The United States Copyright office defines fair use by these …

Comment on Video show LSU undermining church doctrine by Rich Constantinescu.

The United States Copyright office defines fair use by these four criteria:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Observations:

(1) Nonprofit educational purposes were furthered with the videos.
(2) The video used from LSU was from an institution having accepted the commission to “Go ye therefore and teach all nations.” (Matthew 28:19)
(3) The entire class was a payed for unit. According to the BIOL 111A syllabus, what was submitted appears a portion of the entire class lecture, discussion and notes.
(4) Educate Truth is not using this material to drive LSU out of the evolution market by setting up a class teaching evolution with the same material. The portion submitted was used for review of fidelity of LSU to the SDA church hence it is fair use.
God bless,

Rich

Rich Constantinescu Also Commented

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
Geanna,

I’m sorry you think that way.
God bless,

Rich


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

Crafty ecclesiastics, interrupted in their work of sanctioning crime, and seeing their gains endangered, were enraged, and rallied to uphold their pretensions. The Reformer had bitter accusers to meet. Some charged him with acting hastily and from impulse. Others accused him of presumption, declaring that he was not directed of God, but was acting from pride and forwardness. “Who does not know,” he responded, “that one can seldom advance a new idea without having some appearance of pride, and without being accused of exciting quarrels? Why were Christ and all the martyrs put to death?–Because they appeared proud despisers of the wisdom of the times in which they lived, and because they brought forward new truths without having first consulted the oracles of the old opinions.”

4SP 106.1

God bless,

Rich


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
Geanna,

Please spare us all of sarcasm so that we can concentrate on the issue at hand without wasting time.
The love that cares for wounded sheep and gently leads those with young applies the rod of correction and protection from wolves. Love is love and doesn’t rejoice in iniquity. (1 Cor. 13:6) If you’re going to compare yourself with John the Apostle you should be ready to give an answer for your faith. We’re waiting.

God bless,

Rich


Recent Comments by Rich Constantinescu

Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
Thank you Sean. Very helpful information. Praise God.
God bless,

Rich


The Reptile King
Kent debuted here at ET two years ago with proclamations that there was no evidence that the theory of evolution was taught at LSU but since has modified his evolution-free period to the last 1.5 years. He has threatened to leave time after time but never did. Nor has he stopped reminding us us he is persecuted and misunderstood.

Kent: “Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.”

Rich then noted that Kent shouldn’t be too upset about people not taking him as seriously as he would like because Kent came here pretending to not be an Adventist but it turned out he actually was an Adventist. The kind that doesn’t see much to worry about administration using vulgarity, drinking alcohol and evading authority albeit.

It is a little amusing that an observation that Kent tried to make readers think he wasn’t Adventist and the unacceptable tone of his ad hominem post towards Bob (not like the posts he harvested of Bob’s) is met by more ad hominem and – of all things – an accusation of ad hominem. I cannot think of many better text-book examples of projection.

However, credit where credit is due. Kent is persevering and he did let Bob keep his computer even though he made him throw away his modem. A nice scholar-to-scholar gesture or perhaps a typo yet short of the camaraderie we were waiting to see.
God bless,

Rich


The Reptile King
Kent apparently does not realize he lost some of us when he stormed in to Educate Truth two years ago ranting and waving, “If I were an Adventist, I’d be ashamed to be one of you!” The fuss Kent put up made some here ask why an outsider was so upset about the Adventists not “representing”? When the shame game didn’t work Kent stormed out, stormed in, stormed out again (and again).

Some of us wondered, why is Kent so interested? Is he for lack of a better strategy trying to corner ET in any way he can in this case by shame and blame? Is he playing whatever side he can to get his advantage? Some of us asked directly if he was after all an Adventist, to which Kent irately responded, “as to the question of whether I’m an Adventist or not … it makes no difference.”

We have been for some time more than beginning to see the truth in that statement. Therefore Kent truly should not be upset when some people don’t take seriously his apology of, “I also am a Creationist.” Trust is built and the foundation is missing.

Here is recent gem towards a “fellow creationist”:

Kent says, “Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.”

Hatred indeed. Those who stand for what they believe are, understandably, a mystery and great cause of perplexity to Kent usually worth many hours of his insight and forethought on his computer and modem. That last post apparently is not the fruit of taking enough time to cover one’s tracks.
God bless,

Rich


The Reptile King
Kent, I was not primarily quoting EGW as an authority. I only noted that if someone quotes one portion of EGW writings as authoritative about the supposed disvalue of the “deductions of science” being evidence for or against a point of faith, they should be free to accept other parts of her writings which make it clear that science is not opposed to God’s Word. I do agree that the conflict is not between science and faith but only with the deductions of science and the conclusions of the natural, rebellious, un-renewed heart. EGW never opposed science. She opposed as the Bible says, “science falsely so-called.”

Our colleges all have students from non-Adventist persuasions. The world is invited to and attends all our other schools. They have a right to know what we are teaching if we are bearing false witness.
God bless,

Rich


The Reptile King
Kent, you either missed or ignored the point. The point was and is, if someone would take EGW as saying “deductions of science” means there is no false science, just one true science that is totally contradictory to the Bible and we must choose to live in blind faith without it that is wholly inconsistent with the other many statements by the same author who talks about true science revealing God whereas false science doesn’t.

Your knot is easily untied. An enemy has done this.
God bless,

Rich