Comment on Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe by BobRyan.
Since this thread discussion turns to the point of educating our young people and congregation in general – so that they can present a compelling defense for our position. I would remind you that those discussions are seldom “pleasant” no matter how calm, factual, compelling and objective the Adventist argument.
Those of us who have ventured out to post a pro-creationist position on atheist boards, on Christian-pro-evolutionist boards, and even on Adventist liberal boards can tell you that the response to such efforts is often ad hominem and negative in the extreme. And the more compelling and objective your argument the stronger the reaction against it.
And as we have seen on this very board in months past – any effort to raise objective details/facts not complimentary to the accusations made against the Bible and Adventist doctrines, is sometimes spun back as “mean” or “mean spirited” by SDA posters trying to promote the pro-evolutionist POV.
Now granted it is possible for the conservative response to be “ugly” and we should not go there. But complaints against a defense of the church typically rail against all posts that do not support the baseless accusations made against the Bible, the Church and Adventists in general.
It is a fact of life that when you get close to the source, close to the core issue – you will get a very strong reaction.
Case in point – in my previous post above I mentioned a link to a discussion over at Spectrum where both the Libs of Spectrum and a sometimes frequent visitor to Spectrum (a catholic priest – Fr. Jim) were joining in united assault on Adventist doctrines and the ministry of Ellen White under a thread titled “hate speech”. (Accusing the Great Controversy of being at times a form of hate speech and urging that it be rewritten if it is to be mailed out to people.) This invited the participation of Fr. Jim offering playbook accusations against Ellen White.
But when a few examples of Jim’s attacks were shown to be without factual support from the source data (done by way of illustration regarding the playbook nature of the laundry list of accusations made against Ellen White) – they resorted to ad hominem responses (being unnable to refute the objective data presented).
Eventually Spectrum closed down the thread in a way that apparently blames the closed-for-further-comment status on the fact that there was a defense made for the Adventist position that was not helpful to libs and to Catholic visitors wishing to oppose Ellen White.
Something like – “un-nuanced, hounding of people of people we disagree with is a profound offense”.
Now if anyone has ever read any Spectrum thread making some kind of assault on Adventism, they know that Spectrum is known for the fact that it does not close threads for further comment no matter how wild the accusations against the Church or against anyone defending the Church.
The Spectrum thread I have indicated illustrates the fact that a calm objective factual presentation in favor of the church that is of a compelling nature predictably gets a “you are being mean” response since there is no counter response “from facts” available to them. An embarrassing situation that could not long be tolerated by the powers that be in that case.
If our own sort-of-Adventist boards resort to this tactic – you can know that we see this only more so in the agnostic and atheist contexts where evolution is debated.
BobRyan Also Commented
Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
It is predicted at the end of time that when the Catholic and protestant agendas more fully come into line – many of our own members, and ex-members will join in opposing and misrepresenting the stated mission and purpose of the Adventist church.
Here is an interesting thread over at Spectrum – asking if our own unique SDA beliefs and bold line between right vs wrong – might not just be a form of hate speech.
Of course one might expect certain libs and ex-SDAs to agree on some form of critique of ADventism including the Great Controversy etc.
What is interesting in that thread is that a Catholic Priest (Fr Jim) has joined in and there is amazing unity in the way many on that board have joined in instinctive agreement with the accusations against Adventism made by Jim.
When I exposed some of the flaws in the wild accusations of Jim (such as his claiming that Ellen White said she was taken to Jupiter and Saturn — where she saw very tall people, and his claim that she said the amalgamation problem of mankind before the flood was specifically about American Indians and blacks) – fr Jim stated that he was simply offering flawed accusations against Adventism to illustrate the defects in Adventist complaints about the RCC.
But the fact that so many libs instinctively lept off the cliff in agreement with what even the RC Priest claimed was a flawed accusation against Adventism – is more than a little instructive. It demonstrates in microcosm just what is predicted for the end of time.
Sureâ€¦but just how serious a problem should become something all church members need to know about? Of course, each person will have their own opinion.Here, you have argued that it should be lack of support for any fundamental belief. But you have gone FAR BEYOND this. You have lambasted individuals by name who believe in the very same things but not to the same extent you do,
Is it your claim that belief in theistic evolutionism is the same thing as Bible creationism??
Iâ€™m glad that you donâ€™t have a big issue with divorce, caffeine consumption, dancing, views on abortion, and the like, as you would make a lot more enemies than you have already if you were broadcasting these transgressions against fundamental beliefs as well.
Are you suggesting that any web site that holds the seventh-day darwinian theistic evolutionist promoters accountable if they are paid by our denomination must also dilute its focus to also address every other form of denial of our Fundamental Beliefs  or are you simply “hoping” to divert the focus for “Whatever reason”??
Your consistency as you resist every effort to demonstrated science evidence that is in harmony with the Bible model of creation and as you equivocate between theistic evolutionism and Bible creation (- when not outright insisting that denial of our Fundamental Beliefs should be “no big deal”) is more transparently obvious than you may have at first imagined.
The issue of â€œstated and understood church teachingâ€ is not as cut-and-dry as we might like to think. I am a music professor, and I have several different editions of the Church Manual, Supplements, and other official church writings that mention morality in music and guidelines for its use. At one time, opera was firmly denounced as unfit for Adventist consumption.
Point of clarification –
At no time has there been a Fundamental Belief on “Opera”.
By contrast – we HAVE had statements on the Sabbath and Creation and the trustworthy nature of the Bible as a reliable witness to real history – since the 1800’s.
I do not see a good way to equivocate between those two concepts.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind