A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Bob’s Quote

“So while you make a good case for the idea that without using exegesis we can always come up with some kind of story for bending the text one way or the other… (And I fully agree with you on that point), the entire reason we keep talking about more objective methods such as the Historical-Grammatical method of hermeneutics is to avoid the “every man bent the text to his own liking” problem.”

Dear Bob

As always I am indebted to you for your biblical scholarship and knowledge. I acknowledge that I am an intellectual pauper in this regard. But my learning is evolving with help from my Adventist friends as time goes on!

I agree with the general thrust of your quote but it does make the issue problematic doesn’t it? If all Christians interpreted the Bible the same way, objectively, then no Christian faction could bend the text to meet its own doctrinal needs, correct? And what about non – Christians interpretation? Are they barred from objectivity because they don’t agree to a particular method of interpretation? Does this make the Word of God truly imponderable or subject only to consensus? And who determines consensus for Christians? Is consensus in the eye of the biblical beholder?

Perhaps that is why Science and empirical evidence to verify any particular interpretation of the Bible becomes so important. I think that is what our good Dr. Pitman is trying to advocate.

I hope my outside view can provide a bit of perspective to the great Adventist debate.

Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Wes’s and Bob’s quotes

(Wes)”Now you’re getting exigetical! Me, when I look at that particular text, rereading it again and again, my eyes always see “made.”

(Bob) “If you find that the correct exegesis of Romans 1:18-22 is that mankind should see the “invisible attributes of God in the things that have evolved”

Dear Wes and Bob

Gentleman, I must confess when it comes to exegesis I have no education or training whatsoever. But if you would kindly indulge an ignorant agnostic perhaps I can still make a case.

Let us start with the conjugation of the verb make:

“Conjugations of the English verb make can be found below.

Past Pluperfect
I made
you made
he made
we made
they made”

Gentleman, as you can see “made” is the past pluperfect tense of make.

Now let us look at synonyms for evolve, from freethesaurus.net:

“Main Entry: evolve
Synonyms:
advance, alter into, amplify, assemble, avulse, be converted into, bear fruit, beautify, become, beget, bloom, blossom, breed, bring forth, bring into being, build, call into being, cast, change into, coin, come round to, compose, compound, conceive, concoct, construct, contrive, cook up, create, cultivate, cut out, deracinate, descant, design, detail, develop, devise, dig out, dig up, dilate, discover, disentangle, draw, draw out, dream up, dredge, dredge up, educe, elaborate, embellish, engender, enlarge, enlarge upon, eradicate, erect, evolute, evolve into, evulse, excavate, excise, excogitate, expand, expatiate, explicate, exsect, extract, extricate, extrude, fabricate, fall into, fashion, finish, flower, form, formulate, frame, fudge together, generate, get at, get out, get up, give being to, give rise to, gouge out, grow, grub up, hatch, improvise, indite, invent, lapse into, make, make do with, make up, manufacture, maturate, mature, mellow, melt into, mine, mint, mold, obtain, open into, open up, originate, particularize, pass into, patch together, perfect, pick out, piece together, plan, pluck out, pluck up, polish, prefabricate, prepare, procreate, produce, progress, pull, pull out, pull up, put together, put up, quarry, raise, rake out, rear, refine, rehearse in extenso, relate at large, remove, rip out, ripen, ripen into, root out, root up, run into, run up, season, set up, settle into, shape, shift into, spawn, strike out, take out, tear out, think out, think up, turn into, turn to, unearth, unfold, unravel, uproot, wax, weed out, whomp up, withdraw, work out, wrest out, write”

As you can see: ‘make’ is a synonym for ‘evolve’.

Evolved is of course the past tense of evolve.

Gentleman, I trust it is not too much a s grammatical stretch to conclude that ‘evolved’ is a synonym for ‘made’.

What is interesting of course is that Adventists sometimes interpret the Bible literally and sometimes figuratively. (i.e. 6 days vs. 2300 days.) Perhaps you can extend me the latitude to interpret ‘made’ synonymically as ‘evolved'(at the risk of ‘creating’ a new adverb!).

I rest my agnostic, exegetic case.

Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Bob’s Quote

“In fact God says that these non-Bible aware, non-Christians are “without excuse” when they make the claim that they do not see the invisible attributes of God in the “things that have been made”.”

Or evolved?

Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Hi Bob

I asked once before and I’ll ask again: what is your background and expertise in biology?

Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Re: What every human being on the planet believes?

Empirically, as i don’t have blind faith I could know this, perhaps it could only be a divine being that could do so. 🙂

Always open to correction though to those that know the absolute truth,

I remain,
Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Bob’s Quote

“But we can “observe” that the making of complex systems (and books, and works of art and science) is done by “creators” every day – observable, repeatable, testable. A mechanism proven to work.”

Hi Bob

Thanks for your comments.

This may surprise you but I’m actually intrigued by the design argument. My Dad is a Deist although I’m not of that bent, at least not yet! The laws of nature, i.e. gravity, that even allow the universe to exist are pretty marvelous. Did they arise as a result of a random quantum fluctuation or was their Grand Designer behind it all. If so what is or was the nature of such designer based on what we empirically observe about our universe?

The problem I have with intelligent design within our universe and especially regarding life on earth is theodicy. I do understand how the concept of original biblical sin accounts for the loss of perfection, but I have a very tough time understanding why a God would cause such destruction of his creation based on the disobedience of the literal eating of an apple. I just can’t rationally fathom how the eventual and natural demise of our solar system can be based on Man’s fall. Empirically, through science we can now view the death, and birth, of stars. Was this all caused by eating forbidden fruit?

Thus one must ask: why would a good, compassionate God create a Universe, and sentient life, that suffers and dies? Age old problem, that in my estimation has been allegorically resolved through the Genesis narrative.

Let’s move on to evolution. Micro evolution does not seem to be a problem for anyone. Life does adapt to its environment through genetic change. In my mind the issue becomes what happens over billions of years. After considering everything I have read to date I cannot honestly see an overwhelming case for a young earth. Moreover I have not read or heard anything yet that such a view can be scientifically supported by anyone without a biblical creationist bias. Given enough time great change will occur as evidenced by the vast diversity of life spread over every niche of our planet. Were there kangaroos on the Ark, or did they evolve in an isolated part of the world from whence they could not spread?

I don’t think evolution is a fraud or a hoax. Too many educated people of faith believe and accept it for it to be an atheist conspiracy. Have their been mistakes made and will they continue to be made? Are there dishonest scientists? Certainly. They are fallible humans, just like you and I, after all. But the issue is what does the weight of all the multidisciplinary evidence indicate?

Hope that helps

Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”

Hello Sean

First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.

Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!

However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.

I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .

However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.

Good luck in your pursuit of God.

Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”

Hi Sean

The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?

Conviction requires courage period.

Your agnostic friend
Ken

---