Comment on LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation by Cheng.
By the way â€“ any update on the constituency meeting held last week at LSU?Apparently the participants were sworn to secrecy â€“ but knowing the way the Adventist Church works, weâ€™ll hear leaks and rumors until the final story comes out after the fact.
I don’t understand why there is so much secrecy… if someone believes something, they shouldn’t hide it right? The fact that they are hiding it reveals that their view of the consequences of being open with it will be negative. Secrecy is supposed to be only used in terms of confidentiality. As a Seventh-day Adventist institution, our doctrines are never meant to be confidential.
So my reasoning is this: even if you believe in evolution, stop trying to stay half-way in the creation science boat. It’s like being a vegan in public, but being a carnivore in secret.
The thing that irks me most is that LSU faculty members refuse to be clear about their positions. It’s a simple matter of being for evolution or literal divine creation. Why can’t this SDA school take a simple stand upon an issue which has already been stood upon by its supporters since the beginning of the Adventist Church?
Why doesn’t LSU come out with a public statement that addresses and explains their view on Creation?
I start it for them:
As a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher learning, LSU believes the following concerning the Genesis account of creation:
1) God created . . . . . . . . . .
2) The time frame was . . . . . . . . . . . .
3) We confirm that the Genesis account in chapter 1 is . . . . . . . . . .
——— I hope this helps LSU begin it’s long overdue process of official public clarification ———
Recent Comments by Cheng
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
What I am finding these days is that people refuse to take intellectual responsibility (moral as well). When one makes an argument, one must back that claim in the career as well as life. Or else what happens is hypocrisy which is a non-verbal fallacy. One cannot claim macro-evolution, and then attempt harmonizing his/her viewpoint with the God of the Bible without re-interpreting the Bible or God Himself. It’s a child-known fact, friends.
A non-Christian friend in the social sciences once testified about evolution saying: “I’m not Christian, but I know the cruelty of evolution. I choose NOT to believe because I do not agree with its main principles. It leaves behind the lowest, poorest, and neglected within society, of which, I must support in my career.”
It was interesting for me to hear this line from an eastern shamanist. Now I do believe I have more in common with this shamanist than a theistic evolutionist. It’s because this shamanist is applying her belief and outlook upon life to her everyday living. She is taking intellectual responsibility and social responsibility for her belief system. For someone who believes in macro-evolution, the mere belief on the surface is one thing, but for some reason, application of the principles within everyday life seems to be a problem. For example, if God allows evolution to sort out the imperfections of organisms, then I shouldn’t really have to make an effort to sort out my own imperfections right? God has automatically started the evolutionary engine to do these things for me. Or is my effort a product of evolutionary processes? If this is so, then others’ lack of effort can be called evolutionary malfunction. But where is the standard point of relativity or reference for this declaration?
In other words, macro-evolution is the argument for incompleteness. It becomes the science of unscientific matter. It can be called the never-ending void. If one wants to embrace these things in life, then by all means, dive into macro-evolution without reserve.
But if completeness, conclusiveness, and absolution are more feasible to a person, then obviously macro evolution makes no sense. The debate is finished friends. There’s no need to call anyone names or labels. Choose a principle in life and live by it. Otherwise, one is a hypocrite to society and a disgraceful being.
Perhaps the best synonym for theistic evolution is the science of hypocrisy.
Yes I know, but I was more trying to illustrate a point about believing in something. Belief takes action and investment (as in the case of Danny Shelton). If we are so certain that a 6-day literal creation CANNOT be the only interpretation, why don’t we just step out and back it up like we believe it? Or if we are confused on the subject, why don’t we just admit it, and ask for prayer and support from our Adventist brethren?
Basically, I’m throwing out a challenge to all those who are not willing to believe in the literal 6-day creation account. In the same way Elijah told the false prophets manifest their faith in Baal, I would like to have those who do not uphold the traditional SDA/Biblical doctrines to come forward onto the platform. Why hide if you believe it’s the truth? What is more crucial and edifying than exposing the error of the church?
Is my drift not being caught here?
Oh well, it’s just a challenge that most aren’t willing to take up. Why? Because there is no love of the truth present. Only a desire for validating “my own personal interpretation” as always in the post-modern human mind.
It’s about authority
What funny is that about 10 months ago, I had a few doubts about educatetruth.com, and I was hoping that most of the findings concerning LSU’s evolutionary teaching would be exaggerated.
Boy was I mistaken. The exaggeration could not be overstated.
Now I have noticed that a lot of people keep wondering why evolutionary professors and faculty refuse to leave LSU. I give my two cents from experience in always going through public school:
The issue is pride.
By leaving voluntarily, these professors and faculty members will symbolically be succumbing to defeat. In their own minds, they cannot allow such a thing to happen because it would prick their status. Remember that many folks build reputations not upon prayer, but prestige and achievement.
How anyone can see through the foggy curtain is easy. Whenever someone truly believes in something as truth, they don’t need a salary to convince them. They don’t need external influences (besides God Himself) to fully cement this undiscovered truth. A mere website forum full of human criticism wouldn’t be able to stop them in their endeavors.
Here are some examples of what I am talking about:
* 3ABN – Danny Shelton believed that God told him to begin broadcasting a 24/7 TV station. So he went forward with it and now we have 3ABN all around the world.
* Noah – He received a message about an upcoming worldwide flood. He believed it and preached for 120 years despite the rest of the world deeming him “nuts.” And we know the rest of the story…
* Moses – He was called to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, the most powerful kingdom on earth, despite being the laughing stock of Pharaoh. And we know the rest of the story…
* Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego – All believed that true worship did not constitute worshiping a golden image. They stood up and stood their ground despite the king’s anger and attempt to kill them.
My point is this: Wisbey, Greer, and anyone else who does not agree with a literal 6-day creation-why don’t you start an independent ministry teaching your supposedly “true” & “scientific” doctrines? If what you teach is truth, then how can anyone even begin to fight it? Wouldn’t God bless it and multiply it without the help of a doctrinally “wrong” institution such as the SDA Church? I hope I’m making sense here.
If the SDA doctrines are supposedly wrong on creation, why would you want to associate yourself with the church? Or better yet, why would you use an educational institution of the church as your platform? This would be the equivalent of me going into a university of the society of Jesus, becoming a converted Jesuit, and then preaching the Protestant Reformation as valid. This is like trying to somehow find the best measurement for taste involving a mixture of orange juice and whole milk.
LSU – please cut to the chase and stop cutting the cheese.
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Um, excuse me but salvation is by accepting correct knowledge if and when it is available. If correct knowledge is available and I say “wait a minute, I’ll interpret it differently,” then I am refusing correct knowledge…. right?
Knowledge of good and evil did not save or help Adam and Eve in the beginning. Only the knowledge of a loving God who would provide the Seed to redeem them in the future could open up the avenue to salvation on condition that they accepted this by faith.
Is having faith in incorrect knowledge going to affect our salvation? Of course. The Bible has tons of examples concerning this. God distinguished between Elijah and the false prophets concerning correct worship. Jesus distinguished between the Pharisee and publican concerning true justification and presumption. With the right knowledge concerning the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot survived with his two daughters. With an incorrect interpretation of Old Testament prophecies, the Jewish leaders could not see Jesus as the Messiah.
Excuse me on this one, but I can’t help but be a bit rude and blunt. When has the Seventh-day Adventist Church ever built any principles on anything other than “correct” knowledge since its existence?
May God have mercy on us all.
Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
All of a sudden, I feel like I need to attend the GC Session!