Comment on AAA to examine LSU by Vicki Gillham.
May we always remember to keep the spirit of Christ’s redemptive love in all our dealings.
Though my viewpoints are different than things that have been said, I feel really touched by what Professor Kent has said in the last couple of posts, trying to seek some reconcilliation.
My experience is that so often we argue too strongly for our points, and our sinful impatience comes out instead of the truth. I myself have been a very strong defender of values and truths in so many situations, and I believe that is very much a duty for Christians, but sadly often found that I have not spoken carefully with a heart filled with love. We must be strong and stand for the truth, while at the same time doing all we can to keep the “law of kindness” on our tongue, and avoid speaking “like the thrusts of a sword,” as Sister White also says “avoid all sharpness,” avoid things which might spark someone to feel angry. Then we may find that in many cases we may be reconcilled to our brethren, while yet avoiding the opposite extreme of compromising the truth in any way, and while yet sharing openly and clearly about the truths and standing up for what is right.
May the Lord bless each one.
Table of Contents
Vicki Gillham Also Commented
AAA to examine LSU
[edit] I’d be happy to share more [regarding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation] with anyone who wants further discussion – nutrinurse1@yahoo.com. May the God of peace bless each one.
Vicki
AAA to examine LSU
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your thoughtful contributions. I appreciate your spirit and see that you are a deeply intelligent individual.
I’d like to ask you a little about what you have shared. Do you really think it’s possible to separate science from faith? In a similar way, how can we separate the mind from the body and the spirit?
In regard to our existence, all these elements have mutual influence and the whole must be considered in order to truly understand our being. Modern medicine, though excellent in things like diagnostics and emergency care, etc, has mostly neglected to take that aspect into consideration in the treatment of disease, I believe, as it largely considers merely the physical element, viewing such a method as “objective” and “scientific.” But it would perhaps be more accurate a science to treat individuals holistically, and help them connect spiritually with their Creator who has power to restore the whole being.
In a similar way, it has been sometimes suggested that considering the world through the eyes of science apart from faith would help us come to more objective conclusions. However, is that really so objective? It seems to be quite a strong bias that may lead to misinterpretation of facts and ignoring or covering up of evidence.
In many cases, though it may not be the case with you, the bias against faith comes from a love for things that we know God requires of us, which He calls sin. It may also be from the fact that we as humans feel threatened by the thought of the existence of a Being in the universe so much higher than ourselves. It is a much more agreeable viewpoint to think that perhaps we ourselves are the highest being in the universe. For those scientists who work from that perspective, is that not something that could be called pride? Couldn’t it be said that their research is influenced by personal motives and an agenda to elevate the pride of man?
Dear brother Ken, I would like to venture something, and hope that perhaps you may consider it sometime when you are looking into the stars of the night. That is, that I believe there is far more scientific, objective and even obvious evidence for the theory of creation just as the Bible states it than there is for evolution. That, in fact, the evidence for the theory of evolution is negligible, and scientists are grasping at straws to try to make the theory work. The missing links have not been found for evolution, but they are there for creation. Many scientists themselves are giving up on the theory of evolution, or have shown a tendency to switch over to almost any kind of far-out idea available, rather than accepting creation (such as the “hopeful monsters” concept of a lizard laying an egg and a bird hatching out, etc). That can hardly be considered objective science, it’s more like something that is based on an agenda.
One example of a university professor who vehemently supported and taught the theory of evolution, who later came to believe in creation is Walter Veith of South Africa. He now promotes creation all over the world, and has a lot of good information on his website, etc. having come from the perspective of a teacher of evolution.
It is quite sad, though, that because of the personal failings of Christians who show impatience and unkindness which is not according to our Lord’s example or instructions, people are led to believe that faith causes you to loose calm, scientific objectivity. I hope you will consider that these manifestations of individuals may not truly reflect the whole of what it means to have faith.
Hey, take care, OK? Peace to you…
Vicki
