Comment on LSU statement regarding resignations and Bradley’s email by BobRyan.
Ron Stone M.D.: As I expected, Spectrum has been praising Bradley, and condemning ET, Graham, and the GC for this latest problem at LSU.
It is not called “The big left tent” for nothing.
BobRyan Also Commented
Holly Pham: I have recently been able to hear these recordings, and I was actually shocked at the disparaging remarks and profanity made by these LSU administrators and staff, not only at the GC representatives, but at fellow staff and board members. Are these men typical of the rest of the LSU staff? I would hope not!
According to Kent – he heard the audio and then concluded that the discussion was pretty much average for what he is used to and he does not see why anyone would object.
In my opinion his statement says more about his own view of right and wrong than it does about the content of the tape.
Ron Nielsen: I am not surprised at the witch hunt because I have seen it over and over again in the Adventist church. Kellogg, Jones and Wagner, Ford, Brimsmead, Numbers, Standish, and many others. Our president recently asked every member in the church to speak up for religious liberty. How can you ask civil governments to grant religious liberty if you are not willing to grant religious liberty within the church?
Ron Nelson apparently is not fully aware of the definition of religious liberty.
Forbidding a given Christian entity to weed out its own apostates is a denial of religious liberty to that organization. At present we are free to disfellowship or to refuse admitance to those who do not hold to our doctrines.
But if the government were to step in and deny us that right – they would be restricting religious liberty.
You have the freedom to preach against once saved always saved — you do NOT have the civil authority to force Baptists to pay you for doing so, nor can you force them to grant you membership. And if you did have that civil power and used it in that way you would be denying them their religious liberties.
Greg W: I read this at Spectrum:
Jesus drank wine, said a few things that offended others, and certainly criticised administrators. He was not even a vegetarian! But was never asked to â€œresignâ€â€¦
The word for wine that is used for the feast at Cana is equivalent to our phrase “grape beverage” context determines whether it was alcoholic or not. The same is true for the last supper. (Which is part of the feast of unleavend bread – so it had to be fresh juice at the time.)
The issue in this case goes far beyond “criticised administrator” it goes to vulgar language, positions opposed to the doctrines of the church on creation, unchristian disrespect for others at a level that is not shown here towards the 4 who left even by their detractors.
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