Comment on Honest thieves by Sean Pitman.
I am not understanding the transition in your argument from saying that LSU is honestly mistaken to then calling them liars and thieves. That is very strong language. I presume that you will pay a visit to LSU and tell the Biology faculty that to their face, in person?
Do you not understand the difference between the professors and the administrators of LSU? The LSU professors are not lying (though they are robbing us), but the LSU administrators and PR staff are deliberately lying to us…
I have spoken at LSU twice now and pointed out to them, face to face, how they are misrepresenting the SDA Church on the Church’s dime…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Going with what is “Self-Evident” over the “Bible and the Bible only”
In response to a sermon by John McLarty on July 3 at the North Hill Adventist Church located near Seattle, Washington, published by Adventist Today entitled, “Answering Fundamentalists:
On July 10th, 2010 Seanpit says:
I’m just wondering: What kind of government will there be in heaven?
The most ideal government, obviously, is a theocracy where God is in total control. Human governments, without God’s control, are always less than ideal and become less and less ideal as God’s “self-evident” laws are removed from government.
Yet, what should be “self-evident” to the sane mind is not always so self evident to the sinful mind. The civil aspects of the Ten Commandments should have been so self-evident that they need not be spelled out by God in stone. Yet, because of the insanity of our sinful hearts producing a curious inability to recognize the “self evident” any more, God had to make clear to us in writing our own insanity in how we treat each other. This is why sin is in fact a form of insanity…
Therefore, contrary to your assertion, all “good” governments are based on “self-evident” laws because those things that are “self evident” to the sane mind all come from God. Therefore, such governments are, in fact, nothing more than a form of theocracy.
Also, you assertion that the concepts of “all being created equal” or even “demoncratic ideals” are not promoted in the Bible is mistaken. It is a Christian ideal that all are of “one blood” and equal before God – that God is “no respecter of persons” and that there is “no slave, no free, no man or woman” when it comes to recommending one’s self before God. And, the early Christian Church was largely democratic – even socialistic. So, in this sense, the origin of US Government is largely based on very Christian “self evident” ideals and principles that are self evident to many in this country only because of the Christian influence on and God still being involved in the conscience of this society.
Beyond this, the SDA Church, as with all other unique organizations, goes beyond mere civil government. We have a very good civil government here in these great United States of America. The uniqueness of independent organizations within civil government is and must be based on additional internal rules of organization, order, and government. This is true of organizations as diverse as Nike, Rebook, Coca Cola, Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Hindus, or SDAs. All such unique organizations require unique goals and ideas and that these goals and ideals be maintained by internally enforced rules that cannot be trespassed by paid representatives who wish to remain long employed…
For the SDA Church, in particular, this means the upholding of unique Pillars of the SDA Faith. If one cannot do this, in good conscience, one should move on to work for or start a new organization that is in fact willing to pay for this or that individual perspective.
Remember that in free civil society freedom works both ways. One is free to do and say many different things. However, people are also free to provide, or not to provide, financial support. To demand that people financially support your “academic freedom” or “freedom of speech” is just as wrong as stealing money from those who do not freely wish to give it to you…
One more thought. At the very least a group who expects to get paid by a client should be open and honest with the client about the true nature of the product that is being sold. In the case of LSU, this is not being done. The client is being sold a product which does not match the LSU advertising – specifically with regard to the issue of creation vs. evolution and support for the literal six-day creation week in LSU’s science classrooms. LSU is being deliberately deceptive by advertising that all at LSU are in full support of the SDA Fundamentals when they know that this is not the case…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.