Like or Dislike: 0  0

It is good indeed to be Christlike in our response to our erring brethren. I would even say that it is necessary – a requirement.

However, let us not believe that in every case Christlike means an avoidance of tough talk. Read Matthew 23 -

Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mat 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Mat 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

And what about Jude

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

And there is more.

We may be Christlike if we choose and we should choose that way. But when people stubbornly resist the truth and refuse to change their ways, they have to be rebuked sharply or even stronger action taken so that others may be saved.

Like or Dislike: 4  2

I strongly agree that Seventh-day Adventists must preserve those beliefs that form the foundation of our movement. While I agree that we are the End-Time Remnant Church, I think there is more at stake than our identity as a Church. Our Identity as Children of God is being threatened. Progressive Adventists may assert that this is nonsense, and just the ramblings of fundamentalists, but Faith offers purpose to life in a way that mere culture can’t. Without a concrete belief system founded upon universal truth there can be no true faith, because there is no real substance.

With that said, I do have a serious concern over the way some well-intentioned Adventists will attack an issue by attacking people. There is a way to handle this problem that I believe will be far more productive than combat. It is our calling to lovingly educate our church members with the truth of the gospel and the authority of God’s Word. We need to be aware of institutions that teach ideas that are incompatible with our faith, and encourage our young people to attend universities that uphold our values. In addition we need to exercise our freedom of speech and advise our leaders that we are discontent with their decisions to allow this kind of open rebellion against Adventism to continue.

Why do we forget that we don’t have to fight God’s battles for Him? God has called us represent Jesus in all we do. If we will love our brethren unconditionally and live like we belief, the enemy will have no weapon to prevail against us. God fights for us, and for His own sovereignty. He will deal with those who would fight against Him. Do we pray for their Salvation? Do we speak kindly to them as fellow sinners in need of a redeemer? Do we assume that these are evil men and women, bent on the destruction of our way of life, or is it possible that they are as we have all been, sincerely trying to understand a sinless, infinite God with a sinful, finite mind?

Could it be that, to a degree, we are to blame? Many of the people involved in the Progressive Adventist Movement are generational Adventists. Have we pushed them away with cold legalism and shallow doctrine taught not from the light that flows from the cross of Christ? It is true that we must all take responsibility for our own actions, but we must also be responsible for our brethren (Galatians 6:1-3). In the judgement each person will stand or fall based on the choices they made for themselves, but we we also have to give an account for those we led away from Christ by our words and actions.

My encouragement to all who read this is to win souls for Jesus Christ by proclaiming the truth of the Gospel with boldness and in love. Put yourself aside and be like Jesus by selflessly reaching out those in need. When the truth is shining brightly the darkness is exposed for what it really is.

Blessings to all,
Jonathan

Like or Dislike: 3  0

you posted the syllabus as evidence that evolution is exclusively promoted. I still did not find that to be the case based upon what I found in the syllabus. If the actual course experience does not reflect the syllabus, students should bring that concern to their department chair and request that the syllabus and experience be appropriately aligned.

The article above includes this 404B link

http://www.educatetruth.com/presentations/lee-greer-lsu-unstuhnr-404b-presentation/

At that link we see in the slides provided – reference after reference to evol fiction claimed as “confirmed”.

If you find something in 404B with slides stating YEC as “confirmed” and then some argument that follows – please share that with the class. We are all ears.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 4  3

Ervin Taylor says:
December 17, 2009 I trust that the EducateTruth.com administration will keep the entire record of the postings on all threads of this site from the beginning and provide that record to an historical archive specializing in Adventist studies such as at Loma Linda University and at Avondale College in Australia.

That record will be a valuable reference source for future historians of the Adventist Church to document one small aspect of how difficult it is for a denomination to mature from its populist and fundamentalist roots in light of the extremist, vocal views of small groups of arch-reactionaries with access to the internet.

The comment above is (I believe) a good example of what passes for logic – among our evolutionist friends.

Notice that Taylor pretends to be interested in a historic change or shift within the denomination away from our doctrinal statement and toward a more atheist evolutionist doctrine on origins. A shift where the current stated position of the denomination – as voted on by the world church — is in Taylor’s imagination someday “change” (at some unknown future point in time).

While waiting for that change from the existing stated position – Taylor suggests that we view current acceptance of the current voted positions of the church (concerning the doctrine of origins) to be “extremist” an “arch-reactionary”. His happy fiction suggests that those in favor of the existing voted position of the church are a “small group”.

Certainly we can all grant that Taylor-world is indeed a “happy fiction” for evolutionists hoping one day for a doctrinal “course change” in this denomination – it is still far from reality for the church membership today.

But if you think about it — it is that same kind of “fiction for fact” thinking that leads to acceptance of evolutionism in the first place!

How instructive then the statement by atheist evolutionist Colin Patterson that evolutionism actually “conveys ANTIKNOWLEDGE”.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 2  3

John: It is just as possible to discuss faith and science without promoting evolution.

True; however, there is a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests that the theory of evolution is being promoted to the exclusion of creationism.

John: The difference is that you posted the syllabus as evidence that evolution is exclusively promoted.

This is what I said about the syllabus:

The UNST 404B class, at least last year, was exclusively dedicated to presenting the evidence for the theory of evolution. The syllabus for the UNST 404B class gives a list of reserved books.

The syllabus alone does not prove evolution was exclusively promoted. You’ll see in the sentence I used “exclusively dedicated” I was primarily referring to the presentations given in the class. All of the presentations that I have looked through (about 3) did not mention any evidence for a recent creation.

John: If the actual course experience does not reflect the syllabus, students should bring that concern to their department chair and request that the syllabus and experience be appropriately aligned.

As evidenced by the minority of students who have brought this to the administrations attention, students at LSU don’t appear to be overly concerned about whether or not a professor supports a recent creation. Also, those who have brought it up have been repeatedly ignored over the years. Nothing really started happening till this issue came into the public eye.

John: That was the only use of “creation”. Did you find this statement to be enough evidence of support in a university bulletin of clear support and promotion of a recent creation?

No. I rely on my knowledge of the professors there. All of whom are committed to a recent, six-day creation.

John: Personally, I don’t think it is the role of a professor to “promote” anything.

I disagree, especially in the context of a Seventh-day Adventist university.

John: I don’t think the LSU Biology professors “promote” creation or evolution. If anything, they only promote the study of biology.

John, when professors who personally believe in the theory of evolution teach the theory of evolution without addressing creationism, evolution is being promoted. Granted, there are biology classes that do not address the theory of evolution. Frankly, none of them have to. It is not necessary to be familiar with ToE in order to understand biology; however, I do believe it’s important that biology majors understand the theory. I can agree that their primary objective is to promote the study of biology, but within the worldview of evolutionary mechanisms.

John: …it is important for all of us to think carefully about the evidence presented to us and the comments presented along with them. That goes for the students and professors at LSU in terms of how Biology is taught, and for those of us reading the content on this site as well.

Agreed. It would be much easier if LSU was more forthcoming with their material instead of attempting to sequester it. If evolution is really the better theory as some of these professors say, then why is the administration not embracing it? I suspect that one reason is that the president is sympathetic to their worldview. I think its quite revealing that LSU hasn’t gone on record with any substantial statement of support for a recent creation. They haven’t even denied the allegations. And they can’t, there’s too much evidence that says otherwise.

Like or Dislike: 2  5

I also appreciated you posting a link to the SWAU bulletin. Under “Aims of the Department” (Biology), it included “to prepare students to respond intelligently to Creation/Evolution issues.” That was the only use of “creation”. Did you find this statement to be enough evidence of support in a university bulletin of clear support and promotion of a recent creation? There was also a course listed entitled “Philosophy of Science” which is described as “A study of the philosophies and methodologies of science. Includes a review of the history of scientific and religious thought and the role each has played in the development of modern theories of origin. If you could obtain a syllabus for that course, I would appreciate reading it.

Personally, I don’t think it is the role of a professor to “promote” anything. When I was a Biology major at LSU just a few years ago, the professors engaged us in the tools and methods biologists use to better measure, analyze, and understand the world around us today. They find more value in having us explore and test our ideas than telling use what is right and wrong. Focus was placed on the questions we ask in biology and the ways we approach searching for the answers. It was not, however, about telling us the exact answer to all of those questions. I don’t think the LSU Biology professors “promote” creation or evolution. If anything, they only promote the study of biology.

Sometimes a professor may need feedback on improving a course experience. Sometimes there will be a student in a capstone course after a full sequence of biology courses, who submits a paper full of plagarized content pasted from a website about evolution being wrong, and blames the professor’s hatred for creationism as the reason for his/her poor grade. Either way, it is important for all of us to think carefully about the evidence presented to us and the comments presented along with them. That goes for the students and professors at LSU in terms of how Biology is taught, and for those of us reading the content on this site as well.

Like or Dislike: 5  1

I’ve heard from three other LSU students about the hostile environment that’s created in the classroom sometimes when they attempted to broach the subject. One professor became so upset one time he began yelling at a group of students who were creationists, telling them it was people like them that flew planes into buildings. Yes, I know who the professor is and I have multiple witnesses to this incident.

The treatment of these students sickens me, considering they’re at an Adventist university. The professor above shouldn’t even be in the classroom.

I am facinated by the fact that these stories surface from students at LSU – as well as a number of former LSU students that have posted on this web site atesting to the same all-for-evolutionism history at LSU (and even some ex-LSU professors have admitted to the same here) — and yet we have recent comments here by one of our pro-evolutionist posters that all the student posts on this web site – of actual LSU students – are in full support of the “in-the-tank for evolutionism” policy of the LSU biology professors.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 2  1

Shane Hilde: @John:
I’ve heard from three other LSU students about the hostile environment that’s created in the classroom sometimes when they attempted to broach the subject. One professor became so upset one time he began yelling at a group of students who were creationists, telling them it was people like them that flew planes into buildings. Yes, I know who the professor is and I have multiple witnesses to this incident.The treatment of these students sickens me, considering they’re at an Adventist university. The professor above shouldn’t even be in the classroom.  

This is a serious matter for this professor is now likening a creationist to a terrorist. This professor should be identified publicly and hastily dismissed. Perhaps there should be even charges filed against him, for he has gone on to severely traumatising the students.

Please do whatever is possible to legally post his name so we can up the ante. In my classrooms I have often met people who I disagreed with and I never humiliated or disrespected them (intentionally, deliberately or emotionally). Irrespective of religion, sexual orientation, creed, race, national origin or whatever distinction, every student must have the right to believe differently from others and not be subjected to such hostile and inflammatory remarks. This issue must not rest.

Like or Dislike: 3  6

@John: I just heard back from my friend who took that capstone class last year and he said:

…whenever the topic of Creation would come up (from a student not a prof. mind you) the student would be ‘attacked’ by one or both of the profs, and there was a lot of deriding, belittling, and ridiculing in their retorts to the idea of Creation. So I believe that whether or not Creation was mentioned in that class, it was not something to be taken as plausible in any shape, case, form, or fashion.

I’ve heard from three other LSU students about the hostile environment that’s created in the classroom sometimes when they attempted to broach the subject. One professor became so upset one time he began yelling at a group of students who were creationists, telling them it was people like them that flew planes into buildings. Yes, I know who the professor is and I have multiple witnesses to this incident.

The treatment of these students sickens me, considering they’re at an Adventist university. The professor above shouldn’t even be in the classroom.

Hot debate. What do you think? 4  6