Comment on Record enrollment for LSU by BobRyan.
There was record breaking enrollment at Southern Adventist University this fall.
Southern Adventist University “smashes enrollment record” –
Southern Adventist Universityâ€™s enrollment reached a major milestone this fall with 3,053 students
BobRyan Also Commented
Record enrollment for LSU
LSU does not “teach in a vacuum”. I have no doubt that they have support for what they are doing from some people at LLU and from many people in the SECC itself. Most of their mainline SECC supporters will likely never even see these pages.
Their current political challenge is primarily in the form of an SDA GC Administration willing to take “the necessary steps” to bring this problem to a close. The environment of the SECC provides LSU a lot of wiggle room slowly dragging their feet to provide some kind of token solution if that is the road they wish to take.
Our current organizational structure relies on spiritual maturity and insight of the constituents of the conferences and unions to make the necessary changes. The fact that the GC Admin is having to step in – in some way, reflects a degree of failure in that model when it comes to the SECC and the Pacific Union.
The problem is compounded at several levels all working together (possibly unwittingly) to create the end result.
The real remedy – the one plenty large enough to address an issue of this magnitude is the remedy we see Elder Wilson promoting here –
Adventist in High School says:
October 13, 2010 @JImmy: Jimmy, it really isnâ€™t worth it to argue with them here, Iâ€™ve tried previously. The fact is that us students do not want to go to a school that simply promotes church doctrine, we want a school that supports church doctrine while having a wide variety of view points within itâ€™s faculty. Evidently thatâ€™s a novel concept.
IF we were in the business of hiring teachers that had a “wide variety of view points” on the doctrine on origins, the inspiration of the Bible, the mission of the church, Calvinism, praying to the dead, infant baptism, the Sabbath, the Heavenly Sanctuary… etc, we would be creating a bedlam of chaos and confusion in our church that would almost equal that which you can find in public education today.
I have attended both SDA and public universities – I know whereof I speak.
The whole point of an SDA university is to promote truth rather than merely promoting the confused bedlam of voices so common and intrinsic to the public university, for “diversity’s sake”.
The reason for diverting tithe and offering dollars to support and build SDA universities is to promote the mission and message of the SDA denomination. It is NOT to “create better evolutionary biologists than UC Berkley”. If some of our students choose to study evolutionary biology to demonstrate the fixed limits of variation within a static genome – that is wonderful. But that is not the stated mission, message or intent of biologists like Bradley.
The purpose of this web site was to make SDA parents aware of the problem.
Granted – the 440 freshmen signed up for LSU are NOT likely to all be biology majors anxious to get one last sacrifice-all-for-evolutionism lecture from Bradely or Fritz Guy. And one has to suppose that one or two of them may actually be looking to improve on Loui Bishop’s record. (Who knows what that kind of publicity is drawing). One thing is for certain, the next student to be slammed by the LSU professors for daring to suppose the Bible might have the right answer on the subject of origins is “now aware” of a great many more options than Bishop may ever have imagined.
The position espoused on these pages supposes that the origins question is settled
Turns out that the doctrine on origins that we find in the Bible is pretty obvious. The only “question” on origins is how long will LSU have to evangelize for the atheist-centric view of origins promoted in evolutionism.
Darwin was finally forced to admit that the two doctrines on origins cannot be married to each other the way some theistic evolutionists would like to imagine.
so thanks for pointing out that we need open mindedness â€“ my point exactly. As is evidence in the data, people will seek out truth as they are at LSU in record numbers (regardless of the dismissal by Mills above).
It is not clear at all that the 440 freshmen at LSU are all biology majors clammoring for all the evolutionism that LSU will choose to force down their throats. Or that they are all religion majors lining up for that last drop of evolutionist dogma coming from LSU’s religion department. Who knows maybe there are a few dozen more “Loui Bishops” in that crowd looking to make a name for themselves.
In fact with all the current focus on evolution at LSU — it is not even certain that the LSU all-evolutionism-all-the-time agenda will be as forthcoming as it has been in years past.
Time will tell.
The empty threats from conferences, GC, and the bizarre folks here wonâ€™t have an impact on that fact.
Well part of your statement is correct. If all LSU has to contend with is “empty threats from conference execs” then they will not change from last year’s apostasy-at-all-costs program in the religion and biology departments.
From what I see around the web, this conspiracy theory of yours is based on incomplete facts, poor sources, and downright lies.
That is a pretty good “no-sources” and “no-facts” example of an empty accusation. You should at the very least try to step up to the plate and MATCH the sources already posted at this site since you claim to have even better ones for making your case.
Iâ€™m pretty close to this and am shocked that the naivety of these that think there is some movement or conspiracy that is anti-Adventist.
What do you mean by “anti-Adventist”??? Teaching a doctrine on origins that contradicts the 28 Fundamental Beliefs statement #6 and fits what 3SG 90-91 calls “the worst form of infidelity”?
Will you have “more clarity” on what is “anti-Adventist” once the FB#6 is made “lock step” with the “affirmation of creation” statement?
The distorted lens through which this site looks is pretty corrupt and is doing far more harm than any defective university professor has done or will do. A pretty sad legacy in my opinion, but knock yourself out
On what basis do you think this site is doing any harm at all? What is your source? Your data? Your evidence for that wild claim. Thin air? Inquiring minds want to know.
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