Comment on Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week? by Phillip Brantley.
Dr. Pitman, you have promoted the prejudice that a person who has strong doubts that the universe was created in six literal, consecutive, and contiguous 24-hour days 6000 years is a theistic evolutionist. What you fail to disclose to your followers is that there are sincere Seventh-day Adventists who reject theistic evolution but suggest that the traditional interpretation of the biblical account of creation may not be as airtight as some argue.
In your usual derogatory way, you smear Dr. Geraty, expressly call him a liar, and incite your followers to compare him to Satan. I strongly suspect that you enjoy the David Koresh-like cultic influence that you exercise over the few confused individuals who post affirming coments about your screeds.
I strongly suggest that you seek professional counseling. Who taught you manners? Certainly, you must understand that if any child were to throw a temper tantrum and rant in a disrespectful way toward others, he or she would be severely disciplined. There must be a pastor whom you can talk to, someone whom you trust, someone who might help bring spiritual and emotional stability to your perspective on things.
Phillip Brantley Also Commented
Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
Bill Sorenson, would you please clarify your remarks? Who and whose wife are you claiming promoted celebration music and split a church?
I do not know you and you do not know me, but your comment is susceptible to being interpreted otherwise.
But of course I recognize that little care is given to what people say on this website.
Recent Comments by Phillip Brantley
Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, you (or some other editor) unfairly edited my last comment and the comment that I responded to, so I am forced to wipe the dust from my shoes and leave you and others to stew in anger and confusion.
[Attacks on Shakespeare and the like are off topic and are distracting to the purpose of this website and will not be published – not even in the comment section. The same is true for other topics that many often attempt to post on this website – such as those dealing with homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, the personal morality of one’s opponents, etc. – ET Staff]
Strumming the Attached Strings
I appreciate the comment posted by Richard Myers, because it reflects the often-overlooked fact that a major basis for the agitation against La Sierra University is fundamentalist opposition to university education. []
Critics of La Sierra University should ponder whether their agitation is based on knowledge or the fear that accompanies ignorance. I sense a lot of fear. Fear is not conducive to cerebral thought and learning. Fear also stunts one’s self-awareness ego.
Critics of La Sierra University should adopt the meekness of a criminal defendant. You have to place trust in someone, particularly your attorney, even if you do not fully understand everything your attorney knows.
Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments. You have never learned how to think and reason like a lawyer. The law is much more mysterious to you than you realize.
I can explain a legal matter to you in all crystal clarity, but I cannot understand it for you. To respond to your last comment on the merits is fruitless, because I would just be repeating myself. I suggest that you read again the comments I have made on the various websites regarding this matter and La Sierra’s responsive statement.
Strumming the Attached Strings
Wesley Kime, you could learn something from Sean Pitman. He quotes what I wrote and does so fairly in one of his essays in which he mentions my name and discusses my views (regarding biblical hermeneutics and the relationship between Scripture and external science data). In contrast, you do not quote anything I wrote regarding the bond agreement. Instead, you misrepresent my views (in the eighth paragraph of your essay) in the strange lingo that you apparently find amusing.
It is elementary that boilerplate language has meaning that requires serious attention. The serious attention I give to the entire language of the bond agreement is evidenced by my review of the California Supreme Court opinion that explains what that language means. See, http://charitygovernance.blogs.com/charity_governance/files/california_supreme_court_2007_revenue_bond.pdf.
In your essay, you do not cite the Court’s opinion or quote and discuss the relevant language in the opinion. Instead, you invite innocent readers to surmise in their ignorance that La Sierra University is to be justly criticized for participating in the bond program.
Readers need to be reminded that the authority on California law is the California Supreme Court, not some novice who lacks appropriate feelings of embarrassment for making declarations on matters that are clearly beyond his expertise.
La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.
Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?
