Faith said: …how could you be so dumb?

Please refrain from calling anyone dumb. If this type of verbiage is used again, your comments will be blocked from this forum.

Like or Dislike: 6  1

Faith: So what you are saying then, Ron, is that God has to come up to your academic standard because He was definitely wrong when He said that He had created the earth in 6 literal days. (Of course, He was there and neither you nor all your little evolutionary cohorts were, but…hey…if some dude with initials behind his name said it, it must be true, right?)Obviously He wasn’t privy to your wonderful discoveries in the laboratory, I suppose. (Right–He only knows the end from the beginning.) But you just go right ahead being led around by the nose by those who are willing to defame God and His creation in the name of the god ’science’.

This shows very clearly who and what you worship–and it isn’t God.

How can you people be so blind to something so obvious? You all seem to think you are smarter than God, so how could you be so dumb?

This general conversation and debate is focused on issues that are both academic and spiritual, and our discussion ought to be be of a quality and tone that will reflect that reality. The laughter of the secular world is our reward if Christians can not act in a civil manner.

I have found that most (but by no means all) of us with “initials after our names” have found that the more we learn, the less we really know and we are forced to accept a fair level of humility as a result. In my experience, this has particularly been the case among professors at LSU.

David Kendall
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University

Like or Dislike: 4  0

Faith:
So what you are saying then, Ron, is that God has to come up to your academic standard because He was definitely wrong when He said that He had created the earth in 6 literal days. (Of course, He was there and neither you nor all your little evolutionary cohorts were, but…hey…if some dude with initials behind his name said it, it must be true, right?)Obviously He wasn’t privy to your wonderful discoveries in the laboratory, I suppose. (Right–He only knows the end from the beginning.) But you just go right ahead being led around by the nose by those who are willing to defame God and His creation in the name of the god ‘science’.

This shows very clearly who and what you worship–and it isn’t God.

Ron:
The other premise expressed on this site, that evolutionism somehow destroys the value of the Sabbath, or Adventism, I am unwilling to grant. It certainly doesn’t for me.

Faith:
Your above statement, by the way, is a great example of what you have stated you are unwilling to grant.

Ron said: I think is unethical to ask our faithful God fearing Biology teachers to teach something that has no scientific foundation.

Faith: How do you figure these guys are faithful or God-fearing when they are basically calling God a liar at every turn. How can you people be so blind to something so obvious? You all seem to think you are smarter than God, so how could you be so dumb?

You need to get your priorities straight, Ron, if you are going to claim to be an SDA. You see, the SDA church believes in God, His Word, and His creation. If you have lost sight of those facts, you need to get back to the basics.
Faith

Like or Dislike: 2  3

Hi Scott,

Thank you for responding. As I have been watching the voting response I could tell by the poor results, as compared to my previous posts, that I had not come across the way I intended. Perhaps I dwelt too long on the ‘compassion issue.’ That was for Ron’s sake. He doesn’t know me and had shown concern that my positive remarks for ‘decisive action now’ was perhaps showing a lack of compassion. Compassion does have its place. Remember Jesus’ prayer while hanging on the cross. However, if a poisonous snake is about to bite one of my family, and since I don’t possess the power of dealing with it as God did for Paul, it will get decisive action very, very quickly. That won’t remove the fact that I know the snake is only trying to defend itself and therefore feel a bit compassionate toward it. I hope the illustration is plain? There does come a time when action must take place but not without compassion.

Brother Scott, please review my posting that you responded to. Apparently you have been following this problem longer than I have and have come to realize, I expect a long time back, that this is not going to be stopped by persuasion. I have not been following it, didn’t even know about it, until a very short time back.

You used the term ‘decade’ in reference to ‘the new theology and celebration worship.’ If you will notice I used the term ‘ten years’ twice in my comments – meaning that’s more than ample time to deal with this problem before decisive action – which should make it plain that I also have come to the same conclusion that you have. And I expect I got there quicker that you did.

After reviewing my comments I can see that the next to last paragraph talking about proper procedure is where the real problem was. Let me say this:

I’m no lawyer and what I have to say about procedure is not intended to be presented as ‘the way it is.’ It is just my concept of how it is supposed to work. I’m going to try to explain it again in more detail, and it may very well be completely wrong. I hope we do have an Adventist lawyer keeping tabs on this. If so, my plea with you, grade this presentation and give us the ‘real’ proper procedure. What follows is my understanding of how it’s supposed to work. This understanding comes from what I understood I was being told, plus what I have observed during the fifty nine years I have been a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

When the teacher, or anybody else who thinks they have found something the church is wrong about, first realized he/she had encountered what they believe to be forceful evidence that the church was wrong and the evolutionist were right, that was the time to activate the process. Instead of just starting to teach it, he/she was supposed to have taken it to the local pastor in private. It could be that the pastor would have the answers. No further action would have needed to be taken. If the pastor was unable to clear it up, he would then send it to the local conference president who would, if necessary, enlist whatever scholarly help was available on the local level. If collectively, this study group were unable to resolve it, maintaining the church’s official position, then it would be sent to the next level up, etc. until the final stop which would then be the General Conference. Even then, the GC personal would not have to spend much, if any, time on it. That would be the point where The Biblical Research Institute (BRI) would come into the picture – which is the reason for its existence. When the question found its place on their agenda they would research every bit of information known to man on the subject. All this time the individual who originated this question is supposed to remain silent, teaching what they know the church believes. If they can’t in good conscience do that, they should do the right thing and quietly leave, thus maintaining their own good record and avoiding the situation we are in right now.

After the BRI have finished their work, they do not have the authority to make a decision on what the church is to do with it. Their job would be to bring their findings to the General Conference in session. There the officially elected delegates would consider it and vote it up or down. If it became a part of the church’s belief, then, and only then, would the individual who originated the question be free to teach/preach it. To do so ahead of this process is what splits the church and causes off-shouts.

One other point: Someone mentioned closing down the school? Nope! It belongs to the church – the local conference where it operates. The appropriate thing to do is dismiss the offending personal and replace them with people who believe and adhere to the twenty-eight fundamentals.

As far as the General Conference doing anything about the current situation – I rather doubt they can legally do anything beyond influence and withhold financial support. As you said, Brother Scott, this problem is the responsibility of the local conference in which the school operates.
May God help us out of this mess with as little damage as possible.
Sincerely Your Brother in Christ & a friend you haven’t met yet.

Wayne Matlock
prodnew@swbell.net
waymat@swbell.net

Like or Dislike: 5  2

@Ron:

Ron says:
January 31, 2010 @Robert Bamford:

I don’t think you have proved your point that they are teaching it in opposition to creation. I haven’t seen anything so far that would support that assertion.

And I don’t think calling science “junk science” is helpful to the discussion. What is needed is real science that would support an alternate interpretation, however “creation science” seems to be getting weaker while evidence for evolution increases everyday.

To the contrary – with a little critical thinking you could easily have discovered by now – that even atheist evolutionists themselvs are decrying the “not science” methods of evolutionist diehard evangelists who tell stories “About how one thing came from another… stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science”.

Surely you “noticed” by now.

And as for “junk-science and confirmed fraud” we have a number of illustrative examples both recent and those that are time tested.

How about the recent 30 year long fraud regarding Neanderthals in Europe – surely you by-faith-alone devotion to evolutionism may allow you to admit to a confirmed fraud when you see it.

in Christ,

Bob

Hot debate. What do you think? 6  4

@Ron:

Ron says:
January 31, 2010 @BobRyan:

Actualy Bob, According to Mrs. White, the reason we developed schools is so that our science department could inform our theology department. One of her stated goals, was to counteract the influence of poorly educated “evangelists” who were teaching fanatacism.

I see. So the church diluted its focus on evangelism so that darwinist evolutionism could downgrade faith in God’s Word “sufficiently” and thus fulfill our mission as a church? Funny thing about that claim of yours — no quote, no reference to anything at all.

But as it turns out – I happen to have one for you –

I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old…. {3SG 91.2}

So is the quote above – an example of the “fanatacism” that you claim Ellen White was trying to get rid of in your rather wild claim above?

To put it directly to your point — I find your logic somewhat illusive in that you appeal to Ellen White – who has already given that bold statement above about “disguised infidelity”.

in Christ,

Bob

Hot debate. What do you think? 8  2

@John Testerman:

But then what happens to those traditionalist young people who believe that their faith requires them to hold to certain beliefs about natural history and the age of the earth? They will go right on believing that because that is what they think they must do to be Christians. Some of them will even write letters complaining about professors teaching evolution. Later, if reading or additional education have shaken that belief and they are tempted to give up their faith, they will hopefully remember their fine Christian professors at La Sierra who showed them a path whereby they could be intellectually honest scientists and Adventist Christians as well.

This is the classic “surrender first” solution that France tried in WWII.

It did not work then — it is not going to work for SDAs.

And oh by the way – it was already tried in Europe with respect to evolutionism. The Christian churches of Europe totally caved in to evolutionism – - and now they are being treated to having their church facilities turned into pool halls, beer halls and book stores and bowling alleys.

They are demonstrating to the rest of the world what a “post Christian age” actually looks like.

Turns out Darwin was right about one thing – there is no happy marriage possible for the thinking person – between evolutionism and the Bible.

At least not in the long run.

in Christ,

Bob

Hot debate. What do you think? 9  4

@John Testerman:

John Testerman says:
February 1, 2010 I wonder if those who are in such a rush to get rid of science professors at La Sierra for teaching evolution, have considered that these professors might be performing a valuable role in keeping many of our most talented young people in the church? Large numbers of educated young Adventists worship God as their creator and redeemer as a matter of religious faith, but do not, however, try to turn their religious faith into scientific theories. They would like to be both Adventist Christians and at the same time practice good science–which means going where the evidence leads. They do not believe that scientific evidence for a very long history of life on this planet and the relatedness of all life conflicts with their relationship with God or undermines the Sabbath.

1. Those young people NEED someone who can carefully show them that Ex 20:8-11 is much easier to read and understand than the average Theistic Evolutionist would like to imagine.

2. Those young people NEED to be informed about the “inconvenient details” found in 3SG 90-91 so they can fully understand the motive and message behind what is called “disguised infidelity” and just how it damages about half dozen SDA beliefs.

3. Those young people NEED to be INFORMED about the CONFIRMED junk-science and exposed fraud history behind evolutionism.

4. Those young people NEED to be taught the skill of “critical thinking” so that they don’t simply swallow all the hype and marketeering being sold as “a kind of science” by evolutionists. Marketeering that even atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson call “NOT SCIENCE”.

These young people, and there are a lot of them, need good role models in our schools, professors such as those at La Sierra, who are both good Adventists and good scientists

Which is what they WILL get at SDA schools OTHER than LSU. Any SDA school that knows enough to expose the junk-science religion of evolutionism STARTING with classes on critical thinking and the confirmed junk-science proven frauds central to evolutionism – will be a huge step from from the “sacrifice-all when evangelizing for evolutionism” model being used at LSU.

BUT if a few faithful SDA parents and students still choose to ignore this web site’s warnings and risk-all by sending students to LSU biology courses and pro-evolutionist religion courses — then what they WILL get from LSU that you cannot find in a public school – is a fully compromised faculty instructor promoting rank error — and being upheld by local university staff and faculty as a “a role model” that shows SDA students “how its done”.

The unbiased objective reader will find it more than a little “instructive” that this clear distinctive available only at LSU – is one key item that John zeros in on in his statement above!

Clearly we have at least ONE point that BOTH sides see clearly!!

in Christ,

Bob

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  4

Wayne,
You say we should study it out and let the general conference take care of the matter through our delegates. That’s plain wrong. The Holy Spirit counseled us in the Testimonies that we are not to lay local burdens on the general conference. To have the general conference weighed down with simple issues as this is rediculous, unless the university board refuses to live by and run the school in line with the fundamentals of belief accepted by the general conference. It seems obvious that there is a problem at La Sierra. If there weren’t, the university board would not be trying to keep things under wrap. They would come out with evidence to the contrary to exonerate the outstanding characters and class material the professors are teaching. Let’s not bury our heads in the sand. If the board was sure of the professors’ teachings being in line with the doctrines the church holds on intelligent design/creation, they would give the evidence. I have seen none. Therefore, I must presume they are trying to cover up the issue.

I have seen this same kind of attitude taken over and over again, and I am plain sick of it. I think God is too. Why pussy-foot with error? That’s how the new theology and celebration worship came into our church. Nearly everyone said, “We will sit back and study it for a decade or so to be sure if it is good or bad.” In the mean time, Satan did everything possible to set up his kingdom in our churches. Now we are dealing with ID/creation/evolution, and the same thing is happening before our eyes.
Where are our leaders? Where are our leaders? Where are our leaders?

Let’s not repeat the same mistakes. The situation should be dealt with swiftly and decidedly.

Hot debate. What do you think? 9  6

Maybe I should rephrase my statement: they (Educate Truth, Sean Pitman, David Assherick) are not asking teachers to even find employment else wear. They are asking LSU to be honest and publicize that this is what the teachers are teaching to students. I think that what a lot of us realize is that it would end up the same way essentially if they did as LSU’s main client base is till Adventist. I guess I could be wrong though. Educate Truth’s name lives up to that point as to make constituents aware of these facts. Seems like it has gotten some heat for it as well.

Hot debate. What do you think? 5  6