Comment on LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued by BobRyan.
Those three guys seem to not know when to throw away the shovel when trying to dig themselves ever deeper into a hole.
In their own press release they freely admit that the “or else” option that caused them to jump at the chance to resign – was the threat that what they tape of their own conversation would unmask them and they would be seen for what they really are doing behind closed doors. The text of their own press release makes it clear that fear of having others find out what they were really like when scheming behind closed doors was “sufficient” for them to choose resignation rather than exposure.
Then having little or no control over the tape that they released to family and friends – they found that the result was both exposure AND resignation. At this point they apparently feel they have nothing to lose by telling the world about their activities.
In the mean time we should continue to pray for our Church leadership. One thing that is validated here – is the fact that at least some people considere these people who committed a darwin-award style self-removal from LSU to includ “Three of the most important and beloved leaders” leading the charge at LSU for the kind of bad ideas they expressed on the tape.
Until that point – I did not realize just how key these 4 guys were to that whole agenda.
BobRyan Also Commented
LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Frankly – I am waiting for one of the non-stop nay-sayers who claim that Educate Truth posters should NOT claim that LSU is promoting what LSU-ALUMNUS-1996 is suggesting here — to SPEAK to LSU-ALUMNUS-1996 here and tell him just where his views actually are contrary to those LSU taught him.
Where are they?
They can often be seen slamming the conservatives who claim the VERY thing that LSU-ALUMNUS-1996 is claiming about LSU. So why do we never seem them address the LSU-ALUMNUS-1996 posts??
Why so silent when it comes to the real proof of their argument?
As it is now the whole thing is transparently obvious to the unbiased objective reader.
LSU Alumnus 1996:
Just know that the SDA church, as an entity, does not share your steadfast and strict adherence to either the Bible or EGWâ€™s message
That was the “old song and dance” the evolutionists were singing about how evolutionism was “in” and only a small faction of SDAs actually believed the Bible instead of “believing Darwin”.
Then the GC2010 session came along and wiped out all that sound-and-furry in their story telling so they had to retire that form of storytelling – at least for a while.
â€œand watching a movie is not the same as claiming birds evolved from reptiles.â€ If your point is that we shouldnâ€™t place into context (and therefore â€œadjustâ€) ANY of what EGW (or God) has said, then isnâ€™t the toppling of one domino just as heretical as another?
Your argument appeals to the “power of compromise over time”. If the nation of Israel or the Catholic Church is any indication of validity — then certainly your argument that we will compromise over time – to lower and lower levels has a good basis in historic examples.
Who could argue with your “I will win through compromise over time” claim?
But the question for you is “do you have enough time?”.
In Rev 12 the devil comes down to the earth – in a rage knowing that HE has but a short time.
What about the compromise-over-time guys? Are they too not just a little concerned that just maybe,, this late the game… they too have “but a short time”.
If it has done anything positive at all, this controversy has galvanized me (and many like me) to work tirelessly to purge this vindictive, narrow-minded, ignorant cancer from our church. It is now my mission to give our church the last two nudges I consider it needs â€“ one because it is a moral imperative (the elimination of our decidely un-Christ-like institutional discrimination against homosexuals) and one because it prevents us from conducting true scientific examination of our world (a re-framing of our belief in a literal six-day creation week and young earth, both of which are an insult to God). Anyone here care to join me? LSU Alumnus 1996(Quote)
Well I was going to compliment you on your opening statement claim (at least in half a sentence) to believe the Bible – as that clearly put you in the “disguised” camp.
But there in that last paragraph you seem to have just abandoned your disguise altogether.
Ok – have it your way.
LSU Alumnus 1996: @Faithful Disciple
Whoa there, cowboy â€“ I never said anything about â€œnot believing in the Bible.â€ I personally believe in the Bible. I simply donâ€™t believe in 100% of the Bible.
They don’t call it “Compromised Christianity” for nothing.
The atheist position “does not believe the Bible at all”.
The “disguised position” fully described in 3SG 90-91 — claims on the surface to accept the Bible in some way.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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”.
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.
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