Comment on Readers respond to Adventist Review article by Sean Pitman.
From Atoday blog:
http://www.atoday.com/content/deafening-silence-there-are-good-reasons#comment-7643
StateFarmSteve wrote:
EducateTruth is, at best, cyberbullying, cyberpicketing, and at worst, a cyber-lynch mob. EducateTruth staffers have compared the LSU staff to the pedophiles within the Catholic Priesthood, called them liars and thieves, labeled me “Judas Iscariot,” and called Worldwide SDA President Jan Paulsen and NAD President Don Schneider “spineless.” None of these comments or labels came from random posters – they can all be directly attributed to Shane, Sean, or some other “staffer.”
Neither Shane Hilde nor I compared anyone at LSU to pedophiles. That’s an outrageous comparison. As you must know, I’ve been very clear in my comments on this issue that I don’t even consider the debate over evolutionism vs. creationism to be an inherently moral issue at all. No one is going to be saved or lost simply because he or she honestly believed one way or the other on the issue of origins.
The only questions Shane and I have raised on honesty involved the idea that it is wrong to take money from an employer while directly countering the clearly stated ideals and goals of that employer on the employer’s dime. That sort of thing is essential robbery of the employer’s time and money as far as we can tell…
And, when Church leadership fails to even address such a long-standing and decided undermining of what the Church claims are its most fundamental goals and ideals (for decades), on the Church’s dime, it is time for those members who actually believe in and support these ideals to stand up and sound the alarm to the general Church membership so as to generate some real action (which it seems certain persons currently in leadership positions are too paralyzed to achieve)…
On top of this, in more visible forums, Sean has engaged in outright lies, shady half-truths, and fay denials of malice toward professors. He insists he never called for the dismissal of LSU professors, but then can be quoted as saying that he “started this movement to remove those undermining the pillars of the SDA movement at LSU…” When confronted with this quote, he then says he “never resisted” calling for their dismissal, a far cry from starting the whole thing to get them fired.
Why misquote me and make stuff up out of thin air like this? I’ve always maintained that these professors should either be asked to resign or, if they refuse to resign, be removed from their positions of paid responsibility within the Church. I’ve never said anything contrary to this. I’ve never said, as you claim, that “Sean insists that he never called for the dismissal of the LSU professors”. Where did I ever say this? – even once? I’ve always called for the dismissal of those professors who are attacking the SDA position on origins from the very beginning…
However, as I’ve also noted many times, this isn’t the primary purpose of Educate Truth. The purpose of Educate Truth is to increase transparency regarding the LSU situation so that at the very least the Church membership at large can be informed as to what they are really paying for in support of LSU. If there could be some way to solve the clear problems at LSU, without having to let any of the professors go, that would be great! It is just that I don’t see this as a viable possibility if the Church truly desires substantive change to take place within its own institutions…
As an aside, you’re arguments would go much farther if you would actually characterize the positions of your opponents fairly and in an even-handed manner instead of trying to paint them in the most unfavorable and distorted light possible…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Readers respond to Adventist Review article
@Carl:
My purpose here is not to convince anyone that evolution explains human origin – I don’t believe that. I’m here mostly because your certainty about the science issues needs at least a little balance. I have never met anyone who is so sure about so much.
You don’t come across as being all that unsure of yourself either ; )
I’ve been intensively studying evolutionary theories for over 10 years now. I do indeed think I’ve discovered a few things and what I’ve discovered strongly favors the literal biblical model of origins. I know you don’t agree, and that’s fine. It is just that you are also in fundamental disagreement with the stated goals and ideals of your employer. You are publicly undermining these goals and ideals. That, in my book, is not fine at all because it is not what you are being paid to do…
But, at the very least, your efforts and the efforts of those like you should be open and transparent for all to see. Everyone should know exactly what our schools are really teaching our own young people…
This is the primary goal and purpose of Educate Truth. Transparency…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Readers respond to Adventist Review article
@Carl:
Because my commitment to Adventism is based on a continuing search for the truth. The Bible is our only creed, and that leaves room for a range of interpretation. That’s why the preamble to the Fundamental Beliefs says that they are subject to review and possible change.
So, I hope FB 6 will be revised to widen the search for truth and you demand that we nail it down tight so as to prevent a further search for truth. But, we’re in this thing together.
There are a lot of Christian churches, with very widely divergent interpretations of Scripture, who claim that their beliefs are based on the Bible and the Bible only. Diversity on such a scale, from paid representatives, would lead to chaos, not long term viability. You think we should pay pastors to go around teaching that we should pray to the Virgin Mary or that sinners will burn forever in eternal Hell Fire? Surely not. If a person believes and wishes to be paid to teach such things, that person should seek employment outside of the SDA Church…
The early Church founders, while realizing the potential and even need for change and growth in understanding as new truth came to light also recognized that God does not change and does not counter truths that were clearly revealed by the Holy Spirit during the founding of our Church. New light does not counter older revelations, but compliments it.
When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit…
[Satan] knows that if he can deceive the people who claim to believe present truth, and make them believe that the work the Lord designs for them to do for His people is a removing of the old landmarks, something which they should, with most determined zeal, resist, then he exults over the deception he has led them to believe…
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.Ellen White, Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905); Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 31-32. (1946)
Also, organizations cannot be maintained if individuals think to move significantly faster or slower than the organization itself. If you think you are so far beyond the organization in your understanding of obvious truth, perhaps it is time you move on instead of continuing to take money from an organization while undermining its stated goals and ideals (which are clearly stated and have been even more clearly restated by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists).
God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing one thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angels is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading His people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead…
Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church. p. 207. Vol. 1.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Readers respond to Adventist Review article
@Geanna Dane:
“Good News?†What the heck is that? You won’t find talk of Good News here at this website!
Really? – I wonder why I just talked about it then? ; )
The reality of the “Good News” of the Gospel is based, for me anyway, on the demonstrated dependability of those statements of the biblical authors that I can test and evaluate in a potentially falsifiable manner. This has to do with establishing credibility…
For example, remember the time when Jesus was presented with a paralyzed man and told the man that his sins were forgiven? The priests and pharisee around him doubted his claim to be able to forgive sins. So, Jesus asked the question, “Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?” – Luke 5:23.
Let me ask you, what would have happened to Jesus’ claim to be able to forgive sins if, when Jesus said to the man “get up and walk” the man had not been able to get up and walk? That would have been evidence, very good evidence, against Jesus’ metaphysical claims.
In the same way, evidence against the testable physical claims of the biblical writers is also evidence against their credibility in their other metaphysical claims that cannot be directly tested or evaluated.
On the other hand, evidence in support of the physical claims of the biblical authors is also evidence in support of their overall credibility. In other words, the predictive value of their metaphysical claims increases as the predictive value of their physical claims increases.
So, you see the scientific reasoning behind a solid confidence in the Gospel’s “Good News”…
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.
