Honest question: To Ron and Bob and Bill. Simply a hypothetical …

Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Mack Ramsey.

Honest question: To Ron and Bob and Bill. Simply a hypothetical question. Could you be wrong? Is there any possibility that your beliefs are well-intended but misguided?

You clearly believe you are correct, but could you allow for the possibility that you are simply not seeing the whole picture?

I know for my part the answer is Absolutely. There’s always the potential to be misguided or misinformed. And if there’s a shred of tangible evidence to support what the bible says about literal history then I’ll believe it. But Biblical history doesn’t even begin to make sense until well after the exodus. This is only my guess and contains zero scholarship outside of my casual reading of history and archaeology, but it probably wasn’t until the age of the prophets that the Hebrews began to keep accurate chronicles of their history. Simply but my training as a biologist and simple logic doesn’t permit me to cast away 150 years of science and history and call it a massive global conspiracy. If God really did make the world in 6 literal days 6000 years ago, then he did a perfect job of making it look like it evolved over a long period of time.


You and others quoted the 10 commandments numerous times. IF, and let me stress “IF” the writer of exodus genuinely believed that God made the world is 6 literal days some 2 and a half odd thousand years prior that doesn’t mean that I’m going to believe that as literal history. There are numerous instances in the bible that we don’t take literally but instead understand this to be part of their cultural and historical context. As a great example the ceremonial laws (just one of many many examples) aren’t seen as binding. ANd why should we understand the creation story as literal? It’s not as if the rest of the bible is any better when it comes to history. Every major historical event in the bible is either fiction or fictionalized (In the sense that there may have been some true story at one point that in the retelling of it became exaggerated to the point of legend). As odd as it may be to admit, the writers of the bible were prolific plagerists. So much of bible is based on the myths, legends, and philosophies of other more powerful cultures. But in a way that’s affirmational. If more powerful and accomplished nations found some metaphysical truth, then the veracity of that truth not only has stood the test of time from the bible but has a wider authenticity than a single backwards little country in the dustbin of history.

Mack Ramsey Also Commented

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation

Or this is something that everyone who reads the bible does. There’s no such thing as “sola scriptura” that’s a self-aggrandizing fiction that says we have the only correct interpretation. But even within Adventist circles we don’t read the bible the same way now as we did a few years ago, let alone a few generations ago. To ignore a person’s own biases and cultural perspectives is to embrace ignorance. We all bring our own selves when we read the bible. If “sola scriptura” was truly possible then humanity would have developed a single cohesive interpretation of the bible long ago. You say “liberals” are twisting the bible, that’s probably true, but then so are “conservatives”. If we can not live together then there is no point in having a church and the mission has already failed.

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation

BobRyan: ernet in Christian forums”.

The topic here is “can SDAs be forced to pay those who reject SDA doctrine – to continue to preach/teach against our beliefs and undermine our mission”.

Another point of correction: It was not at all apparent at the GC2010 session for the world wide church – that 50% side

Yes. You should pay them. It’s that whole don’t muzzle the ox bit or deny a workman his wages in the bible. You’ve hired these men you pay them. You paid them to teach science they taught it. Just because in your opinion you disagree with your teachers is not an indication of bad teaching, but that you a bad student. It’s possible for a teacher to make mistakes, but who corrects the teacher? other teachers, not the students. You may want to cover your years and scream “nanananananana” but this does not advance our mission. Dedication to truth advances our mission and for teaching the truth the teachers at la Sierra were unfairly persecuted. But let’s use a different issue to clarify things. I don’t agree with the churches stance on the non-ordination of women. But I don’t feel as if I’m being “forced” to support this policy with my tithes and offerings. This is an issue that I disagree with and I hope it changes. May it will someday, maybe it won’t. But even if it doesn’t (and let’s face it it probably won’t) just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t support the church. Same goes for you. You can be “forced” to support positions you do not personally agree with. Your taxes go to programs you don’t like, your pathfinder dues to things you may not agree with, the church supports positions that are incorrect (both liberals and conservatives have their bugaboos) every society has things that each individual member doesn’t agree with. If you think the aggregate is on the whole a positive one than the sacrifice is worthy.

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@Bill Sorensen: Just to be clear, you’ve equated me and all other so called liberals with the Devil, implying of course that you and your ilk are what? God? Holy Angels? Infallible saints? I am not a devil and you are not infallible. To even claim such even in metaphor is blasphemy. To reject compassion and tolerance toward your neighbors is apostasy and a far greater apostasy than puerile accusations of apostasy liberals may suffer. To seek a purge in the ranks of everyone who’s opinion differs from yours is self-destructive. To ignore the advise and wisdom of experts is childish. To retain an inflexible, stagnant philosophy is a choice you can not force onto others. With one breath you accuse the minority of subjecting it’s beliefs onto you, the next you claim a special mandate to make the church conform to your image of what it should be regardless of the wishes of the majority. I believe you are right in one respect who will control the church is an important question. Personally I think God controls the church and the changes we are seeing are divinely inspired. I certianly don’t see sputtering hatred and intolerance reflected in the fruits of the spirit. Unless of course you think the church is run by the devil in which case you should leave for the sake of your own soul. I mean either god is in control, or the devil and if the devil is in control then it’s no place for godly men. If god is in control then you should submit to his divine will. And this is beside the point but I’m really very amused that you consider any discussion of change to be an aggressive “attack”.

Recent Comments by Mack Ramsey

NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science
Honest question. Do people believe that we should abandon accreditation and accept the consequences there in, or is accreditation still desirable? Is that too “worldly”?

The God of the Gaps
I’m amused that the author spent time writing a very nice article about how absurd GoGs type thinking is but in the end decides to go with it anyway simply because he’s ideologically opposed to evolution for no other reason than it makes a sort of intuitive sense for him. Bill’s even better. He’s going with GoGs because the alternative throws him into an existential crises.