Comment on Report on LSU constituency meeting by George.
Ron Stone says: Progressives do not appeal to common sense. They appeal to “what does the modern world believe?â€
It seems to me that progressives look at WHY people believe what they believe, and they see merit to other interpretations. I think they consider it quite rational. I think they think common sense is open minded and not limited to a single interpretation that does not include historical context and intent of the original author.
Table of Contents
George Also Commented
Report on LSU constituency meeting
John D. Sproed said: God wrote the ten commandments with his own finger.
When Got wrote them with His finger, did He write the version in Exodus 20, or in Deuteronomy 5? or the Catholic Liturgy version, which Roman Catholics (half the world’s Christians) would say is God’s true intent?
And, does God expect us to keep the Sabbath rituals the way it is defined in the Bible?
Recent Comments by George
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Kevin Paulson,
So, when you say that those you disagree with (Lawrence Geraty along with the entire Spectrum/Adventist Today crowd) need to go join the Episcopalians where they belong, you chose Episcopalians because they are the least Biblically based Christian group that comes to mind?
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Kevin,
Why do you refer to Episcopalians as a better place for these men? I understand why you’d say they don’t belong in the SDA church. But is there something about the Episcopalians in particular that makes a good fit? Why not the Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, or Methodists? Or did you just choose another denomination?
I guess what I’m really asking is, would one of the other denominations make a good fit for former SDAs who don’t believe in a Biblical creation?
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
I met Dr. Geraty for the first time today. My initial impression is that he is closer theologically to Dr. Pitman than he is to many progressive Adventists. I would suggest caution in being critical of people like him. One might end up without any allies.
And, I’m reminded of something I posted here several weeks ago. We need to identify the core essentials and focus on those, and give people the freedom to choose what they want to believe on non-essentials. Historical Adventists are convinced a literal creation is essential. Progressive Adventists don’t think it is essential.
We also need to remember that the SDA church in north america is not thriving. We’re losing a lot of people every year. Educational institutions are on the edge of viability. What are we missing? What is God telling us that we’re not hearing? Maybe we need to be more open to the real world that people live in.
A Historical Review of the Creation Debate Among SDAs
Kevin Paulson said: “Some of us are still waiting for liberal Adventists to explain how mercy, love, and grace fit into a view of reality which accepts Darwinian evolution as the model for the origin of life.”
I’m not espousing what I’m about to say, but I think I can describe what an evolutionist would say.
Things like love, mercy and grace shown from one person to another, and even self sacrifice, even giving one’s own life for others, is a way to help ensure the furthering of one’s tribe, and thus one’s genes.
Humanity started with a vested interest in furthering one’s tribe in the face of many threats. Helping others in the tribe helped one’s own survivability. After several generations over a few thousand years, this has had an effect on humanity.
As society has grown into larger and larger civilizations, the size of one’s “tribe” has grown. With Christianity, there is no male nor female, no jew (insider) nor greek (outsider), all humanity are defined as one “tribe” and we need to take care of everyone.
Again, I’m not saying this is true. I’m just saying that this is what I think an evolutionist would say.
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
Sean said: ‘When the institution you work for carries the name “Seventh-day Adventist Institution”, it is pretty clear who you work for. The school board doesn’t own the school and it doesn’t own the name. The name “SDA” belongs to the Church.’
It seems to me that this undermines the “do what the employer says” rationale, which I think is the explicit purpose of this website. The “do what your employer says” is clear, direct and something everyone would support.
I think your particular statement here says that LSU Biology professors should “do what the church says”. There is a difference between employer and church, strictly speaking. It appears to me LSU is saying that they ARE doing what the church says, that they are following FB6. As shown here on this website, FB6 was “watered down” to be open to exactly this, and then it passed global church approval. If you want to use the “do what the church says” rationale, it seems to me you’d need to revise FB6 first.
Using the “do what the employer says” is easier for everyone to support. The problem is that the employer (LSU administration) seems to approve of what the Biology dept is teaching. So, the next level is the board, which you are working on now. This might be successful, or it might not.
If the board does not effect the changes you want, then what options do you have? Change board membership? Change LSU administration? Is there an entity that you can appeal to that has the clear and direct authority to effect change? Does the Union have the authority to effect change (or is it only through the fact that the Union president is also the chairman of the board)? Does the GC have the clear and direct authority to effect change?
