I agree with EMK, the issue is all about whether …

Comment on The Reptile King by Faith.

I agree with EMK, the issue is all about whether or not LSU professors are teaching science in a fashion that contradicts the SDA church. We have abundantly seen that this is the case. This site was not established to assasinate anybody’s character (in my opinion the professors have done a marvelous job of doing that themselves) it was not established to do anything but point out a problem that has not been dealt with by those in authority for decades and which has grown to monstrous proportions because of it.

And I thank God for Shane and Sean, who have had the moral courage to do this distastful job. They have suffered many attacks on their characters because of this, but I hope they know that many of us out here support them in this fight…for this is a battle between right and wrong, and they are in the right.

This issue needs to be dealt with immediately if not sooner. It has dragged on for far too long at the expense of the souls of the young people who have attended this university.

Professor Kent’s postings seem to be getting more and more Rumplestiltskinesque as time goes on. He is trying to defend the indefensible and is left with nothing to float his boat.

I can understand why Bob continues to point out that Kent spin doctors–that is exactly what he is trying to do. He claims he believes SDA principles, the Bible, and EG White; yet he is constantly trying to defend the corrupt practices of his colleagues. He tries to convince us that they are doing right, when we have seen abundant proof that they are not doing right.

He tries to do this professorial tap dance whereby he clouds the issue with nonfacts that he apparently feels is so far above the poor and lowly ranks of the ‘uneducated’ SDA members, that we just can’t understand it. He builds his house on sand–relying on the quotations of mere men which directly contradict scripture. (EGW excepted–she doesn’t contradict scripture.)

TE is error, but the professors, in their efforts to gain the applause and acceptance of the world, are willing to try to meld truth and error so that we, as a denomination, won’t receive the point-and-horse laugh from the world. Personally, I don’t care a hoot whether or not the world laughs at us for believing the “thus saith the Lord” creation account. They are the ones in error, not us. And in the not too distant future, this is going to become crystal clear to all. Then the evolutionists will be running to hide from the Creator they so defiantly denied. And the TEs will be right in there with them.

I’ve seen a lot of ‘educated’ discussion on this site regarding creation. It has convinced no one. The TEs are still as firmly intrenched in error as ever and the rest of us just as firmly believe in Creation as before. No one has budged an inch. In my opinion, it is a side issue.

Look above at David Dunkin’s post. (Excellent, by the way, David.) It makes it clear as day that God created man. There is no argument on earth that can change that. Either you believe the scriptural account or you don’t. That is the choice you have. I don’t think that we need to debate creation vs evolution. It is a done deal as far as the SDA church is concerned. Just in case anyone’s forgotten, we believe in creation as written in the Bible account and we don’t believe in evolution–theistic or otherwise.

What we have come to discuss here is that many of the professors have decided not to believe and have decided to teach their classes in a way that disparages and discounts the SDA beliefs while still taking a pay check from the church and trying to appear as good SDAs, which only strengthens the evil influence they are disseminating. The profile of the above professor shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are negative influences at work here that should not be tolerated by the church for one minute.

The issue we face now is how, and how soon, this is going to be stopped.

Faith Also Commented

The Reptile King
Charles: Thank you for the quotations from EG White regarding the 6,000 years. Please permit me to add one more–perhaps the most important of all. This passage is from The Great Controversy, Chapter 41 “The Desolation of the Earth”, page 656:

“For six thousand years the great controversy has been in progress; the Son of God and His heavenly messengers have been in conflict with the power of the evil one, to warn, enlighten, and save the children of men. Now all have made their decisions; the wicked have fully united with Satan in his warfare against God. The time has come for God to vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. Now the controversy is not alone with Satan, but with men. “The Lord hath a controversy with the nations;” “He will give them that are wicked to the sword.””

Please note that this is pronounced AT THE TIME OF THE SECOND COMING. What does that tell us about the amount of time we have left to prepare? We are in the millenium of the second coming. And we are told that the work will be cut short for the sake of God’s people or they would be destroyed from off the earth.

You evolutionary scientists out there are all wrong. I don’t even concede to 10,000 years. This earth is 6,000 years old. God gave these messages to Ellen White. He was there at Creation. He Created this earth and HE KNOWS the age of it. He doesn’t have to guess by the use of ice rings or layers of the earth or any other trumped up imaginings of man. He knows. He said repeatedly 6,000 years. Wake up, people. We stand in the last days of this earth. It is time to cleanse ourselves from all unrighteousness (we have to do our part–we cannot do God’s part) and get ready for that solemn and wonderful event–His return to the planet He made. Don’t let stubborness or the false evidences of the scientific community blind you to this. Your soul is in peril. And so are the souls of the youth in the classrooms. There is no time for politics or for subtle deceptions to work in this situation. Our church needs to be purified and we all need to be purified. Repent–for the time is short.

The Reptile King
Prof Kent: “Faith, it is very difficult to converse with someone who, after I say I believe “A” rather than “B,” responds by asking why I believe in “B” and declaring that I make no sense. You are not the only one persists in this kind of game.”

First of all, this isn’t a game, and any erroneous belief here on this site is your own fault. In your postings you seem to contradict all that you have “plainly” stated are your beliefs. What are the rest of us supposed to believe?

For example that little teaser concerning your drinking of alcohol. It looks to me like you purposely withheld the details of that incident so anyone reading would be misled by it. This, so that someone would post a message just exactly like Martha did, so that you could chastise us all for jumping to conclusions. Looks like a set-up to me.

Second, I used that little, but most important, word IF. Read my reply again and maybe you can see what I meant by that question.

If you are going to contradict yourself all the time, then don’t be surprised when people are confused by it and keep asking you to re-state your beliefs.

The Reptile King
Prof Kent:

In upholding TE you are upholding the sin and not just the sinner. It is a sin to rob God of the glory He so richly deserves. It is a sin to use your influence to make sin look anything less than sin; by so-doing you could lead others astray.

If, as you say, you are in total agreement with the principles of the SDA church, why do you keep arguing against those of us who are doing our best to uphold them? You should be with us, not against us. That is why so many people see you as being duplicitous on this site. If you believe evolution is truth, why say you believe in Creation? If you believe in Creation, why wield the sword against us who correctly want to see it taught in SDA schools? You make no sense.

There has been some plain speaking on this site–I believe the occasion calls for it–and you have done plenty of it yourself.

I simply do not understand you.

Recent Comments by Faith

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
And you are correct, Sean, PK must consider where his influence is going–for God or against Him.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Mr Taylor,

After reading your comment above, I must say PK isn’t the only one in that boat.I would make some comment as to how I really feel about you, but I know Sean will only delete it and you won’t benefit from my insight anyway–seeing as Sean is more concerned about other people’s feelings than you seem to be.

How you have the nerve to come to this website and call us all a bunch of morons (which is really what you are doing) is beyond me. You and your cronies are the ones drowning in error. Anyone who dares to accept man’s opinions over the Bible or SOP isn’t to be trusted to define truth for anyone.

Too straight-forward in my comment? Trust me, I have restrained myself admirably. If you only knew….

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Further to my comment on skeptism and our professors, I’ve got to tell you that I found Prof Kent to be extremely annoying in his comments on EGW. He seems to think that she is an embarrassment to the church when she speaks on Science.

Personally I find people who dis her to be the embarrassment to the church. I really don’t see how they dare to contradict and mock God’s prophet. By doing this they undermine a lot of our church’s beliefs to outsiders as well as church members. God will hold them accountable for that.

Furthermore, David’s unpublished manuscript plus other books I have read on archaeology have reported skeletons of the type that EGW mentions. Also found were artifacts such as huge iron bedsteads made for and buried with kings of huge stature.

Just because you haven’t done your research, PK, don’t jump to the conclusion the evidence isn’t there. It’s there, all right, and you make yourself look a little foolish for not knowing about it.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read said:

“Ellen White’s statements about larger antediluvian life forms are well attested with regard to many different types of flora and fauna. They’re not even controversial…

Hi David,

As you know, I took advantage of your kind offer and I read your manuscript as well as I purchased 3 of your books, one for me, one for my sisters, and one for the church library. It took me a week to finish the book, and I and my sisters are very impressed with it. My one sister calls it “one incredible book”. It has answered a lot of the questions we had on the subject of evolution vs creation science, and, yes, I believe we (you and I and my sisters) are on the same page in our beliefs. We have immensely enjoyed discussing the various aspects of the subject as we read. It makes perfect sense to us.

I still have a couple of questions–new ones will probably always keep popping up–but I would say you have covered the subject admirably. Thanks so much for this book.

I agree with Elder Wilson, this is something every Adventist should read. In my opinion it should be used as required reading for science courses. It is exactly the way I would want science courses in the universities to treat the Creation/evolution debate in the classroom. And if the professors at LSU and the other SDA institutions would do this we wouldn’t be constantly losing our young people and, for that matter, our professors, to skeptisism.

Thank God someone has the courage to publish the truth and expose error.

God Bless you, David.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Hi Sean and Bill,

I am wondering if the difference of opinion here is due to varying definitions of the word ‘science’. As we all know there is true science and there is worldly psuedo-science.

If Bill’s understanding of ‘science’ in this case is actually worldly psuedo-science, then he is correct in not wanting any truth to be compromised with it.

From Sean’s post, I believe he is referring to true science, which is definitely part of our beliefs on origins and is well supported by the Bible and SOP, as Sean admirably demonstrated.

Not having seen the exhibit myself, I cannot comment on whether or not they are mixing psuedo-science into it. (Perhaps a few of you posters out there can see the exhibit and report back to us.) Knowing the general philosophy of SAU, I would be surprised if they did.

Their goal is “to provide scientific evidence that substantiates the Bible’s account of creation.” Sounds good to me.
They also say: “Religion and science don’t need to be at odds.” And that is true when you are referring to true science, which I believe they are.

However, I do understand Bill’s reaction in that these days when people use the word ‘science’ without qualification it so often means evolutionary pseudoscience, that we tend to be suspicious.

I think, Bill, that in this case we don’t need to worry. I believe SAU’s heart is in the right place and I am so glad that at least one of our institutions is willing to stand up and be counted on the side of Creation, even though they will probably draw much criticism from the ‘scientific’ community as well as from the TEs in their own church.

God bless them for their fidelity to Him. And may God strengthen them to meet the onslaught that is most likely to follow, is my prayer for them.