Comment on Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull by Faith.
Ron: 5. The principle of natural selection would have the effect of selecting against detrimental genes, and would help in removing defective genes from the gene pool.
As such I believe Darwinian process is consistent with the action of a loving God that wants to prolong the viability of His creation in the face of sin.
Then how do you account for the fact that disease is increasing and getting harder and harder to combat because of resistant strains? Not exactly a positive change, in my opinion. How do you reconcile what SOP said about every generation becoming weaker as we get progressively further from the Tree of Life with this theory of yours?
Ron: think it is morally wrong to censor teachers because they are not teaching concepts that
1. are not accepted by the main stream
Do you hear yourself, Ron? You don’t argue that the teachers shouldn’t be censored because they are teaching SDA truth, you are all up in arms because they shouldn’t be censored for teaching what mainstream (worldly) scientists are teaching. You set your standard of truth on the shifting sand of man’s theories instead of the Rock of Truth. You accept man’s theories and reject God’s Word that clearly states God created the world in 6 days. The SDA church is founded on the Bible and takes her doctrine from it. You apparently don’t believe the Bible; that is inconsistant with the SDA church.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand anyone who questions the Bible and/or SOP. To me, God said it, and it is so. Period. Full stop.
Faith Also Commented
Sean Pitman: Cancer is not the result of intelligent design any more than your car breaking down and wearing out is the result of God deciding to slowly destroy your vehicle. It is just the way things are when when they are not constantly maintained. It’s a form of informational entropy over time. Things naturally wear out and degenerate when God is not constantly involved in maintaining them. That is why Adam and Eve grew old and died after they decided to separate themselves from God’s constant care.
Perfect example, Sean. One of the most obvious reasons the evolutionary theory does not work is that, as as whole, everything on earth is degenerating. That is opposite of what the evolutionary theory proposes. It says that everything is getting better…the one-celled amoeba is growing into something better than itself. This, in itself, blows the doors off evolution, as far as I am concerned.
Sorry, Ron, I don’t see our positions as even close.
You align yourself with Satan, who is an accuser of the brethren, and go one step further in accusing God of evil actions. I would never do that. I know God as a just and merciful parent.
Sometimes a parent will stand back and allow his child to take the natural consequences of their actions to teach them that the wrong choice leads to unpleasant results. That is precisely the same as God is doing right now. He is not interfering because if He did the lesson would not be learned.
The point is, if God had played interference every time Satan wanted to destroy, hurt, or injure, we would never see the natural consequences of sin or the wicked nature of Satan.
As much as it hurts God to see His creation suffer, He has to step back and let sin come to maturity, so that no one will ever want it to arise again. That is His chosen solution to the sin problem because He knows infinitely more than we do, and He knows that it is the best possible solution. He tenderly deals with all Creation, in that He allows us to see for ourselves the revolting results of sin. This will be a lesson for the entire Universe forever and ever.
I long for the time that sin will be purged from the Universe. I long for heaven with its perfect peace. I have no desire to know sin and I know that God will not let it arise again, once this horrible experiment is over. Praise His name.
Frankly, Ron, I don’t understand your way of thinking. You affirm Eve’s choice–yet it led to the very thing that you hold against God–the death of your father. Without Eve’s disobedience that never would have happened; we would not be subject to death at all on this planet. Do you think the knowledge of sin was worth that?
Sean Pitman: It is for this reason, for the reason that evil will in fact prove itself so utterly horrible and completely repulsive, that the unfallen universe and the redeemed will forever realize that it is never good or “worth it”, not even in the long run, to rebel against God or to choose a path of our own making contrary to His express will for us.
Amen, Sean. This entire post is right on.
Recent Comments by Faith
WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
Pauluc: “I do not judge my beliefs by anything other than the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I judge my science by the conventions that has been the source of the knowledge of the world that we now possess and enjoy. I do not at all confuse the two.”
Seeing as science was created by God, just how do you presume to separate the two? Science, like every other part of our lives, should include God. You can’t profess to believe in a God that Created the earth when looking at religion and deny the Creator when looking at science. That would be “science-so-called”. True science reflects the Creator.
You can’t have it both ways–either you believe in the Bible and God as Creator in your science or you don’t believe the Bible and God as Creator in your religion. God does not accept the divided heart.
Mack Ramsy: You must either acknowledge a massive global conspiracy, or that there is some truth in what is being taught.
There is a massive global conspiracy, Mack. It is called Satan going around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. All your supposed knowledge, if it contradicts in any way, shape, or form, what God stated in the Bible is WRONG. Anyone who is deceived thereby is not wise.
Mack Ramsy: We’re trying to incorporate what the bible teaches in a constructive meaningful way.
Not so–you are doing violence to the Scriptures to try to make it fit man-made theories. You have chosen, unwisely, to reject God’s word in favour of man’s theories. That’s the truth of it.
Mack Ramsy: Oh i know this is kind of a personal question but how many gay people have you killed this week? No? any pagans then? Hmm. Might want to get on that. Just a friendly suggestion in helping you be personally accountable for biblical teachings from friend in Jesus.
Hardly a friendly suggestion, Mack, more like a nasty accusation. I wonder how surprised you are going to be to see the wicked punished? God doesn’t like to do the dirty work, but it will have to be done. In the meantime, pointing out sin isn’t the same as killing someone, is it???
Bill Sorensen: We have a good spiritual time, and many tell me when they are getting out, they will keep the bible Sabbath
God Bless you and your ministry, Bill.
La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
There has been much discussion on the church and whether or not it will, as an organization, go through to the end. In reading the various posts I have come to the conclusion that we seem to be using different definitions of ‘the end’ and thus are not in agreement on this topic. I would like to clarify, if I may, what I believe concerning the church and the end of time.
I do agree with many of you that there will be a time when the church will not be operating as a physical organization. That will be the time when we are scattered in various hiding places over the earth, or in prison, as the Lord sees fit–and this will happen after the close of probation with the entrance and enforcement of the International Sunday Laws. However, I don’t think that this negates the church being alive to the end. No, we won’t be meeting in churches, or paying our tithes and offerings to the organization just before God comes. But the church–the people and her doctrines–will survive to the end.
In the book Messenger of the Lord by Herbert E Douglass, he points to a statement that E G White made in 1908, “I am instructed to say to Seventh-day Adventists the world over, God has called us as a people to be a peculiar treasure unto Himself. He has appointed that His church on earth shall stand perfectly united in the Spirit and counsel of the Lord of hosts to the end of time.”18
The book goes on to say:
“Revelation 3 depicts no last-day church beyond Laodicea, thus giving hope that some day many of them will repent, overcome, and fulfill God’s plan for the last-day church (Rev. 3:18-21). No other subject for any church-related agenda, either for individuals or institutions, can be more urgent or important to implement.”
My beliefs agree with these statements. We have been given no other counsel to leave the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Since Ellen White was a prophet for the last days–to the very end of time, I think she would have made it crystal clear–abundantly clear–that we would have to leave this church if, indeed, we would. I remember a statement saying to the effect “Stay with the church for she will come into port.” So, I will not be looking for another church.
I do know it is possible for the church to become Babylon. The possiblity exists as long as there is sin on this earth. However, I think that if this is going to happen to the SDA church, it would have been prophesied for us, so that we would be prepared to leave the church. I also realize that new light may yet come to us…but I sincerely doubt that, in the light of the shaking (which is a reformation), we need to worry about this. I fully believe the church will be cleansed to allow the work to be finished. From what Sister Ellen says, those who come into the church will fill the places of the ones who are shaken out. This will happen before probation ends, or else there would be no way anyone could change.
Hopefully this makes my stance more clear on this subject. Sorry if I have misled anyone with my earlier posts.
WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
And round and round we go.
Professor Kent and Pauluc et al continue to try to force us all to admit to blind faith as the reason for our belief in Creation, and Sean, bless him, conintues to offer proofs for Creation because he knows that there are evidences of the Creator in Creation and we don’t have to take it all on “blind” faith. So…what is behind all this constant strife?
Here’s how I see it.
The professors and other like-minded individuals want us to claim blind faith because then they think they can put Creation into a little box called “Religion” and separate it from the box called “Science” (that’s their opinion, not mine.) This is a vain quest, because it can’t be done. You cannot separate the Creator from His science. You cannot, with any integrity, separate your religion from any part of your life. The only possible reason to try to do this is so you can put forth “proofs” propounded by mere men that don’t mesh with the Bible. This is being double minded…trying to serve God and man…which, of course is, in reality, not serving God at all, because you are basically calling Him a liar.
Don’t you realize that Satan is a masterful deceiver? Don’t you think he can manipulate the evidence to make you draw false conclusions from it? Don’t you realize that there is a perfectly good explanation for it all if it is seen in the correct light?
You see, this is where I feel that some SDA scientists lose their credibility. They have been faced with arguments that may, on the surface, prove evolution. So they begin to question God instead of questioning the evolutionists. Just the fact that if you look at the whole picture you can see that the world is getting worse and worse instead of better and better blows the whole theory of evolution right out of the water.
And why do our SDA scientists go to the world for their wisdom when we have the Bible and SOP to guide us? They are looking for worldly acceptance and acclaim, that’s why. They don’t want to be seen as the “lunatic fringe” who believe in God. They can’t tolerate the jeering of the worldly “scientists.” They perceive that as undermining their credibility and dignity as professional scientists. Well in actual fact, they lose their credibility as both Christians and scientists when they try to marry truth with error.
This is why Professor Kent’s claim to believe in Creation as stated in the Bible is not taken seriously. How can it be when he tries to claim there are no evidences to support Creation? That is simply not true. Sean can, and has, presented many evidences to support Creation. And there are many others out there like Sean that understand the significance of these evidences.
Of course the typical response from the “scientists” is that those who claim there is evidence for Creation are “uneducated”, “ignorant” people who “don’t understand scientific principles.” Yet these are the very people who claim that evolution, an unscientific and unprovable theory, is the answer to human origins. This is unfathomably faulty logic. There is no valid reason why SDA scientists should be promoting evolution in any of its forms.
While I know that there are aspects of God and His Creation that are a mystery to us at this point, and that must be taken on faith, we are not called to base our beliefs on “blind” faith. We have every reason to believe that God speaks the truth to us in His word and that we can rely on His veracity 100% whether or not we have concrete proof that what He claims is true. We have seen, and are seeing daily, prophecies come true. It is absolutely amazing that He could give Nebuchadnezzar a dream that accurately shows the world’s kingdoms right to the end of time. And it has all come to pass as predicted. That in itself should inspire complete confidence in His Word.
So, what it all boils down to is this: Professor Kent and Pauluc, who claim to have faith in God’s Word actually undermine it and Sean, who claims to have no blind faith, actually upholds the faith. Kind of funny, isn’t it?
Happy Sabbath everyone.