Comment on The Reptile King by Rich Constantinescu.
Kent debuted here at ET two years ago with proclamations that there was no evidence that the theory of evolution was taught at LSU but since has modified his evolution-free period to the last 1.5 years. He has threatened to leave time after time but never did. Nor has he stopped reminding us us he is persecuted and misunderstood.
Kent: â€œBob, youâ€™ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldnâ€™t know â€œtruthâ€ if it smacked you between the eyes. Youâ€™ve proven to every reader here that you are not â€œin Christ.â€ Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.â€
Rich then noted that Kent shouldn’t be too upset about people not taking him as seriously as he would like because Kent came here pretending to not be an Adventist but it turned out he actually was an Adventist. The kind that doesn’t see much to worry about administration using vulgarity, drinking alcohol and evading authority albeit.
It is a little amusing that an observation that Kent tried to make readers think he wasn’t Adventist and the unacceptable tone of his ad hominem post towards Bob (not like the posts he harvested of Bob’s) is met by more ad hominem and – of all things – an accusation of ad hominem. I cannot think of many better text-book examples of projection.
However, credit where credit is due. Kent is persevering and he did let Bob keep his computer even though he made him throw away his modem. A nice scholar-to-scholar gesture or perhaps a typo yet short of the camaraderie we were waiting to see.
Table of Contents
Rich Constantinescu Also Commented
The Reptile King
Kent apparently does not realize he lost some of us when he stormed in to Educate Truth two years ago ranting and waving, “If I were an Adventist, I’d be ashamed to be one of you!” The fuss Kent put up made some here ask why an outsider was so upset about the Adventists not “representing”? When the shame game didn’t work Kent stormed out, stormed in, stormed out again (and again).
Some of us wondered, why is Kent so interested? Is he for lack of a better strategy trying to corner ET in any way he can in this case by shame and blame? Is he playing whatever side he can to get his advantage? Some of us asked directly if he was after all an Adventist, to which Kent irately responded, “as to the question of whether I’m an Adventist or not … it makes no difference.”
We have been for some time more than beginning to see the truth in that statement. Therefore Kent truly should not be upset when some people don’t take seriously his apology of, “I also am a Creationist.” Trust is built and the foundation is missing.
Here is recent gem towards a “fellow creationist”:
Kent says, “Bob, youâ€™ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldnâ€™t know â€œtruthâ€ if it smacked you between the eyes. Youâ€™ve proven to every reader here that you are not â€œin Christ.â€ Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.”
Hatred indeed. Those who stand for what they believe are, understandably, a mystery and great cause of perplexity to Kent usually worth many hours of his insight and forethought on his computer and modem. That last post apparently is not the fruit of taking enough time to cover one’s tracks.
The Reptile King
Kent, I was not primarily quoting EGW as an authority. I only noted that if someone quotes one portion of EGW writings as authoritative about the supposed disvalue of the “deductions of science” being evidence for or against a point of faith, they should be free to accept other parts of her writings which make it clear that science is not opposed to God’s Word. I do agree that the conflict is not between science and faith but only with the deductions of science and the conclusions of the natural, rebellious, un-renewed heart. EGW never opposed science. She opposed as the Bible says, “science falsely so-called.”
Our colleges all have students from non-Adventist persuasions. The world is invited to and attends all our other schools. They have a right to know what we are teaching if we are bearing false witness.
The Reptile King
Kent, you either missed or ignored the point. The point was and is, if someone would take EGW as saying “deductions of science” means there is no false science, just one true science that is totally contradictory to the Bible and we must choose to live in blind faith without it that is wholly inconsistent with the other many statements by the same author who talks about true science revealing God whereas false science doesn’t.
Your knot is easily untied. An enemy has done this.
Recent Comments by Rich Constantinescu
Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
Thank you Sean. Very helpful information. Praise God.
However, Jesus spoke of bursting wineskins not rehydrations.
The new wineskins were sealed strong with pitch to resist fermentation. The fermentation’s explosive power would have burst the new skin as easily as the old skin. The old simply would have let in the yeast spores and caused an explosion. The expansive pressure of fermentation would burst new skins as easily as old skins. Raisins was “a way to do it”. Other methods of preserving juice besides raisins are documented such as sulfur or water extraction making syrup. (Prov. 20:1).
“It is said, “The new skin-bottles of the ancients allowed the clastic gases of the fermenting liquid to expand them, and therefore they did not burst and spill the wine.”
“This is a delusion, for the strongest hide of hog or ox, formed into a bottle and filled with grape-juice that had begun to ferment, would, if closed up, be burst asunder as with imprisoned steam ; and if not closed, then the old bottle would run no risk of rending.* A cubic inch of sugar, transformed into carbonic acid gas, occupies a space of probably forty times as much.”
“* ‘The force of fermenting wine is very great, being able, if closely stopped up, to burst through the strongest cask.” (Chambers’s Cyclopedia, art. * Wine/ 1750.) … See further, Works of Dr Lees, ii. p. 158, and elsewhere.’
Temperance Bible Commentary, Lees and Burns
David Bee: “How do you suppose grape juice was protected from fermentation in Bible times? If it spent more than a couple of days in the wineskin it began to ferment, you can be sure.”
Drying fruit was a way to do it. Drying out grapes and rehydrating the raisins made fresh wine.
My Goal for La Sierra University
Martha, the problem I addressed is that it is inconsistent to hold a caste system with regards to truth. It is frankly nonsensical for scientists to say theologians have no business in the matter, and then take a theological position themselves, after they just admitted they are not not “theologians”.
What is a theologian by whose decision? What is a scientist? Who decides?
Not that we cannot learn about our Creator from His creation (Ps. 19:1, 2) but we must not twist it to contradict revealed inspiration.
Rich wrote: “The cry goes up that religion/philosophy teachers have not much to say in the realm of science, whilst science teachers liberally affirm that Genesis supports their beliefs and they are in full harmony with the account as it was â€œmeant to be read.â€
Let me think about this one. I think Iâ€™m on to something here.”
Rich again: I think I’ve got it. It is the, “Yours is mine and mine is mine” approach; “You don’t know what I know but I know what you know” case on the presupposition that “more (of anything) is better” and “the majority is (always been) right”. We are seeing the same old agrammatos accusation employed against Jesus and the apostles: “how does this man know how to read, having never learned?” (John 7:15; Acts 4:13)! Imagine that! Who would have thought, in 2011!
The Babylonians decided the Chaldeans were scientists and the Jews decided Saul and Gamaliel were theologians while the presidents and princes rejected Daniel and the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus and the apostles for being un-credentialed and holding an opinion. Arguments undeserving of recycling!