Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Mack Ramsey.
@Sean Pitman: That is probably true, but then I would encourage you to develop the same sort of healthy skepticism that historians and archaeologists have even when it comes to alexandre the great. And yes New Testament has roughly contemporary sources, old testament isn’t even close roughly 500-600BCE give or take 100 years depending on who’s theory you like best. The oldest intact scriptures we have only date from the first or second century BCE. Further the eye witness accounts of the new testament don’t speak to the issue. They obviously never witnessed creation and I’m perfectly willing to accept the premise the author’s of the new testament conveyed their experiences to the best of their ability. But I’d like to challenge this idea that you want to use eye witness sources as the backbone for your belief. We know today that eye witness have atrocious reliability. But not only that but you must then give equal weight to all the miracles that we may not believe in. The Catholic church is replete with eye witness miracles that support their doctrine. By your logic, their saints and martyrs are then just as valid as Ellen White. And you have the eye witness accounts of all the other major (and minor) religions. Relying solely on eye witness accounts creates parity between our religion with theirs.
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.