@Geanna Dane: I don’t think there is anything any of …

Comment on Video show LSU undermining church doctrine by Inge Anderson.

@Geanna Dane:

I don’t think there is anything any of you truly wish to hear from me.

Actually, Geanna, I believe you’ve been good for this blog. It gets boring when everyone is in total agreement. In a discussion, mind sharpens mind, and, if we are open to it, we can clarify our own thinking in the process.

You’ve asked some good questions and brought up some valid points. Please don’t take it personally when we don’t just swallow them whole. 😉

As for your note to Sean – I read it first without seeing your name, and thought that someone was offering high praise, not altogether undeserved. And then I saw your name at the top and figured that it could be read very differently too.

You’ve used sarcasm in the past, so it’s really hard to know when you appear to say something out of character with past statements and actually mean it.

We’ve grown rather fond of you here and will really miss you if you leave…

Heaps of blessings,

Inge Anderson Also Commented

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
@ Geanna (I’m belatedly responding to a statement on May 16, since the principle is still relevant)

There was once division and rancor among the the inhabitants of heaven. A leader stirred up a spirit of divisivness. Eventually, God’s body of believers was rent apart.

This is written to demonstrate that there should be no division among God’s people because a divided house will fall and that pleases Satan.

The corollary, judging by other statements by Deanna, would presumably be that God should have acceded to Satan’s requests so that the angelic host would not be “rent apart.”

Is this what you mean, Geanna?

If not, how is your illustration of the war in heaven applicable to the current situation, in your view? (I don’t deny that it’s applicable, but your manner of referencing doesn’t seem to fit the context.)

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
The argument against posting portions of class lectures because it is “stealing,” and students paid good money to attend the classes is just plain silly. Students get academic credit, and that’s what they really paid for, because all the information is available elsewhere for free.

Furthermore, most classes may be “audited” for a nominal fee, without receiving credit.

The issue is more one of “fair use,” as defined by copyright law. The brief videos above appear to fit the criteria.

Recent Comments by Inge Anderson

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, while I don’t currently have time to address all the issues in your post, one thing concerns me greatly – that, as head elder, you would recommend that your church members should use their tithe as a tool of political action.

If your recommendation were followed by others, hundreds of thousands of people would be justified in not turning in tithe at all because they believe that the General Conference is out of line, being manipulated and controlled by a very small number of people. (But that’s another story.) And, really, anyone who disagrees with something done in the conference or the GC would be justified to withhold or re-direct tithe, following your reasoning. I do hope that you will decide that you “just cannot go there.”

When Jesus commended the widow who gave her last two coins, the “church” was as corrupt as it ever was or will be. Yet God recognized the gift as given to *Him,* and He blessed her and millions of people since then.

When we return our tithe to the Lord, I believe we must do it in faith, letting go of any control of how it is used. If administrators misuse it, they must answer to God. When we don’t return to God what already belongs to Him, we must answer for it. The way I see it, since the tithe already belongs to God, it is not ours to manage.

Offerings are another matter. If you feel your local conference is out of line, you are free not to send them the usual percentage for the conference budget and send it elsewhere.

God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy
The direct URL for Cindy Tutsch’s article is http://ssnet.org/blog/2011/09/does-it-matter-how-long-it-took-to-create/

God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy

Lydian: There is something else I would like for someone to tell me—

Where in the world is the GRI in all of this? I have searched the internet and find virtually nothing there that would attract anybody to what it has to say–if it has anything to say.

Good question.

There are a number of Adventist sites that deal with science supportive of the biblical world view, Sean Pitman’s among them.

It seems that the only Adventist university that has a site supportive of a biblical world view in science appears to be Southwestern Adventist University.

Their Earth History Research Center features research papers as well as material quite understandable to lay persons. I recommend clicking through their links to see what is there.

Perhaps this is where we should look (and perhaps send our dollars) instead of the GRI. You will see that Ariel Roth, former director of the GRI (when it was more supportive of a biblical world view) is part of the Earth History Research Center.

May God abundantly bless the efforts of all who are connected with this project.

PS Currently http://ssnet.org is featuring an article by Cindy Tutsch entitled, “Does It Matter How Long God Took to Create?”

The Heroic Crusade Redux

Professor Kent: This is but only the faith of Sean Pitman’s straw man. This is not the faith of the Adventist who accepts God’s word at face value.

Sean is correct in his characterization, because that seems to be the kind of “faith” that has been championed here by a number of individuals who have faulted Sean for presenting evidence in favor of creation having happened just thousands of years ago.

If you accept the interpretation of evolutionists who believe (by faith) that life began on this planet some billions of years ago and then “by faith” believe that God created the world a few thousand years ago, you are essentially asserting “faith” in what you intellectually recognize as being a falsehood. That’s a good sight worse than a child’s “faith” in Santa Claus, because the child doesn’t “know from evidence” that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

I do accept God’s Word at face value, and because I accept it at face value, I know that all the evidence, rightly interpreted, will support the historical account in God’s Word. It is an intellectually consistent stance, whereas asserting belief in both evolutionism and biblical creation contravenes all rules of logic and intellectual integrity.

If you really do believe that the Genesis account is a true account of history, why do you characterize Sean’s presentation of scientific evidence to support the Genesis account as being anti-faith??

La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
This is encouraging, IMO.

However, the survey of students probably presents a more favorable picture than is realistic, since a significant percentage of the students may not even know what the Adventist position on creation is — considering the kinds of homes they are coming from. But even if they all knew, a 50% rate of believing that SDA views were presented is pretty dismal. That’s a failing grade, after all ..