(that should be ‘place in the church’) …

Comment on “Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic” by Bravus.

(that should be ‘place in the church’)

Bravus Also Commented

“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.

Just my interpretation.

“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.

Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.

“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
To both Sean and Shane. No, I have to admit I was a little off topic for EducateTruth. I wasn’t talking about the main issue: I was talking about the talk in this thread about ‘a javelin in the belly of progressivism’. Whatever the issue the site is set up for, there are clearly a large number of people here who are rejoicing at signs that the church will become more like them and more the way they like it, and also rejoicing that those unlike them will be cast out. Tell me I’m mistaken about that…

Recent Comments by Bravus

Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.

World Church moves to advance statements regarding creation
@Nathan: Nathan asked ‘Are you implying that the SDA church is sinking?’

No, I’m implying that recent creationism is sinking. The mountains of evidence against it are so immense, and young people are becoming better and better educated in actually looking at the evidence. If the SDA church tethers itself ever more strongly to recent creationism, it will be the means by which more and more members are persuaded that they have to leave the SDA church in order to be truthful with themselves and the others about the evidence in the world around them.

Most here will say that the SDA church has no choice in this, and that it’s just so much the worse for those who leave the church. I can understand that perspective, but (a) I do not agree that it is the case that the SDA church has no choice – millions of Christians all around the world are able to reconcile evolutionary theory with their faith, and the Sabbath can be established on God’s words and a symbolic creation story just as well as on a literal creation story and (b) despite the claims made loudly and frequently here, the evidence is as the evidence is.

World Church moves to advance statements regarding creation
It’s called ‘nailing your colours to the mast of a sinking ship’.

‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
That’s a good, thoughtful and useful set of distinctions that helps to take the discussion forward. The language partly obscures a really good point: when evolutionists use the language in this way, they’re not doing it to be devious and hoodwink people. They’re doing it because that’s how they see it – as all one unified process happening at a number of scales of size and time.

The challenge for creationists, of course, is to propose a compelling argument for why the commonsense notion that many small changes accumulating over a long period would not result in large changes.