Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute

Geanna says, “Rich,

Isn’t it fun to publicly humiliate and denigrate people who fail to believe “God is the Biblically described Creator and as He is, God is worthy of our worship, glory, honor and power. (Rev. 4:11; Rev. 14:7; Ex. 20:11; Ps. 95:6; Ps. 96:5 etc. etc.)”

What? I reject the implication that uplifting the Biblical Creator humiliates and denigrates people because that ennobles them. To say we crawled out of slime and fought our way tooth and claw (once we got those) to manhood, is instead humiliating and denigrating.

Doesn’t it feel good to expose these people?

Feel how about doing what to which people? What are some actual facts here? I was speaking that everyone, including myself, who come not to the help of the Lord in crisis by refusing to take sides are traitors. This allows God to be the judge. No names or places were mentioned. I cannot say that sincere people who believe and have believed in the cause of evolution will not be saved.

Principally speaking, those who realize there is a crisis over truth, know what is right and refuse to publicly take sides and/or be dishonest about what they believe are traitors to Christ and His cause.

The Bible says, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matt. 10:32-34

Who those people are who, I cannot fully say because God knows how which people understand or have had sufficient opportunity to. William Miller is an example.

Isn’t it fun to label them as traitors? You love this, admit it.

But with your discernment, Rich, why would God need to do the judging or sentencing?

These two sentences are self-refuting in nature. In the first there is an accusation and command to repent of an imaginary action and motive, both labeling and having “fun to label them as traitors” neither of which are substantiated but are in fact human judgements and in the second is a sarcastic attack against supposed human judgment, the very type of judgment made in the first sentence.

God bless,

Rich

Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
First, Geanna accused Educate Truth of saying something a fellow poster like herself said. Then she accused Educate Truth on this basis of drawing a line in the sand. To which I pointed out the fellow poster was nothing more than a fellow poster as far as I knew, and that Scripture has drawn that line. Whoever believes in Christ is called to make Him known, and not hide him. We are to come to the help of the Lord as the Levites did and not neglect to as did the citizens of Meroz.

Then I pointed out the line that God has drawn with regards to His creative authority based on Revelation 4:11 showing this line throughout Scripture.

And every single point was ignored with nothing but, “toward the man” arguments. I stand by what my post said, that God, not anyone else is worthy and no one deserves His glory. (Revelation 4:11)

God bless,

Rich

Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute

Ms. Dane says, “Richard Meyers wrote, “There is a line drawn in the sand and they have not responded in a positive manner by standing on God’s side. This is rebellion. Rebellion against Bible truth.”

Funny that when Educate Truth draws a line in the sand and someone refuses to step across it it is labelled “rebellion against Bible truth”. We have reached the point where all church leaders are “spineless” and in “rebellion” unless they jump when Educate Truth says jump. This has now become the SDA version of “Simon says”.”

Does Richard Myers run Educate Truth? I wasn’t aware that he was.

The Bible says, “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty.” Judges 5:23

God is the Biblically described Creator and as He is, God is worthy of our worship, glory, honor and power. (Rev. 4:11; Rev. 14:7; Ex. 20:11; Ps. 95:6; Ps. 96:5 etc. etc.) This line Satan crossed when he tried to be God of whom now he is tempting the world to forgetfulness (Is. 14:14.) That Satan would have even temporary success among us who exist to call the world to “worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” is indeed nefarious and must be met positively (Rev. 14:6-7). To say nothing in such a crisis is treason. No doubt about that.

God bless,

Rich

Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
Thank you Sean. Very helpful information. Praise God.
God bless,

Rich

The Reptile King
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: “Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.”

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.
God bless,

Rich

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, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” 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.
God bless,

Rich

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.
God bless,

Rich

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.
God bless,

Rich