Comment on Open letter to General Conference by Eugene Shubert.
I believe that people who do this are bearing false witness. (Using SOP rather than facts as proof.)
I never claimed that The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism is a proof of anything.
The LSU issue is clear and specific, but generalizations about the entire denomination is going to far.
Where do you think Sister White stepped over the line?
A good example is you changing (or expanding) the definition of pantheism in order to use a Spirit of Prophecy quote.
My definition of pantheism as it pertains to its modern-day resurgence in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the example set forth by John Harvey Kellogg.
But I could cite numerous other examples, like your lists of sins in the church within sentences that state authoritatively that the â€˜vast majorityâ€™ of SDAs believe or practice them.
I never said that the â€˜vast majorityâ€™ of SDAs believe or practice pantheism and spiritualism, only that God imputes the doctrines of demons to the whole church because pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism and pantheism are protected and tolerated in the Church by the hierarchy.
If you have valid complaints about specific issues, then you donâ€™t need to exaggerate or stretch things to make a point.
I’m not exaggerating.
Eugene Shubert Also Commented
“The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people.” RH, Dec. 15, 1904.
Is that helpful or harmful?
Open letter to General Conference
Korah and his companions opposed Moses, just as the modern-day subversives challenge the Spirit of prophecy. The parallel is perfect and there is no point in denying it.
The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism is a Spirit of prophecy compilation. True Seventh-day Adventists are not surprised by nominal Adventists hating it. Amazingly, Sister White prophesied that the shaking would come about by nominal Seventh-day Adventists not being able to cope with her straight testimonies.
“Just as long as God has a church, he will have those who will cry aloud and spare not, who will be his instruments to reprove selfishness and sins, and will not shun to declare the whole counsel of God, whether men will hear or forbear. I saw that individuals would rise up against the plain testimonies. It does not suit their natural feelings. They would choose to have smooth things spoken unto them, and have peace cried in their ears. I view the church in a more dangerous condition than they ever have been. Experimental religion is known but by a few. The shaking must soon take place to purify the church.” 2SG 284.
Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert
… the LSU evolutionists are employing a â€œfoxhole mentalityâ€ among their student devotees â€“ convincing them that it is â€œus against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creationâ€.
That is essentially correct. There are two sides to every issue. The dispute here is between science and the Bible. The scientists believe that science should be taught in science class. The opinionated non-scientists that reject science and have no clue what it is, are content with either replacing science with pseudo-science or just getting rid of the teaching of science permanently.
Since you have offerred no response to points raised â€“ the point remains.in Christ,Bob
I already presented the mathematical response: “The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero.”
Do you agree or disagree with the mathematics?
The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please write with precision in a scientifically discernible form. I do not understand lowbrow diction. Please learn and use the universal language of science.
Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!
No, that part isn’t clear. But we do know your rank and the rank of your associates in The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism.
In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of â€œsequenceâ€ to the probability â€“ we get â€œNILâ€.
You’re speaking gibberish. â€œNILâ€ means “nothing; naught; zero.” The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero. And your expressed method of computation, “by adding the statistics of `sequence’ to the probability” is unabashed gibberish and demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of the science of probability theory.
You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity.
Are you proud of being a contributing influence that justifies unbelievers in their rejection of Christ?
Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God!
It is as Steven Weinberg has said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
In other words, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24).
So grow up and stop practicing deceit.