Comment on Back to Square One… by Kevin.
Letter writing *may* be effective, but care must be taken that popular opinion does not become a driving force here.
Whether ten million people write letters for or against a point of contention, the volume should not sway policy or doctrine. Christianity is not a democracy.
If letters are written, they need to emphasize the Biblical view and the doctrines of our church, including the Spirit of Prophecy.
—-
I would like to remind all who view evolution as scientific: If you claim to be a Seventh-Day Adventist, you are claiming not only to believe in creation, but also to believe that Sister White was a prophet of God. Those are the defined traits of being an SDA. Truth, definitions, facts, are not subject to personal opinion. You can’t be an SDA and not believe those things, by definition.
Here’s what Sister White has to say on the matter:
“It is the Word of God alone that gives to us an authentic account of the creation of our world. The theory that God did not create matter when He brought the world into existence is without foundation. In the formation of our world, God was not indebted to preexisting matter. On the contrary, all things, material or spiritual, stood up before the Lord Jehovah at His voice and were created for His own purpose. The heavens and all the host of them, the earth and all things therein, are not only the work of His hand; they came into existence by the breath of His mouth.”
“God Himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days.”
See also: Education, starting on page 128. The quote is too large for this reply, being a few pages long. You can find easily it online, search for “complete published writings ellen white”. Unfortunately the passage itself can’t be linked to.
It’s clearly impossible to believe evolution and be a Seventh-Day Adventist. One cannot simply choose to be called something which by definition one is not. That’s known as lying.
Table of Contents
Kevin Also Commented
Back to Square One…
Ken. You suggest significant causation where there is merely a tiny correlation. The existence of voting does not indicate a democracy.
Corporations conduct votes in various circumstances, are they democracies? Certainly not.
I hope everyone reading your nearly-absurd reply are level headed enough to see the chasm of disparity between actual democracy and a private organization which allows delegated members and/or leaders to vote on certain items within the scope of the organization’s primary objectives.
Recent Comments by Kevin
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Some might label me a conspiracy theorist. (Well, that phrase or label has come to have an automatic negative meaning associated with it. In reality, there are very real conspiracies, rooted in the intent to destroy our very souls.)
My conspiracy is based on historical evidence, however. I believe that many of those who are claiming to be SDA, “holding on” to their membership in the church, while actively promoting ideas which are directly in contradiction to the Bible and to our fundamental beliefs, do not actually believe themselves to be SDA.
[edit]
Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
I’d like to learn about the hierarchy of leadership, from a functional point of view. If there’s somewhere I can read thorough answers to all of these questions, I’d appreciate a link.
Who/what are the members of the board of trustees?
What gives them their authority?
Who, if anyone, has direct authority over the board, and where is that authority from?
Who reports *to* the board of trustees?
How many layers of hierarchical authority are there between anyone or any group who could be called “church leaders” and the actual deans and professors?
What entity, at the highest level, “owns” the school? Meaning the physical property.
What entity, at the highest level, operates the school?
I would hope the last two answers are the General Conference, but it could technically be separate. If that is the case, the GC could still remove all financial involvement, reassign any conference employees elsewhere, and force the school to not call itself an SDA institution.
The Physiology of It – Faith vs. Evidence
Brilliant.
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
In order to count oneself as a member of an established organization which defines itself and it’s members in a certain way, one must meet the definition of members thereof.
If one does not meet the definitions established by the organization for it’s members, then one is not able to accurately call oneself a member.
If one continues to call oneself a member of an organization, while not meeting it’s definitions of it’s own members, then one is lying about one’s own status as members. Possibly and likely including lying to oneself.
—–
Less logician-sounding:
You can’t call yourself a member of a group while not being what the group defines it’s own members to be.
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
Please try to apply logic to this, rather than emotion.
First, Professor Kent quoted me out of context. I was asking for evidence which allowed Casey to “know for a fact” (as claimed) that the biology conflict is the root cause of the resignations, in spite of the school’s own statements.
Let’s remember that the source of the so-called “reason” or “evidence” for resignation is the one resigning, as LSU itself is not at liberty to divulge the information.
Everyone who is claiming that the evolution/creation controversy is actually the reason, is taking the word of an individual who signed his own resignation letter, over the words of the leadership of the institution.
This logically means that those making such claims are presuming the statements made by the institution are lies.
Furthermore, if the board were actually acting surreptitiously toward an underlying purpose somehow in-line with the efforts to remove supporters of teaching evolution from the university, it would not be logical for them to claim otherwise after these particular resignations.
Why? Because some of these individuals are apparently not involved in the controversy, and the ones who could be considered “primary targets” are still employed.
The most presumption that can be logically made is that the individual resigning is less likely to be a reliable source of the real reason.
Finally, it is interesting to note that one commentator here who seems to be supporting the resigned professor has referred to individuals who believe creation as “ignorant people”.
———–
There is a constant stream of unfounded attacks on the belief in literal creation and it’s scientific accuracy, stating it cannot belong in any scientific discussion.
Would those of you who support this view please explain away all or perhaps some of what Professor Walter J. Veith (PhD, biologist, physiologist, scientist) teaches in support of literal creation and against evolution?
If you don’t want to watch, listen to or read Professor Veith’s presentations, or if you presume in advance that he can’t be right because you already know what’s right, then you are intentionally choosing a decidedly unscientific mindset (science is the examination of all available evidence), and are essentially burying your heads in the sand.
