Comment on Academic Freedom Strikes Again! by Bob Strom.
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.
Bob Strom Also Commented
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”.
David Morris: According to Spectrum, The IBMTE (International Board of Ministerial and Theological Education), A GC entity, as Spectrum took pains to point out, issued a 35-page sacerdotal bull requiring teachers of religion to sign a pledge – termed a “process of endorsement” — to work within guidelines, including “the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists,” the “Code of Ethics for Seventh-day Adventist Educators, Academic and Theological Freedom and Accountability,” and established SDA Methods of Bible Study. Also, teachers would be required to submit copies of all of their publications for review.
This deluge of paper simply added fuel to the inferno. As Spectrum reported, “The Presidents of Adventist Colleges and Universities in North America, in an unprecedented act of solidarity, unanimously voted a statement saying they are “fundamentally unable to support the proposed IBMTE endorsement process.” Stoking the fire, Spectrum adjudged the process “a stunning betrayal of Adventist Identity,” “Utterly Alien to the Soul of Adventism,” “corrupt and corrupting.” Not to mention Adventist Academic Freedom, and for good measure, Adventist culture, global culture, relevant mutant mores, throw in Galileo, multipurpose stuff routinely applied across the spectrum.
“Academic Freedom” (as viewed outside the SDA church) – “the freedom to promote any agenda, world view, position” — and as it relates to SDA ” without respect to the values and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist church.”
That is in fact ok by SDA standards for non-SDA institutions to take that path. It is “expected” that they would. But we need not fund our own “version” of that same public education system as if the public universities just aren’t “science-informed enough” to teach chemistry, or physics or computer science, or molecular biology, or medicine, or economics. It was never our mission to “fix” or “correct” the public school teaching on chemistry.
Recent Comments by Bob Strom
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
It is entirely possible that your difference with Isaac Asimov about the fictional properties of that fictional form of nature that would invest molecules with the property complex self-organization to the point of forming human brains – is in some way justified.
But since it is an exercise in fictional science and the fictional self-organizing properties of matter that we already know – does not exist, I am not prepared to share your dogmatic assurance one way or the other about Asimov’s conclusion that such a fictional system would require a vast decrease in entropy.
Professor Kent: Bob, I’m no physicist, but I understand that 2LoT assumes a closed system, and no knowledgable physicist would consider the earth a closed system.
What you’re missing is the fact that no informed physicist argues that we cannot observe an increase in entropy in local reactions taking place in the lab on earth. Entropy is observed in all local systems on earth without having to appeal to the sun (i.e. a fusion reaction on the sun to see that entropy is in fact increasing in that lab experiment).
I think that even you at heart accept this fact – you are simply enjoying a bit of toying around with the EducateTruth forum on this topic (that you brought up on this thread) as a distraction from the point that Louie Bishop has made here.
Here again is a pretty obvious detail that many here are not missing.
Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
Kent said: So evolution therefore violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? And Sean Pitman and I are wrong? =============
The claim that a fictional science about the fictional properties of matter that can transform molecules into human minds over time – (i.e. the fiction that people like Isaac Asimov are claiming to be reality) — includes Asimov’s own claim that this fictional system would require a massive decrease in entropy.
That is simply a fact about their own claims. You cannot blame the claims they make on Creationists.
It just does not get any easier than that.