Comment on AAA to examine LSU by ken.
Re Prof Kent’s Quotes
“I have done some prayerful reading of instruction from the Bible and from Ellen White about avoiding an argumentative spirit. In participating at this unGodly website, I have erred egregiously. I have sought to defend faith against the misuse of science and abuse of fellow believers, but I have not always done so in the right spirit.
If anyone should lose their belief because they see insufficient science to support their views, I’m afraid they have not taken a daily walk with Jesus. To know Him is to believe in Him. As it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
God bless you all. Professor Kent(Quote)”
“As Geanna once wrote, it is finished. Professor Kent(Quote)”
Dear Prof Kent
I am sad to see you no longer are going to participate. I think you made many valuable contributions to the debate and I will miss your comments.
If I may venture a few agnostic comments that I hope you can receive in the right spirit.
It is very difficult for people of strong convictions to not take things personally, especially when dealing with a topic like faith. When one is strongly convicted when feels with all of one’s head that and heart that one is right. I respectfully suggest many, of different opinions on this site, are riding in that ‘ark’. That is why at times the arguments or debate becomes personalized and heated. That is why, in my respectful opinion, it is so important to use science, independent of faith or non faith, as an objective tool to look at reality. An atheist is never going to disprove God by science, just perhaps render doubts as to the nature of God.
It appears that you have looked into your heart and understand that perhaps personalized attacks are inappropriate. Good for you, I think you are right. Hopefully others will be influenced by your example.
However, I respectfully suggest that your comment about the site being unGodly may be a tad harsh and a bit judgmental. I hope you do not take my comment personally. Ironically, the very fact that the site allows for a vast, democratic plethora of opinion, strikes me as exactly what a just god would want.
Perhaps it is not so much the site but how we behave on the site that is more the issue. For example, of all that I have seen participate I would categorize myself as being the most unGodly, being a non Christian who thinks that evolution is the most likely theory or origins. And yet everyone has treated me with courtesy, respect and kindness. That is a fine example of Adventism and Christian charity, that in my humble estimation tops any dispute over origins.
You and Sean feel very strong about your respective positions but you are far closer in conviction than this non believer. You are both good men.
Time is great healer of wounded feelings.
Go in peace my brother and be well.
Your grateful agnostic friend
Ken
Table of Contents
ken Also Commented
AAA to examine LSU
Re Bob’s Quote
“Ken – the empire that follows Greece is Rome. The division of Rome as predicted in the vision leaves that empire fragmented to this very day. And as predicted attempts were made to rebuild the empire through royal blood line marriages – in fact all the heads of state in Europe were connected by blood line or marriage at one time.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)”
Dear Bob
Thanks again, I appreciate your comments and defer to your scholarship of the Bible.
My point is whether there is anything in Daniel that prophecizes about empires since the demise of the Roman Empire: i.e. British Empire, French under Napoleon, Third Reich, Russian, American, Chinese – happening currently? Not all of these empires are necessarily connected to Rome. What does the bible have to say about them?
Thanks
Ken
AAA to examine LSU
Dear Bob
As always thanks for the biblical edification.
What is the 4th empire?
Just curious, did Daniel predict the rise of Nazi Germany, America, Russia or China?
Thanks
Ken
AAA to examine LSU
Re Kirk’s Quote
“True, but Moses spoke to God which who switched on those lights and inspired Moses what to write. So what exactly are you trying to say – that Moses wasn’t inspired in what he wrote…that its just what anybody could have written? Kirk(Quote)”
Dear Kirk
Thanks for your comments.
I don’t know what inspired Moses, or EGW, or Mohammed, or Buddha, or….
Why, because I wasn’t there and don’t know them. Perhaps they were all divinely inspired. Perhaps God divinely revealed evolution to Darwin. I don’t know that. Takes faith I guess. I prefer rational inquiry without a faith or non faith bias.
Hope that helps and that you are having a grat Sabbath.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Recent Comments by ken
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Hi Bob
I asked once before and I’ll ask again: what is your background and expertise in biology?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Re: What every human being on the planet believes?
Empirically, as i don’t have blind faith I could know this, perhaps it could only be a divine being that could do so. 🙂
Always open to correction though to those that know the absolute truth,
I remain,
Your agnostic friend
Ken
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Bob’s Quote
“But we can “observe” that the making of complex systems (and books, and works of art and science) is done by “creators” every day – observable, repeatable, testable. A mechanism proven to work.”
Hi Bob
Thanks for your comments.
This may surprise you but I’m actually intrigued by the design argument. My Dad is a Deist although I’m not of that bent, at least not yet! The laws of nature, i.e. gravity, that even allow the universe to exist are pretty marvelous. Did they arise as a result of a random quantum fluctuation or was their Grand Designer behind it all. If so what is or was the nature of such designer based on what we empirically observe about our universe?
The problem I have with intelligent design within our universe and especially regarding life on earth is theodicy. I do understand how the concept of original biblical sin accounts for the loss of perfection, but I have a very tough time understanding why a God would cause such destruction of his creation based on the disobedience of the literal eating of an apple. I just can’t rationally fathom how the eventual and natural demise of our solar system can be based on Man’s fall. Empirically, through science we can now view the death, and birth, of stars. Was this all caused by eating forbidden fruit?
Thus one must ask: why would a good, compassionate God create a Universe, and sentient life, that suffers and dies? Age old problem, that in my estimation has been allegorically resolved through the Genesis narrative.
Let’s move on to evolution. Micro evolution does not seem to be a problem for anyone. Life does adapt to its environment through genetic change. In my mind the issue becomes what happens over billions of years. After considering everything I have read to date I cannot honestly see an overwhelming case for a young earth. Moreover I have not read or heard anything yet that such a view can be scientifically supported by anyone without a biblical creationist bias. Given enough time great change will occur as evidenced by the vast diversity of life spread over every niche of our planet. Were there kangaroos on the Ark, or did they evolve in an isolated part of the world from whence they could not spread?
I don’t think evolution is a fraud or a hoax. Too many educated people of faith believe and accept it for it to be an atheist conspiracy. Have their been mistakes made and will they continue to be made? Are there dishonest scientists? Certainly. They are fallible humans, just like you and I, after all. But the issue is what does the weight of all the multidisciplinary evidence indicate?
Hope that helps
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”
Hello Sean
First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.
Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!
However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.
I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .
However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.
Good luck in your pursuit of God.
Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”
Hi Sean
The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?
Conviction requires courage period.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
