Comment on [6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign by BobRyan.
David Bee: @BobRyan: \The problem for any believer is to decide who has the authority to say certain Biblical regulations are now outdated. Is it now OK to eat pork since pig meat has a lower saturated fat content than beef?
That all depends on what the original authority and argument for the Lev 11 command was.
Does Lev 11 in your Bible ever say “as long as pork has a higher fat content than beef it is unlcean for you”? Mine doesn’t.
When I look at the actual fundamental belief dealing with unclean meat – there is no mention in the statement itself “eat whatever has lower fat content” in my copy of the 28FB. Does yours have that in it?
If none of that is working for your suggestion above – then where in the world does it come from?
Remember we cannot resort to an “any ol excuse will do” solution for dodging the Fundamental Beliefs.
Here we are just appealing to some objective critical thinking to notice that you have yet to give a reason for ignoring Lev 11 that has anything to do with the initial reason we listened to Lev 11 to start with.
David Bee:
Ultitmately any believer who wishes to approach the Bible with reason and faith must decide if he is competent to extract truth or if he must rely on someone else.
We get that all the time from our Catholic friends – I thought we got past that part when we decided to be “Protestant”. What did I miss?
In either case the believer stands alone in choosing.The thousands of Godly caring Christians who study the Bible carefully and differ in their understanding have to be comfortable with their choice of authority.
True – but here again you have the Protestant “sola scriptura” principle for testing doctrine as opposed to “soal whatever preference you happen to have”.
I thought we covered that ground when we decided that the Millerite 1844 date was correct and then that the IJ doctrine was correct no matter popular opinion to the contrary.
Again – what part have I missed? We are you circling back to questions that were solved long ago?
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
Colin Maunder: Re the Greenland planes. How quick the pseudo SDAs are to find an explanation that defends the evolutionary view, yet how quickly they belittle real SDAs that find explanations that defend the Bible view.
Indeed their actions reveal their true colors in the matter.
in Christ,
Bob
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
david: It’s amazing how otherwise educated adults give in to, and actually believe in the false promises and other BS they are fed at church and through these websites. A pure fabrication.
Has anyone here attempted verification of any of these religious claims?
Lots of pulpit-pounding in your statement – but no actual fact is disproved or even mentioned in your post.
At some point you need to say something – at the very least – quote something and then complain or affirm it.
in Christ,
Bob
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
Colin Maunder: Re the Greenland planes. How quick the pseudo SDAs are to find an explanation that defends the evolutionary view, yet how quickly they belittle real SDAs that find explanations that defend the Bible view.
As Kent pointed out when asked about his own work in that regard — he had “no time” or interest in any effort thinking about answers in support of the Bible account.
Oh well – at least he was transparent on that point.
in
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
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.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
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”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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
