Comment on Save the professors or the students? by BobRyan.
From Doug Bachelor:
If youâ€™ve got a professor at a Christian university who is teaching heresy that is turning young people off the path of life, but youâ€™re wanting to redeem that professor is that the time to have patience? I donâ€™t think so. Youâ€™re not being impatient if you deal very quickly and strictly with that professor.
There is a chapter in 3T on “Laodicea” describing Achan’s sin and the fact that the entire camp of the saints is held to blame before God if flagrant sin is circled/defended/ignored by church leadership 3T 265-269.
3T257 points out why God says “whom I love I rebuke” and this is in response to those who “imagine” that it is “not Christlike” to correct a faculty member, or an entire science department faculty, or an entire university faculty senate, or an entire university board of directors, or an entire Union administration.
It is always better to take action rather then let the problem fester for decades until it reaches to the highest levels of management within the Union.
BobRyan Also Commented
February 19, 2010 Doug Batchelorâ€™s analogy is a bit of a stretch. First of all an airplane is a confined space from which most prefer to exit when it is safely on the ground. To be in an airplane that his piloted by a man who is incompetent would alarm any passenger. However, a student attending LSU has many colleges to choose from. There are several SDA colleges to choose from. There are also many private, public and community colleges, to choose from. There is no confinement to a school as their is in an airplane. Also, to have a teacher or a department of science in one school teaching heresy is also not like an incompetent pilot. Reference your own college experience, were you forced to believe as your college professors or where you challenged to think for yourself?
That is exactly the solution Paulsen recommended in that 2004 speech he gave during a Q & A session. It is exactly what the evolutionists had hoped for — “student you may leave if you don’t like it here” in a “because we have taken over this university and now you have to just live with it or leave” kind of way.
The most inneffective form of leadership can always excuse its actions and ignore its responsibility with “if you don’t like it you can leave” because then their entire measure of success depends soley on “marketing”.
All they have to do is “attract” more students than have wised-up and walked away to be counted as “successful” and in that way retain their stranglehold on the university of their choice.
But the “danger” they face is that a public outcry might eventually (after 10 years or so) come to the surface (something like EducateTruth) where people are being made aware of the cancer at hand (Not unlike Ellen White publicizing the problems at Battle Creek before it burned to the ground).
THEN when that public outcry begins to surface – those administrators truly devoted to a course of “sacrifice all for evolutionism” still have the less than insightful option of demonizing their critics.
How “instructive” for the unbiased objective SDA students and parent of students.
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