@Geanna Dane: Sean Pitman wrote: “The Church should never ever …

Comment on Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC by Sean Pitman.

@Geanna Dane:

Sean Pitman wrote: “The Church should never ever think to force itself on anyone with the use of civil power. That never works and is directly contrary to the Spirit of Heaven.”

Never ever? Dude where have you been? If you really believe this you need to start a new website TolerateTruth.com. Our church has taken others including to court many many many many many times. (Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if they took you to court one day) Why don’t you persecute employees engaged in that work as much as those supposedly teaching evolution?

The Church has many important problems to deal with. Certainly the LSU problem is not the only one, but it is something that is very close to my own heart and has affected my own family and many of my friends very dramatically. It is also something I know a fair deal about and have significant personal interest in.

I’m not saying that other problems in the Church don’t deserve attention, they do. However, I can’t deal with all problems effectively. I think I can do something effective about this particular problem though.

Also, I fail to see how the suggestion that the Church cannot pay just anyone to teach or preach just any idea is a form of “persecution”. It is like suggesting that the police are intolerant of bank robbers, depriving them of their liberty to earn a livelihood in the way that they personally see fit. Or, it is like a Nike employee complaining that Nike refuses to pay him for suggesting that people buy Reebok a clearly better product as anyone with eyes can see! I’m sure that such people feel “persecuted” by those who would limit their freedom to get paid for doing what they want irrespective of the thoughts or wishes of anyone else… even of those who are actually providing the money that they want…

Humor aside, all are and should be free to join or to leave the SDA Church at will – free of any civil or even implied moral penalties over doctrinal differences. However, not all are free nor should all be free to demand a paycheck from the Church. It is the Church who is and should be free to hire only those who accurately represent the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals.

I’m not sure how anyone can argue against such logic with any sort of real sincerity…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC
@Larry Roberts:

The question was asked above, “Why were there so many opposed to the resolution?” I found myself asking the same question during the Constituency meeting. The debate on “Other Agenda Item” #3 was fascinating.

I agree with your critique of Agenda Item #3. It was poorly worded and went too far – as far as a suggested intrusion into one’s personal life. This is, hopefully, the primary reason why it was voted down. It was possible, however, to reword the proposal during the meeting, but no one had enough foresight to suggest such a thing – including me. Things happened so fast that it was hard to think of such things at the time. Perhaps such a reworded proposal can be introduced next time which will be more in line with your suggestions…

Until then, the LSU situation in still on the table and still needs to be addressed in a decided manner if the school, and perhaps even the Church, is to be saved from a severe fracture…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC
@Carl:

Note to Sean: When you respond, please point me to a short-history model that can be scientifically tested. You already know the list of events that it must explain in sequence, but you have never addressed that point. Simply saying that things can happen faster than the standard model claims is not sufficient.

This is not the proper thread for this particular discussion. See my response to your questions at the 3ABN thread:

http://www.educatetruth.com/media/educatetruth-com-promoted-on-3abn/comment-page-3/#comment-12669

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC
@Carl:

Thanks, Eddie. I find it strange that we try to improve on Scripture.

This isn’t an effort to improve on the language of the Bible. It is, however, an effort to present a clear interpretation of what we think the biblical authors as a whole were trying to say about creation. Different people disagree on this. However, the SDA Church, as an organized body, has a specific belief in this regard which is considered to be a fundamental pillar of our faith…

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.