Bill Sorensen: Polarization is inevitable and even necessary for a final …

Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Ron.

Bill Sorensen: Polarization is inevitable and even necessary for a final unity of the church.
Pluralism can not and will not survive in historical bible Adventism.

So, am I interpreting you right? Are you meaning to imply that polarization and ultimately the breakup or splitting of the church is necessary, desirable, and an implicit goal?

That saddens me. I have spent my whole life trying to build up this church. It pains me to see “Educate Truth” trying to tear it down.

I honestly cannot see Jesus taking the stance that you, Bob, Sean et.al. are taking. I keep thinking of Peter and the sheet, and John 5:39 “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.” I cannot think of any time when Jesus or any of the prophets were unkind, cynical or coercive toward those who were diligently searching for the truth. Jesus always gave a rational explanation when people had questions, and he always gave them space and time to figure it out.

If you take Gen. 1 literally, NOBODY can explain how to reconcile it with science. Far from persecuting our teachers who are struggling and trying to polarize the church, we should be like Jesus. Kind, tolerant, healing, and holy enough to live with the dichotomy until people figure it out. Our schools . . . no, our churches also, should be safe places where everyone, even pastors and teachers can express their doubts freely, and where we can all, at least temporarily, hold what may turn out to be false beliefs long enough to explore them and find out what is true.

Mrs. White told us that in the last days, the most bitter critics and persecutors would be former church members. I had always thought it would be those who had apostatized that would accuse the orthodox believers. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to find it the other way around, it is the Orthodox who are the persecutors. I guess that is the way it was in Jesus time too.

Ron Also Commented

A “Christian Agnostic”?

BobRyan: oops – but then no actual reference to any fact to back up his claim…

Bob, You think to “wear out the saints of the Most High” I have given you many, many references and examples over the last couple of years but you have stopped up your ears and refuse to hear. “He who has an ear, let him hear”.

If there is anyone reading this web site who still has an open heart and mind and really wants to explore the issues, I am willing to provide references. Maybe in a private discussion. I guess I have lost all faith that any of the principle supporters of “Educate Truth” really have any interest in truth beyond dogma.


A “Christian Agnostic”?

BobRyan: “actual mechanism” for macro evolution – to ever work

I have.


A “Christian Agnostic”?

Bill Sorensen: No doubt the devil can project an attitude of love and good fellowship when it suits his purpose as he infilterates the Protestant community with an attitude of good will

Bill, As you have stated, I am sure that the Devil could project and attitude of love and good fellowship for awhile if it met his ends, however, I have a hard time imagining Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, ever making the hard, dogmatic, cynical, and derogatory comments that are coming from the most “conservative fundamentalists” on this site.


Recent Comments by Ron

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.

You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?

I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.

I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims

And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?

It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:

While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?

While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?