Comment on Readers respond to Adventist Review article by Sean Pitman.
Ervin Taylor wrote:
Elder Ricardo Graham, the president of the Pacific Union Conference, has just published an editorial in the Pacific Union Recorder, entitled “Be Kind To Each Other.â€
Those individuals who call themselves Seventh-day Adventists who are responsible for and support the “ministry†of educatetruth.com, can take some satisfaction that the vicious attacks orchestrated by them against a SDA university has got the attention of a high official of the Adventist Church.
They can be proud of the fact that a Union Conference president has had to say in public that he is sad to see the “lack of kindness, tenderness, and forgiveness [that] distances us from one another and presents that unity that Jesus prayed for.â€
EducateTruth.org has shown us the way in how we can attack other Adventists and Adventist institutions, label them as agents of Satan, and then say this is being done to educate us about Truth. Very strange.
Educate Truth is not labeling anyone as an “agent of Satan†or even in moral error (do not label us and our efforts by some of the comments posted in the comment sections which do not in any way reflect the views of the staff of Educate Truth).
We, the staff of Educate Truth, fail to see how presenting what is really being promoted as the true story of origins within LSU’s science classrooms can be reasonably referred to as an unfair “attack†against LSU. If LSU and its science professors are really doing right by their employer, the SDA Church in this case, then why on Earth would they feel “attacked†when their actual work and clear efforts to proselytize for mainstream evolutionism are presented for public review by the Church membership at large? – as well as for potential students and their parents?
It is one thing to be kind to each other in the Spirit of Christ, something we at Educate Truth obviously endorse. It is another thing entirely to sit quietly by and say nothing while LSU actively undermines stated fundamental ideals of the SDA Church while not clearly informing potential students, parents, or the Church membership at large as to what is really taking place within its classrooms. Such activity is not “kind†to the SDA Church as an institution or as a collection of individuals within the family of God. It isn’t “kind†because it isn’t open and honest or truly representative of the clearly stated SDA ideals.
Standing idly by and saying nothing as decided and prolonged attacks are made against the foundational pillars of the SDA Church from within one of our own institutions could not be done in the Spirit of Jesus – in our opinion. We have therefore opted to say something – to appeal to the Church membership at large to address this long-standing problem within one of our very own institutions. Or, to change its “fundamental” stand on a literal creation week…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Readers respond to Adventist Review article
@Carl:
My purpose here is not to convince anyone that evolution explains human origin – I don’t believe that. I’m here mostly because your certainty about the science issues needs at least a little balance. I have never met anyone who is so sure about so much.
You don’t come across as being all that unsure of yourself either ; )
I’ve been intensively studying evolutionary theories for over 10 years now. I do indeed think I’ve discovered a few things and what I’ve discovered strongly favors the literal biblical model of origins. I know you don’t agree, and that’s fine. It is just that you are also in fundamental disagreement with the stated goals and ideals of your employer. You are publicly undermining these goals and ideals. That, in my book, is not fine at all because it is not what you are being paid to do…
But, at the very least, your efforts and the efforts of those like you should be open and transparent for all to see. Everyone should know exactly what our schools are really teaching our own young people…
This is the primary goal and purpose of Educate Truth. Transparency…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Readers respond to Adventist Review article
@Carl:
Because my commitment to Adventism is based on a continuing search for the truth. The Bible is our only creed, and that leaves room for a range of interpretation. That’s why the preamble to the Fundamental Beliefs says that they are subject to review and possible change.
So, I hope FB 6 will be revised to widen the search for truth and you demand that we nail it down tight so as to prevent a further search for truth. But, we’re in this thing together.
There are a lot of Christian churches, with very widely divergent interpretations of Scripture, who claim that their beliefs are based on the Bible and the Bible only. Diversity on such a scale, from paid representatives, would lead to chaos, not long term viability. You think we should pay pastors to go around teaching that we should pray to the Virgin Mary or that sinners will burn forever in eternal Hell Fire? Surely not. If a person believes and wishes to be paid to teach such things, that person should seek employment outside of the SDA Church…
The early Church founders, while realizing the potential and even need for change and growth in understanding as new truth came to light also recognized that God does not change and does not counter truths that were clearly revealed by the Holy Spirit during the founding of our Church. New light does not counter older revelations, but compliments it.
When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit…
[Satan] knows that if he can deceive the people who claim to believe present truth, and make them believe that the work the Lord designs for them to do for His people is a removing of the old landmarks, something which they should, with most determined zeal, resist, then he exults over the deception he has led them to believe…
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.Ellen White, Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905); Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 31-32. (1946)
Also, organizations cannot be maintained if individuals think to move significantly faster or slower than the organization itself. If you think you are so far beyond the organization in your understanding of obvious truth, perhaps it is time you move on instead of continuing to take money from an organization while undermining its stated goals and ideals (which are clearly stated and have been even more clearly restated by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists).
God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing one thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angels is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading His people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead…
Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church. p. 207. Vol. 1.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Readers respond to Adventist Review article
@Geanna Dane:
“Good News?†What the heck is that? You won’t find talk of Good News here at this website!
Really? – I wonder why I just talked about it then? ; )
The reality of the “Good News” of the Gospel is based, for me anyway, on the demonstrated dependability of those statements of the biblical authors that I can test and evaluate in a potentially falsifiable manner. This has to do with establishing credibility…
For example, remember the time when Jesus was presented with a paralyzed man and told the man that his sins were forgiven? The priests and pharisee around him doubted his claim to be able to forgive sins. So, Jesus asked the question, “Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?” – Luke 5:23.
Let me ask you, what would have happened to Jesus’ claim to be able to forgive sins if, when Jesus said to the man “get up and walk” the man had not been able to get up and walk? That would have been evidence, very good evidence, against Jesus’ metaphysical claims.
In the same way, evidence against the testable physical claims of the biblical writers is also evidence against their credibility in their other metaphysical claims that cannot be directly tested or evaluated.
On the other hand, evidence in support of the physical claims of the biblical authors is also evidence in support of their overall credibility. In other words, the predictive value of their metaphysical claims increases as the predictive value of their physical claims increases.
So, you see the scientific reasoning behind a solid confidence in the Gospel’s “Good News”…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
