Comment on Student reveals true intent of LSUâ€™s biology seminar class by BobRyan.
Why did you not mention the wonderful lecture by Webster, another religion faculty member who reassured us that every one of the following threats from science to the Adventist church can be met:
1. Threat to propitiation model of atonement â€“ if death is not â€œthe wages of sinâ€, but necessary to evolution-creation-life, then the whole purpose of salvation is lost. No fall, no Savior.
2. Threat to confidence in the Bible â€“ if creation is not taken literally, why take the ressurection and 2nd coming literally?
3. Threat to the Sabbath â€“ if the creation story is not literally true, then why take the Sabbath as a literally true command to be kept?
4. Threat to the Immanence of the Second Advent â€“ if â€œcreationâ€ takes place over billions of years, why should we not expect the future will extend for billions more?
5. Threat to the Character of God â€“ how can we reconcile the character of God (love) with the scientific (canâ€™t read) cosmic, planetary, biological and human evolution- which necessarily inncludes massive destruction (super-nova), inefficiency, waste, (canâ€™t read), and extinction?
You need master the critical thinking skills to differentiate between propaganda and reality. A brief exercise along those lines is in order – so here goes.
1. Webster ended his talk “claiming” that a compelling answer could be found – but never actually showed it in real life.
2. Webster appears to argue that evolution must be taken as “true” (no matter what) and that a Bible-bending exercise is “possible” that might allow for that. Since Webster is bringing this up from the religion department’s POV – one assumes that the religion department has course work designed to destroy the faith of the LSU students in the accuracy of the Genesis account for origins and the Adventist voted doctrines on origins.
3. Webster never said what kind of answer would be offerred. Would the answer hold to the voted positions on origins by the Adventist Church?. He implied it would contradict it when he stated that the answers he would accept are either “ask an anthropologist what the Bible writers meant” (not even remotely exegesis) or “pretend” that the Bible is nothing more than poetry when it conflicts with evolutionsism’s doctrines on origins. (Even though the Gen 1:2-2:3 account is summarized into LEGAL code in Ex 20:8-11)
The fact that the religion department is joining the biology department in condeming the Adventist view on origins – should “remove all doubt” about where this thing is actually going at LSU. Students that had been trained to some level of critical thinking – should have been fully warned by those presentations about the danger of continuing to pay LSU to do – what it was clearly intending to do.
BobRyan Also Commented
Shane Hilde says:
October 17, 2010 @Professor Kent: If we had continued to let LSU keep things a secret, their questionable teaching practices would not have caused them any derision or division in our church. Youâ€™re blaming Educate Truth for pointing the finger at the institution causing the problem. Thatâ€™s equivalent to blaming those who exposed the terrible atrocities happening within the Catholic church between priests and children.
It is typical “shoot the whistleblower” in order to protect the evolutionist agenda – a tactic that even a non-Christian society can “see” as a bad thing.
I attended La Sierra University. I studied under Dr. Webster and even took my pre-medical courses (i.e. biology) at LSU. I graduated with a BA in Religious Studiesâ€¦and it hurts me some of the comments that was mentioned up above.
– It seems to be implied that because I am a theologically liberal I am not as â€œgodly, dedicated Adventistâ€? Let me remind you that liberal or conservativeâ€¦WE are ALL BROTHERS and SISTERS in Christ. And being â€œliberalâ€ does not make me or anyone else less â€œgodly or dedicated to Adventism.â€
– I graduate with a BA in Religious Studies and took Pre-medical science courseâ€¦and in NO WAY did it rattle my faith.
I studied evolutionâ€¦AND creation. Yet, in no way was it an â€œevilâ€ that â€œharmed by faith.â€
I do applaud Louie for his courage to stand up for the church beliefs. However, I stand up for mine as well. There are different types of individuals in the world. There are different types of SDA students. And I am one that is capable of believing that there is a possibility of an â€œdays of inaugarationâ€ in the idea of creation. And if you claim to NOT support LSU because its teaching go against the â€œliteral, 24 hour dayâ€ creationâ€¦or claim that there is â€œevil risingâ€ in LSU..then IN A WAYâ€¦you put down my education, my Love for Christ, my faith as a Christian and Seventh-day Adventist that I GAINED from LSU.
La Sierra University is a great schoolâ€¦and I hope whatever the outcome of all thisâ€¦we all realize that we believe and love the same God, same mission, same messageâ€¦the ideas of â€œdays of inaugurationâ€ and â€œliteral 24 hour daysâ€ is not worth this â€œconflict.â€
Whether you agree or disagree with what Iâ€™ve said, I hold true to my beliefs and am very proud of my education from LSU.
Amy – thank you for sharing.
You say that you attended LSU – became a liberal and leapt off the cliff of abandoning the historical grammatical method of exegesis – and adopted the “days of inauguration” story instead of accepting the clear Bible statement “SIX days you shall labor … for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them”.
you then claim that this is “your belief” and “your faith” as if the 28 Fundamental Beliefs no longer exist – but rather each person simply roll-out whatever they choose for “their belief” when it comes to Bible doctrine. While it is true that some choose a baptist belief other methodist and others the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists — it is NOT true that ALL beliefs no matter how varied are still just the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.
And then you say this “has not damaged your faith”.
I beg to differ. Your own post is transparent in showing just some of the damage done to your beliefs – your faith as compared to the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The fact that you come away not being aware of the extent of the damage done testifies to the efficience and effectiveness of the methods used at LSU to introduce error.
Will accepting modern ideas possibly damage the 27 fundamental beliefs? Probably. Is that worse than allowing your church to moulder away into an out-dated and useless institution serving no one and eventually dying out? I think so
Darwin admitted to the lack of harmony between the bible and evolution.
You yourself admitted that to accept evolution you must view the Bible as little more than outdated archaic superstition.
Dawkins, William Provine, Meyers all went on public record admitting that Evolution is the death of christianity – the death of belief in the Bible.
You are right that it would “change the 28 Fundamental Beliefs”.
If you will notice the decline of Christianity in countries with 90% and higher levels of acceptance of evolutionism -there is a direct correlation.
Both Christians and atheists and even many agnostics admit to this “great divide” between those two religions on the subject of the doctrine of origins found in evolutionism vs that which is found in Christianity.
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