidence. With ready-to-use seminar tools, promotional resources and a clear presentation format, sharing this timely message becomes simple and accessible. Premieres October 8, 2026.

Learn more and register as a host site at https://www.finallineofliberty.com

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

The Footprints of the Jesuits by R. W. Thompson.

The civil institutions of the United States could not have been formed without the separation of Church and State, and could not continue to exist if they were again united. Christianity could not maintain its primitive purity if politics and religious faith were mingled together; nor could the State preserve its capacity to provide for the general welfare if subjected to the dominion of ecclesiastical authority. Our success as a nation is mainly attributable to the fact that these sentiments are deeply imbedded in the American mind.

A party pledged to restore to the pope the temporal power which the Italian people have taken away, must necessarily be politico-religious in character, because it proposes to interfere with the temporal affairs of one of the European nations. And if the attempt to do this is justified upon the ground that such restoration involves religious duty, any one can see that the obligation is the same in the United States as in Italy, for the laws of God do not shift to suit the exigencies of human affairs.

In the times before the Reformation the temporal affairs of Governments were required to conform to the commands of the ecclesiastical authority—that is, the pope—and it was held to be a necessary and essential part of religion that this union should be continued, no matter what might be the degree of popular ignorance and humiliation. The founders of our Government started out upon a different theory, believing it to be[Pg 4] their duty to separate "the things of God" from "the things of Cæsar," so that each could reach perfection in its own distinct sphere. Therefore, it is clear that a politico-religious party in this country, pledged to unite Church and State in Italy, against the expressed will of the Italian people, not only must oppose one of the fundamental principles of our Government, but disturb the public peace.

To my mind it is also clear that a nation acts politically, and not religiously, when it decides upon the structure of its temporal Government—that is, whether its affairs shall be managed by an absolute or elective monarch, or by machinery provided by a written constitution. I have, therefore, refrained from the discussion or criticism of religious belief—as it is understood in the American sense—any further than it is made the pretext for the reversal of this opinion, so generally prevalent in this country. It would be an evil day for the people of the United States if they should be persuaded to permit any power whatsoever, whether temporal or spiritual, at home or abroad, to share with them any portion of their political authority, or to dictate, in any degree, the measures of their civil polity.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

Liberty of Conscience Threatened


Chapter 35: Liberty of Conscience Threatened

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!

The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments. [564]

Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?

The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.

A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:

"There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious [565] worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.'

"The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'. . . The archbishop of St. Louis once said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.'. . .

"Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'"—Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4. [SEE APPENDIX FOR CORRECTED REFERENCES.]

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Roger Williams founded Providence R.I. in 1636 as a refuge for those seeking religious freedom


AI Overview


Roger Williams founded the settlement of Providence, in what is now Rhode Island, in 1636 as a refuge for those seeking religious freedom and fair dealings with Native Americans, establishing a colony based on the principles of separation of church and state and individual liberty of conscience. Though banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his views, Williams purchased land from the Narragansett Indians and created a haven for diverse religious groups. He is celebrated today through the Roger Williams National Memorial and the city of Providence.

Founding Providence

Religious and Political Banishment:
Roger Williams, a Puritan minister, was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 for his ideas that the state should not dictate religious beliefs and that land should be purchased from Native Americans rather than confiscated.

Establishment of Providence:
With a few followers, he founded Providence at the headwaters of Narragansett Bay, purchasing land from the Narragansett Indians and naming the settlement after "God's merciful Providence".

Liberty of Conscience:
The settlers formally agreed to hold "Liberty of Conscience," making laws only in civil matters, which allowed Providence to become a haven for various religious groups, including Baptists, Quakers, and Jews.

Roger Williams's Legacy

Champion of Religious Freedom:
Williams was a staunch advocate for religious liberty, separation of church and state, and fair treatment of indigenous peoples.

Inspiration for Future Generations:
His ideas about freedom of conscience and separation of church and state greatly influenced the founders of the United States, laying the groundwork for the First Amendment.

Memorial and Recognition:
The Roger Williams National Memorial is located in Providence, commemorating his life and the founding principles of the city and colony.

AI Mode

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Conscience & Justice Council Speaker Promotes Social Justice for LGBTQ


August 10, 2025 NewsHound


The Conscience & Justice Council formed around 7 years ago. It is a collection of SDA individuals, (mostly PARL directors) who share an interest in progressive social and cultural issues. Under the guise of promoting religious liberty they often promote social justice causes. Based on the provided reference, the organization was active in 2018, as evidenced by their convention held from September 13-16, 2018, in Houston, Texas.

This presentation on LGBTQ+ by Olive Hemmings is from the 2023 Conscience and Justice convention which took place on September 28-30 at the North American Division.



Hemmings says, near the end of her presentation:

(1:14:42) “They face challenges in the world because their gender does not match their orientation. Put yourself in somebody else's shoe just for a little minute. That's what we're asking (Matthew 7:12). We're not asking you to agree with anybody's lifestyle. Don't bother with the texts, they already read all those Bible texts. They have already read that. That does not solve the problem that they really have. Because the problem is a problem of their being. It's not a Biblical problem they have.”

Au contraire. Moral failure is defined by the Word of God, and when we violate God’s moral standards and creational distinctions, we invite many consequences into our life. LGBTQ+ is most definitely a “biblical problem.” And fortunately, the Bible has the solution to moral failure and axiological rebellion against His creational distinctions. There is hope, through repentance and cleansing.

As we have written before, 95-99% of PARL directors in Adventism are polilibs (even ones from Australia). Funny how that happens. Surely some sort of neutrality is preferable? You would think that the PARL environ might mirror the American culture and be a blend (conservatism and leftism). But, no, not in the last three or four decades. It’s all left. And they are the biblical authority, according to themselves.

Questions

Are these PARL individuals hired because they are left-leaning, or does the position move them left? Does the Adventist ethos just plain tilt politically left? Did our founders anticipate and promote this tilt? Since most cultural left issues run counter to the Bible, it doesn’t follow that our founders would have that tilt (abortion, LGBTQ+, DEI, CRT etc..). How does it happen?

Discuss!

****


Tuesday, July 08, 2025

"The Three Paths" | Dr Conrad Vine | State Line SDA Church Camp Meeting


"The Three Paths" | Dr Conrad Vine | State Line SDA Church Camp Meeting

Mar 30, 2025

In this urgent message, we confront the critical times we live in—between Daniel 11:40's "time of the end" and Christ's soon return. As the speaker I step down from leadership to focus on preaching with greater freedom—preparing the church spiritually and structurally for the final crisis. This sermon examines three paths: the Recent path (the church's 2015 vaccination statement and its consequences), the Wrong path (compromising biblical principles for secular authority), and the Right path (standing firm on liberty of conscience and divine truth). Watch now and be equipped for the coming storm.


Saturday, June 14, 2025

No King, no Pope


AI Overview

The phrase "no king, no pope" expresses a desire to be free from both royal and papal authority. It's a slogan that reflects a desire for autonomy and self-governance, rejecting the hierarchical structures of monarchy and the Catholic Church. This sentiment can be found in various historical and political contexts where people have sought to break away from established powers.