Comment on LSU not different than secular universities according to LSU student by BobRyan.
What a great film!
What a fantastic “illustration” with faculty debating in favor of evolutionism – and argue that they should be able to teach whatever they jolly well feel like teaching under the wide umbrella of “academic freedom” and even that it is GOOD for the university to be instilling DOUBT in students regarding Adventist doctrine – since that leads students to go somwhere else and find answers to all the doubt that LSU generates — and possibly that student because “a better bird for having done so”.
What a MISSION for LSU! What a VISION for their faculty.
And of course they also argue that any attempt to curb their foray into what Ellen White called “disguised infidelity” 3SG 90-91 would be to bring back the Dark Ages!!
And against all that – we see the STUDENT standing tall — opposing both faculty and fellow students who have fallen in line with the faculty!
We could not have asked for more than this to ILLUSTRATE the LSU problem!!
We would have expected the VERY SAME – from any public university all up and down the street!
LSU seems to be on the path of offering to SDA students — “THE very BEST PUBLIC university education that SDA tithe, tuition and offering dollars can buy!”
BobRyan Also Commented
To Timothy –
Indeed – “propaganda” tactics are easy to spot when we decide to use critical thinking instead of taking whatever they choose to feed their viewers and “swallowing it whole”.
That was a good review of the material’s propaganda content.
AToday and certain controlling groups at LSU seem bent on making LSU ‘the best public university that Adventist tuition, tithe, and offering dollars can buy”
At UCR, I left with a double major in Biology and Chemistry Magna Cum Laude and entered medical school at Loma Linda University without a single cent of debt and a clear head about what was truth and what was evolution. Apparently, this might not be the case for some La Sierra graduates.
At the end of the day our decision as parents will be this: Why should I send my children to an SDA institution that is 5-10x more expensive to be taught evolution as truth when I can send my children to much cheaper schools, in most cases get a better science education and be able to tell my children that evolution is being taught to them because the public universities arenâ€™t Christian nor beleive in the second coming of Christ or the Sabbath? It is going to be much harder to explain to my children why evolution is being taught as truth to them from an Adventist institution. I am not willing to pay for that problem. I am not alone.
Very sobering thoughts to be sure.
Thank you for sharing that!
So Adventists obviously are, and have always been, about 95% fundamantalist. So it is surreal to see the term â€œfundamentalistâ€ being used as a scary word about Adventist youth. If Adventist youth are drawn to fundamentalism, they come by it honestly, since their parents are also essentially fundamentalists.
Obviously, calling Adventist youth â€œfundamentalistâ€ is a liberal rhetorical strategy designed to imply that traditional Adventist views are new and different, when it is in fact the liberals who are promoting a new theological agenda radically different from traditional Adventism.
I agree completely.
I have over the years placed about 20,000+ posts so far on a very large Baptist discussion board (Ok 23,436 but who is counting) as well as posting on a number of other non-SDA contexts and I can tell you with some degree of confidence that your POV on what is regarded as “Fundamentalist” is correct.
Many SDA liberals dupe their fellow SDA church member by pretending that “fundamentalist” is something that is “not SDA”. They are dead wrong.
In common usage across ALL denominations – (as it turns out) the term simply means “one who takes the Bible seriously and literally”. A more focused defintion will also add that a fundamentalist is one who holds to certain “orthodox” Christian doctrines such as the Trinity saved by Grace through faith and the innerancy of scripture.
By every measure – Adventists ARE fundamentalist!
But the liberal anti-Bible argument is very wise in this regard – if they can dupe adventists into tossing that “baby out the window” as if it is “bathwater” they will have won their pro-evolutionist evangelistic objective as well as some key point on inspiration, the Judgment, the Ten Commandments etc.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind