Propaganda carefully crafted generally takes the form of “appearing to …

Comment on LSU propaganda by BobRyan.

Propaganda carefully crafted generally takes the form of “appearing to say one thing – while reall saying another”.

For example “Doctors prefer Crest” makes it appear that all or the majority of doctors prefer or recommend Crest to their patients when in fact all that is needed for the statement to be true is that more than 1 doctor prefers to brush his teeth with Crest toothpaste.

Here is where “critical thinking” would be of service to the reader in a true caveat emptor fashion.

In the case of LSU today – we have the poster child for caveat emptor.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

LSU propaganda

Every time they mention the church’s position on creation, it is prefixed by the word, “voted”. They want to imply that the church’s stance on this is about a vote rather than about scripture, as if a vote can mandate the meaning of scripture. This is Satan at his most subtle, and their twisted truth is so close to the reality that you need spiritual insight from the Holy Spirit to understand what is really being said. Yea, hath God really said we were created in seven literal days, or was that just the majority vote?

AGreed – the Evolutionist argument is never from the Bible – it is always from “the need to change the Bible” and then they try to back away from their own handiwork claiming that the only reason Bible believing Christians believe the Word of God “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX days the Lord made” is — because of a “vote”.

It is becoming politically “correct” nowdays to conclude that people CHOOSE to believe the Bible – only to the extent that it is NICE to believe the Bible.

(Take the gay marriage issue for example). The idea is that if you CHOOSE to believe the bible in some area that is not “nice” for the National Academy of sciences, or not “nice” for the GLBT groups — then you have “chosen” a bad thing.

There is almost a “who cares” attitude when it comes to “yes but what does the Bible say” question. The real issue for many of these “Bible is NOT the Word of God” groups is “are you politically savvy enough to believe ONLY those parts of the Bible that we SAY you can believe and still be NICE”.

in Christ,


LSU propaganda
In the post above – one of the arguments in favor of “unity in doctrinal chaos” that LSU’s pastor Oberg makes is in the form of a claim that it was common in the 1800’s for Adventists to be in doctrinal chaos and yet in perfect harmony and unity. The idea being that doctrinal chaos is in no way contrary to the unity, development and growth of the Adventist church.

Let us go to the source on that point and see if pastor Oberg has told even half of the truth in that regard.

Our first conference was at Volney in Bro. Arnold’s barn. There were about thirty-five present, all that could be collected in that part of the State. There were hardly two agreed. Each was strenuous for his views, declaring
2SG 98
that they were according to the Bible. All were anxious for an opportunity to advance their sentiments, or to preach to us. They were told that we had not come so great a distance to hear them, but had come to teach them the truth. Bro. Arnold held that the 1000 years of Rev 20 were in the past; and that the 144,000 were those raised at Christ’s resurrection. And as we had the emblem of our dying Lord before us, and was about to commemorate his sufferings, Bro. A. arose and said he had no faith in what we were about to do; that the Sacrament was a continuation of the Passover, to be observed but once a year. {2SG 97.2}

These strange differences of opinion rolled a heavy weight upon me, especially as Bro. A. spoke of the 1000 years being in the past. I knew that he was in error, and great grief pressed my spirits; for it seemed to me that God was dishonored. I fainted under the burden. Brethren Bates, Chamberlain, Gurney, Edson, and my husband, prayed for me. Some feared I was dying. But the Lord heard the prayers of his servants, and I revived. The light of Heaven rested upon me. I was soon lost to earthly things. My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the Bible, were only according to their opinion of the
2SG 99
Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory. {2SG 98.1}

Clearly the “inconvenient details” do not support Oberg’s statement

Chris Oberg: at 43:00 “But in our early history we learned all the time, month after month, year after year they’ll say ‘we had a meeting where hardly two of us agreed, yet we left in harmony. We lived our life in the early years not all of us agreeing”

in Christ,


LSU propaganda
The LSU “Sabbath Sermon” — “More to the Story” is posted at Spectrum and at

In that sermon you will discover that “Ellen White did not like conservatives” and that a church where “hardly two or three agreed” but yet all were in complete harmony is the church of the 1800’s.

A few of the ending comments in that video with a few minor comments in parenthesis by me –

40:50 – Pastor Chris Oberg said: “two things come to mind as I listened carefully to what I heard Fritz Guy say.

(Thing -1)

40:59 – “I heard Fritz say that the old time religion that was good enough for Grandma and Grandpa might not be sufficient today. It helps us feel calm when we’re anxious, its familiar its what we know but it isn’t the whole story. We wouldn’t want the medical care of 100 years ago… who here wants the medical care of 100 years ago. When Uriah Smith was 12 ” (A story about a doctor cutting Uriah Smith’s leg off on the kitchen table without anesthesia – follows)

41:48 “Do you want the medicine of 100 years ago? I don’t!”… 42:00 “do you want the politics where only Anglo men can vote in society. That’s 100 years ago! Do you want the educational system of 100 years ago? No! 42:12 The old time religion that is foundational that is precious to us is not the end of the story”.


42:23 – “I am also thinking that we your pastors at La Sierra want you to be very clear on this church members because it has become very popular now in Adventist Christianity to say – ‘well if we can’t agree on this we are not even Adventist’. If you don’t believe in this (the ten horns and what they mean) we will not survive as a church. Language we heard in the 1888’s we heard it in 1901, 1905 we heard it again in Atlanta a few weeks ago. If we don’t all agree we can’t move ahead or somebody in the circle must not be Adventist”. 43:00 “But in our early history we learned all the time, month after month, year after year they’ll say ‘we had a meeting where hardly two of us agreed, yet we left in harmony. We lived our life in the early years not all of us agreeing” (Examples of some agreeing with health reform and Sabbath “earlier than others”). 43:25 “Some never did understand Ellen White’s ministry and claim it for their own. The editor of the Review, the two most important men in charge of the paper for Adventist Christianity didn’t agree theologically on the trinity and the nature of Christ, yet they can work 10,20,30,40 years together and help the church grow and thrive. ”

43:48 “It is a fallacy when someone says ‘unless 16 million Adventist Christians believe and think alike we are not Adventist. That’s a fallacy. (the sound of LSU clapping). Because just spend a week with Adventist Christians from around the globe and watch what the eat and what they drink and what the do on Sabbath and watch what they wear and how they worship and watch how they describe their family life at home…do that spend a week with a few 100 thousand Adventist Christians and you will see that we don’t have to behave and think precisely alike to be Adventists” (The grand equivocation)

44:48 “So when someone tries to persuade you – unless this or unless that you’re not Adventist and unless 16 million of us all move the boat this way – not Adventist. I just want to say to you La Sierra Christians there is more to the story there is always more to the story always more light up ahead.” (the grand equivocation combined with the “story” told in Genesis 3 to Eve)

45:06 “Let us not be persuaded by what is going on in culture – because it is so popular in the world right now to draw lines in the sand to name the two parties involved to say who is right and who is wrong” (As Oberg just did in complaining about Atlanta a few weeks ago) “to say who is in and who is out. To identify the point of view and to cluster around it and to mark others –…– are very savvy about this. And that’s what is creeping into the church right now. Where we are drawing lines and naming sides and calling some in, and some out and who are the real Adventists and who aren’t and I want to tell you there is nothing more unbiblical or unadventist than that idea”. (Now completely leaping into the shoes of the attitude Oberg is supposedly trying to condemn.) “We can all be Adventist Christians”.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


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.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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