Comment on LSU responds to Michigan Conference by Sean Pitman.
You still have not explained, Sean, why an ignorant person would even need a Savior. If God can not condemn the ignorant, then the ignorant need no Savior.
As I’ve already explained to you before, no one who is judged on a moral basis is completely ignorant regarding the wrongs that he/she has done. In fact, all of us have deliberately rebelled against our consciences and therefore against God and therefore need a Savior to be rescued from our rebellious hearts.
It is impossible to rebel against something that isn’t known to at least some degree. Yet, the biblical authors refer to all sinners as “rebels” against God. This implies, very strongly, that the rebel knows something of God or His Law – i.e., the Royal Law of Love toward one’s neighbor. If nothing was actually known in this regard there could be no “rebellion”.
If anyone could honestly claim complete ignorance, before God, regarding wrongs that he/she did, that would certainly clear them of any guilt of deliberate rebellion against God – and therefore sin. It is because we do have an internal sense of right and wrong, given to us by God Himself, that we can be judged according to this internal conscience which condemns us or defends us according to how we have lived with respect to this internal moral compass that was placed in the hearts of all free moral agents.
It is like the time when doctors used to think that smoking was actually good for a person. A doctor during this time may have, out of love, prescribed the regular use of cigarettes for a sick patient. Say the patient ends up getting lung disease or cancer from the cigarettes. Would God hold the doctor in this case morally accountable for injuring the patient? After all, real injury did occur because of the doctors actions. However, is the doctor morally responsible? Certainly not! However, say the doctor does know about the harmful effects of smoking, but doesn’t like a particular person who already has weak lungs, and so gets that person to start smoking in order to kill that person off. Say the person rapidly develops severe lung disease and dies. Is the doctor morally responsible now? Absolutely!
Ignorance or the lack thereof makes all the difference…
God could not judge robots on a moral basis because they have no choice to choose between “right” and “wrong”. Only those who actually have a choice between what they know to be right and wrong are free moral agents subject to moral judgments. And, if such an agent is truly ignorant of the right option, how can that agent be held responsible for it?
This notion of yours that a person is guilty of a moral wrong, even if in complete honest ignorance without any ability to know otherwise, makes no sense. It’s an unreasonable request for God to make of anyone… to live according to and be morally responsible for something that was not and could not have been known.
Ultimately no one who is lost is going to be able to honestly claim ignorance. All will know exactly where their own feet were deliberately deviated from the path that they knew to be true…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
Another Distressed Student wrote (on the Spectrum Blog):
“I have heard Creation preached often! So many of us so-called ‘products’ of LSU are creationists! And many of us have studied in the sciences at LSU.”
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/06/03/la_sierra_mother_writes_review#comment-54704
Indeed, general creationism is preached at LSU. But when was the last time you ever heard literal 6-day creationism preached or actively promoted at LSU? – in either the religion or science departments? I bet is has been a fairly long while…
Come on now, at the very least LSU should be open and honest about what type of creationism is being promoted at LSU – certainly not the type promoted by the organized SDA Church as a foundational pillar of the SDA faith…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
Getting a pass for attacking just one fundamental belief…
From the Spectrum Blog:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/06/03/la_sierra_mother_writes_review#comment-54582
Where in the posts on the FB page are there any testimonies about how LSU influenced students to favorably regard the fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church on the topic of a literal 6-day Creation of all life on this planet? Anyone?
Mrs. Webster’s letter, as well as the FB page defending LSU, are both missing the entire point of the current conflict with LSU. The point isn’t that LSU isn’t religious or supporting certain ideas of God and creation in general. The point is that LSU is directly attacking and undermining a very specific view of creation that the SDA Church, as an organization, holds to be a foundational pillar of the unique SDA belief system – – the literal 6-day creation week.
This particular view of a literal 6-day creation week is so fundamental to the SDA Church that it is reflected in the very name of the Church – Seventh-day Adventists.
So, should LSU get a pass when it comes to undermining and attacking this fundamental SDA doctrinal position of the Church because of all the other good things it is doing? Hmmm? I, for one, don’t think so. If a school wishes to carry the name of any organization, it should, at the very least, reflect *all* of the *fundamental* goals and ideals of that organization… not just most of them…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
@Bill Sorensen:
Since you are censoring dialogue like the liberal forums, I won’t post here anymore. Your duplicity is the same as theirs. In fact worse. They accused me of attacking individuals as their excuse. You can’t even use that as an excuse.
You are simply wrong, and won’t admit it.
I gave you my personal E-mail to continue your efforts to enlighten me if you so choose, but it seems like you only want to present your arguments in forum…
We did not set up this forum to go around attacking people as evil. It is difficult enough to point out that another is in serious error without adding to that the accusation of a deliberate rebellion against God – something that only God himself can know with regard to such doctrinal issues. That simply isn’t the purpose of this website – to judge the hearts of people.
I may be wrong here, but if so, I am sincerely and honestly wrong. I cannot admit something that I do not honestly see.
I perceive that you yourself are honest and sincere in your beliefs. I think you are mistaken, seriously mistaken and causing damage to the cause, but I don’t think you are necessarily responsible for the damage since you seem to be honestly unaware of your errors. If you think it best to no longer post here, that’s fine. We’ll struggle along without you… somehow ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
