Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by Courtney Edwards.
“Iâ€™m currently a student at LSU and I know personally that a great percentage of our campus fully supports the three professors under fire,.. “Neptunnus
A fair comment…After all; you would think if they didn’t know more, re science than you; there would be nothing you need to learn from them…and hence supporting them until you have reason not to; is only reasonable.
“…and we also DONâ€™T like outsiders trying to influence what goes on in our classrooms….”Neptunnus
A very unfair comment….Without the “outsiders”, there would be no funds to educate you and the “great percentage” who are trying to get the equivalent or better of the education the “outsiders” already have to their credit.
“…. We DONâ€™T like how ignorant Adventists who donâ€™t have PhDâ€™s or other reputable qualifications criticizing what professors are teaching, who actually do have the qualifications…..”Neptunnus
Another unfair comment….You would think that it couldn’t be possible for “ignorant Adventists” to have thought to build and staff a unversity of such high standards; high enough ie; to have attracted such intellingencia as yourself and “the great percentage”…if in fact those Adventists were “ignorant” as you assert. May one then take the liberty to suppose that there may well be some inexperience in identifying those who may be “ignorant” given the inexperience of the one doing the identifying;
and given also that because he/she may just now be attending an institution of higher learning that his/her “ignorant” Adventist mom or dad attended many years ago!
“…. I find banishing the theory of evolution from our curriculum a form of brain washing. Intelligent design is just not backed up by scientific evidence.”Neptunnus
True….and neither is a Being called God! So your “ignorant Adventist” mom and or dad must have also “brainwashed” you to believe a fact not “backed up by scientific evidence”.
Now; were you are were you not “brainwashed”? If you were; then don’t you think as one learned; that you must then also give others the right you enjoyed; in being yourself “brainwashed”?
Oh! do you believe there is a God? I should not have assumed you did? afterall; it is not backed up by scientific evidence!
“…. In addition, religion and science are two different methods of studying life. However, when you read the Bible literally, science and religion donâ€™t go hand in hand…”Neptunnus
Very perceptive….And since they don’t; which do you think should have preeminence? Science or the Creator of science? Or do you accept that science created itself? If science created itself,you then do not need religion. I will not insult your intelligence and that of the “great percentage”; in asking if you see the abscence of logic in your suggesting that science and religion are “different methods of studying life”…ie if the “religious” side of the duo[science/religion] is subordinate to science; then what need is there to bore oneself with the inferior author of religion.
“…. But, when you interpret Scripture and dig deeper, science can actually support the Bible….”Neptunnus
And when science doesn’t support the Bible; who then has the ascendancy?
Science…? The Bible…? I would say the Bible….What would you say?
If you would also say the Bible…you would now be as those “——– Adventists”. If you disclaim the Bible…you would as a result disclaim the Author of the Bible. You would then have chosen the side of science or whomever represents the side of science; and such a choice would put you and the “great percentage” as opposing the Author of the Bible.
“… Most of us students are confused to why there is such a big controversy……………..I would love to address the protestors who will come to our campus this Wednesday and say, â€œStand if you have a Bachelors. Remain standing if you have a PhD. Stay standing if you have a PhD in a science field. The ones who are still standing are the only ones qualified enough to be here protesting, and for the ones who are qualified obviously youâ€™re PhD doesnâ€™t mean sâ€”.â€Neptunnus
I suppose if Jesus happened to be among the protestors(remember He would be on the side of the Bible)he couldn’t stand at all!; his not having any certificate from the unversity of Jerusalem. Would you also say that his raising a dead human and bringing that dead human to life; a feat unheard of; re it’s being able to be replicated by any known human with any number of PhDs; would you say that you would still see Jesus as unqualified to speak to the science of “cell respiration”;[the stuff re mitochondria] given that he is no scientist and has not a PhD….O!..in science!?
“…. But, as a well-mannered University student, I choose to ignore the ignorant and the meddling group of people who claim to value high-education. I am by the way, a conservative and practicing Adventist. Learning about the theory of evolution has actually strengthened my relationship and belief in God, not weakened it….”Neptunnus
Really!…..I would never have guessed. For starters…a practicing Adventist is a true follower of Christ. A true follower of Christ cannot both believe that Jesus, the Lord he follows would be speaking the truth when He said “that He made all things; and nothing was made without Him” John 1:1…if such a follower of Christ also believes it impossible for Jesus to create life in an instant; and in exactly the same fashion as He recreated the dead putrefying cells of Lazarus…electrifying them into manufacturing the chemistry of life[cell respiration stuff]….AND IN AN INSTANT! Or was Lazarus never dead in the first place! Why don’t you run this one by your professors? You may be surprised at the answer from a ‘learned’ PhD! Then try an “ignorant Adventist”…Sure! you already know the answer! Well!as a practicing Adventist yourself; between the professor and the Adventist; in your estimation; which one would you say is “ignorant”?
Courtney Edwards Also Commented
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
If the professors who have embraced theistic evolution as an option to the fact of creation, had instead adopted the “theory of evolution” as proposed by Darwin et al, would they be accomodated by the board or would they be asked to teach differently?
If these professors had also chosen to even go further and teach the non existence of God, would they be asked to teach differently or would they be accomodated by the board?
If in the end the curriculum is determined by “a” body that would determine the outcome of any of the above scenarios, then such a body should make the bold decision to put an end, once and for all, as to who needs to yeild. It should not be the province of students or others…insiders or outsiders…to make the ultimate decision as to the curriculum that ought to be adopted. The board should be reflecting the values of the governing body that funds the university and such a governing body also enjoys the right as to whom it appoints to serve on the board…such “servants” one would expect, would reflect the values of those who appointed them to serve on their behalf.
From all appearances there doesn’t seem to be a governing body that is putting any pressure on the board it appointed. If there was, it would have, at this point, taken the discussion away from individuals who would “close” the institution and others who would take the university in a even more liberal direction.
While it is a fact that each of us has the right to each of our own individual beliefs; yet it is also a fact that our own individual beliefs must be kept to our selves; and should only be shared with those who so request it. The theory of evolution, theistic or otherwise is just that! a “theory”! and no one has the right to foist any “theory” on others…[God is not theory nor is His created works a theory]. Foisting evolutionary theories on impressionable minds is moreso even more unacceptable when “another” is a mind that can be easily influenced by those who are their “professors”.
If two professors disagree on any of the current evoltionary theories, and if these two professors also decided on their own individual lecture material, would the university allow the competing theories to be taught?
If they would, then the discussion should be directed away from the professors and students and directed at the decision makers, who so far have remained only absentee landlords, and silent observers, distanced from the fray.
Action needs to be taken. And as Jesus did; chase out the “money changers” out of His Father’s house as the offending parties, members of the board and or professors, should be chased out of the “schools of the prophets”[His Schools].
Recent Comments by Courtney Edwards
Adventists are virtually silent
“Observers are bound to notice that in so many areas of current biblical, scientific, and moral concerns and conflicts, Adventists are virtually silent; and that itâ€™s other folk, other Christians, who are carrying the ball, who are doing the heavy lifting, and who, as a consequence, are receiving the biting criticism and scorn.
But in all these areas weâ€™re modeling. And people are taking noticeâ€”of our words, our actions, or our silence.”Adventist Review
One wonders when should those who cradle truth jump into the fray of controversy, as against displaying restraint.
Should Adventists speak out against, or in support of issues made popular for discussion in the public forum by the religious right?…issues like abortion, gay marriages,stem cells research, ordination of gay pastors etc.? or should they remain “silent”?
One need only look on the example of Jesus for direction. When it came to the act of desecrating His Father’s house, Jesus spared no effort in chasing out the offenders. But when it came to the fact of exposing Tiberius Ceasar as the “Great and terrible dragon” of Daniel and the Revelation, who would “trample His saints underfoot”, Jesus was “silent”.
I think, like Jesus, those who cradle truth must choose well when to join the fray and when to be “silent”. The professors at the “schools of the prophets” are making our ‘Father’s schools’, a den for the doctrine of demons[any false doctrine that includes God-is doctrine of demons…see Paul’s statement re “doctrine of devils”]and like the violators in the time of Christ, should be forced to flee the halls of spiritual truth. The theory of evolution being fought in the arena of demons, ought to be left for a discussion among demons. Those who know that “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God….and that all things were created by Him” need not to try to convince demons otherwise…demons already are familiar with the truth…and our effort to convert their devotees is to be met only with futility at best.
Adventists’ responsibility is to be ready to give the ‘reason for the hope that we have’—a hope that speaks to the belief that God created the heavens and the earth–and a hope we articulate when called upon to do so. If the evolutionists choose to believe otherwise…he should be left to his own denial of eternal truth, as he will be left eventually to face Him who doesn’t share space with demons or doctrine of demons.
LSU student writes about controversy
“…..Smith finally suggested that our â€œoverarching goalâ€ should be to â€œallow truth to educate usâ€ and â€œnot to educate truth…..â€
Let’s assume the evolutionists are right and their theory of evolution is taught and accepted as “truth”.
What happens when Jesus returns? After all, He says “All things were created by Him and without Him NOTHING was created”. Do we call Him a liar? Do we say; only some things were created by Him….that; the other things created themselves? Do we say He started the process, allright; but that He didn’t have the wherewithal to complete the job; so a fictitous ‘mother nature’ did what He was unable to do?
It is impossible for one who believes in evolution…and that includes even a cursory belief; to believe that an all powerful God would entertain unbelief in Him, and at the same time save these unbelievers….and neither would any who doesn’t believe in an all powerful God, ever think that any such God could live more than 200 miles above the earth without donning a spacesuit for oxygen and protection !..certainly no human could exist these many millenia of years…or none that I know of!; in ‘out of earth conditions’….So how could there be a God[out there!] who is to be believed by the evolutionists?…A God who himself was not created by nature!
Hence, for the evolutionists; it is impossible to entertain dual beliefs in a Creator God and evolution. The evolutionists must take as fiction a human body descending from the far reaches of outer space…Such human bodies would be defying gravity[science] and be doing what asteroids as big and bigger than the earth have so far been unable to do. Not even our very superfast, superheavy space shuttle can descend at will[it endures a fiery passage as it pierces the earth shield]..it requires megatons of force to find its way back to home base. The evolutionists, therefore, cannot see a God dressed in white silk accomplishing this feat without being incinerated.
Such evolutionists are unable to see such a God as creating another non-human species called angels…..These angels cannot even create themselves as humans do…making them [in the evolutionists point of view] less capable than humans…yet these angels can walk through solid walls, just as protons and neutrons and electrons do[science]making angels superior to humans….Or in short the dilemma of the evolutionists!….You can’t have both! and so you can’t teach both!…..Truth and error cannot co-exist like buddies…Wherever error and truth exist together…there is only error!
If evolution is truth…only evolution should be taught!
If Total and complete Creation, by an all Powerful Creator God is TRUTH; then no error can be associated with a Pure Creator God by cosying the dwarfing influence of the error of evolution alongside the gigantism of the Purity of Omnipotent TRUTH.
Jesus is the WORD![see John 1:1]
The WORD is TRUTH!
JESUS is TRUTH!
Error is Satan….Satan is error….as relates to any discussion re God.
TRUTH does not and cannot exist with error!
Evolution CANNOT be taught alongside Creation!
Defining Adventism: A poll
Erik…..Jesus and His Father are one. This statement indicates that there is no degree of importance re the one being above the other for any reason. Saying that God created the heaven and the earth is not any different from saying that Jesus created the heaven and the earth. Both God and His son are one and have no desire to show who is the greater.
This fact is seen in the statement of Jesus re the resurrection of Lazarus….”I thank thee that thou hast heard me”..John 11:41…”but because of the people….I said it…that they may believe that thou hast sent me” John 11:42.
The resurrection of Lazarus is the same as the creation of Lazarus. His cells were all putrefied and were as non existing as had been the cells of Adam…so in the truest of sense Lazarus was created by Jesus..as we will be recreated in our immortal bodies….and just as Jesus was recreated in His.
And whereas Jesus will be calling us from the graves at the first resurrection…do you think it then matters who has the power to call us from the grave—He or His Father?
But should in case you still have questions—-read Proverbs chapter 8:22-36…..and tell me what you think. Who would you say did the creating? God or Jesus?
Here’s another question. We are sinners—-we are undeserving to be called “sons of God” and “joint heirs with His Son”….but aren’t we? Are you as “joint heir” equal with Jesus? If you are—-You then should not have a problem in seeing Jesus equal to His Father and as a consequence, equal in every respect. So any reference to Jesus as creating the heaven and the earth; is the same reference as God creating the heaven and the earth.
Re Ellen White’s writings as scripture…..
Ellen White’s writings can only be considered scripture, if her writings add to scripture what is not already revealed in scripture; re the salvation that is already and totally there; and is all about Jesus… and all about Jesus alone…and all already in scripture!
The entirety of scripture is about Jesus and the salvation he came to give sinners. There is nothing else! So if Ellen White adds to the story of salvation what is not already known re salvation; her writings would then have to be considered scripture.
The parts of scripture that have nothing to do with salvation, are there for our admonition, encouragement, advice etc; and whether we read and obey or other, will have no bearing re our salvation, if we ignore in any way shape or form, the core of salvation; Jesus our Passover Lamb. On the other hand; anyone who loves the author of salvation would live out in their lives any godly advice given by a parent, a pastor, or one’s next door neighbor;including, be that next door neighbor, Ellen White. And whereas the advice, encouragement, or other from pastor or next door neighbor, is not considered scripture, neither would any such similar advice from Ellen White.
Defining Adventism: A poll
Patrick…..the Sabbath is indeed a representation of spiritual rebirth…. but such a representation is more than that which points us to God as Creator. God says the Sabbath is a sign between Himself and the children of Israel(us) forever. Certainly, this is not suggesting that we need to be reminded that God is Creator forever; but the rather, we will be keeping the Sabbath forever to celebrate our Salvation. It is this salvation that God celebrated when He first created the Sabbath. He saw that His Son did overcome satan…and that He did die for the sins of humanity, thus effecting humanity’s salvation;and so He created one whole day just to celebrate His Son’s victory over sin. It is also for this reason that from one Sabbath to another all the saved will come to worship like he worshipped when He first made the Sabbath….again; we will meet to celebrate with our Saviour…..” I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until I drink it with you in my Father’s kingdom”…another clear reference to our celebrating our deliverance(Passover).
It is therefore clear that celebrating the Passover feast is also celebrating our salvation; and we will all be celebrating with God, our Saviour and the heavenly hosts on the Sabbath.
It is also for just this reason that even though the ancient Israelites kept the Sabbath; yet they “couldn’t enter into the eternal rest”, because they didn’t believe the gospel of salvation that was represented in the keeping of the Sabbath. See Hebrews chapter 3:18,19….chap.4:1-4.
Defining Adventism: A poll
“In saying â€œavoiding all extremesâ€ I am not suggesting that we compromise on doctrine in any way -that certainly is not my point. I myself am very firmly fundamentalist in viewpoint and often contend to defend the truths of our faith in my local setting. I am talking about the spirit which we manifest in doing this work of defending truth- that we should be careful to avoid manifesting harshness or intolerance, or taking things out of context, or make Religion seem like a burden to young people through our lack of having a sweet and natural spirit that is filled with love and patience.” Vicki Gillham
In the above quote taken from Vicki Gillham comments; advice is given re avoiding “intolerance” and “harshness”; and as well “taking things out of context”.
It may well be true that only “prophets” have the right to be “harsh”;as is suggested in Vicki’s comments;….but if I understand the intent of Christ chasing, and with a whip, the false representatives who made His Father’s house a “den of thieves”…and it may also be true only Elijah can manifest “intolerance”,[he mocked his fellow Israelites; and told them to yell at their god baal, who was probably asleep;seeing he wasn’t answering]…and it may also be that only Jesus can call false prophets, “harlots” and “adulterers”; and in Revelation 3:16-21, add that he “will KILL WITH DEATH the children of Jezebel, the adultress, AND false prophetess….but again; if I understand the intent of Jesus’ “intolerance”, it must also be true that such reasons for intolerance still continued after Jesus’ “harsh” condemnation of same. If this is also true; and since Jesus is no more on earth in the flesh; whose is therefore the right to also condem those, who like their forbears, are the false prophets of today?
But if it is also true that His word stand fast forever; and stands true in every and all generations…then if should also be true that since there are false prophets in existence today, then any condemnation applicable to previous false prophets, must also be applicable to all and every current false prophet.
The question then is; who has the right to condem the false prophets in existence today?
Paul gives the answer: “If any preach a different gospel; let him be accursed”. How did Christ condem the “accursed”? “I will kill her children with death”. Revelation 2:21-23
It is not those who rightly represent the purity of truth and in context with the “cutting”, to the “dividing bone and marrow”, that are “intolerant”. Truth can only be seen for what it is…TRUTH, and no representing truth can be seen as intolerance….(In context…Elijah and the Israelite prophets of baal)….the rather, it is those who would water down truth to lure the false into its acceptance, that are described by Paul as false teachers who teach others what they want to hear.
Jesus’ example of meeting “head on” progenitors of falsehoods, is seen in His condemnation of false doctrines when He was on earth. He proclaimed the false doctrines of the Israelite leadership as “doctrines of men”;stating that they were worshipping Him in vain/useless worship…He called the false leadership “blind leaders”…and those who followed their leadership…”blind”….”both”, He said would fall into the proverbial “pit”. Paul referred to false doctrines as “doctrines of devils”, and there is no more “loving way” way to approach satan and his hirelings, than with the two-edged sword that Jesus has in His mouth. Revelation 2:12,16.