Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Mack Ramsey.
Sean Pitman: Now, Either Moses was a liar, or insane, or honestly deluded, or he was who he said he was – a prophet directly inspired by God as few have ever been
Or whatever was originally said has been lost to time and history and what remains are copies of copies that have been passed through the generations, added and expounded upon, filtered by each succeeding culture until they passed into myth and legend. There was almost certainly a Moses as there was almost certainly a king Arthur. But what remains bears little resemblance to historical fact. There doesn’t have to be only three options. Something C.S. Lewis should definitely had known if he was half the scholar that christiandom thinks he was.
BobRyan: Does the path dictated by apostasy tend to downgrade/downsize/dismiss the Word of God?
Who’s downgrading or dismissing the Word of God? By seeking a true understanding of the historical and cultural journey the book has taken through the eons and the multiplicity of understandings it’s gone through by definition elevates it to a place of unique value. Otherwise how does the bible differ from any other religious tome blindly followed by ignorant masses. By the logic of many here the Quran and many others are just as valid. Or are you suggesting that Muhammad and others are just as evil, insane, or truthful as the bible writers? If the bible doesn’t teach you more about the world then it is useless. If you use it as an excuse to remain in ignorance then you have done yourself and the religion you purport to follow an extreme disservice. Only those with extreme skepticism can honor their religion.
Mack Ramsey Also Commented
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.
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.