Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

The official LSU reply to the Michigan challenge

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/05/28/la_sierra_university_responds_michigan_conference_action

[mrst53]

It is not just the SDA church that struggles with this problem. All fundlementalist churches stuggle with it and most other churches just gloss over it. If push come to shove, they will only answer if they have to. My own answer to my son,when his teacher taught evolution was that God's days are not our days and everything is possible with God.  When he went away to college to a very liberal college on a scholarship, his science professor said she believed in the Big Bang, but that God created the Big Bang and created everything after that. That was novel.  My husband and I had this very discussion yesterday. My arguement against evolution is that absolutely NO ONE has seen evolution continuing since the written word has been founded. Surely if it was true, someone, somewhere would have  seen it occur. Adaptation, yes, evolution,NO! Darwin only had a theory, not a FACT!!!

[Murcielago]

This discussion sometimes reminds me of the outrage against the Nazi's and Catholics for their burning of books considered as heresy, by people who forbid the study and discussion of matters they consider heresy.

[tinka]

Just followed the link...then read the "Rest of the story" by Donna H.

Just seems that there are many writers by women and men that have enormous imaginations of extended views beyond simplicity of understanding can come up with justifications of extreme persuasion to their views. I looked at the posting afterwards. Many followers love to hear conclusions of mere curiosity to their own satisfaction.  It is a prime example of how important to study and let Holy Spirit direct details of the Inspired writer of Bible instead of following the professors of todays scientific intellect driven by ones own superior characteristics. The story of Mary and Martha to me does not bring out that women and man are equal in jobs as it was so insinuated. I feel --do not put into or take away theory is the best to go by.

I wish I could explain in words a little better but maybe here is something that what I call cliches in peoples thoughts that are to extreme. Not that this story I will mention is to that extreme as above but a cliche is a cliche. Man being superior in knowlege to me is a cliche or a true athiest in so called christian cloak.

Yesterday, Sunday we went to Birthday Party for great granddaughter. They live on farm land way back a lane that had several farm houses on each side of lane evidently was sold off from main farm. It is a country setting. About 4 older grandsons of 23 to 30 were passing down the lane and as we all passed in plain view a woman on a tractor doing a little plowing. Now that is what a farmer's wife can definitely do, just ask me. Then as you looked a little more a huge semi- truck set in the front yard. Well, women do drive trucks when they have to and some are good drivers although driving a semi is beyond my abilities but can operate equipment when I sometimes could help.  But as we all passed and glimpsed the woman working on the tractor "shirtless" as a man-- was a "cliche". and yes another women lives there too. That was the focus point of laughter until all were worried about going back through the lane of "curiosity views" and thoughts of the-- "if the needs of the world for the 21st century are to be met"  written  by president of the La S. college. One statement alone within the most flowery words of justifications.   I refuse to make "justifications" to comply to the Scientifically Superior Einsteins of Man's theory above God's. All that is in Bible is all that is needed for our information and Eternity and not to keep up with worldly views to make the best "challenges" or "the almighty dollar". The Scientifically EPA are wrong in many things and good in some only to use some of their Theories to take man's land by distorted science of land and animals that take precedence over man instead of man over land and animal. All of us know that is not Bibical. I guess unless a follower of the greenies and cliches. I cannot support man's theories that do not conclude the answers we have in God's explanation of all.  and BTW is that how they are taught to study at La S. To compare what man has theoried to Bible or Bible to man's unsuperior theory??? I do believe that "curosity sometimes kills the cat". Man can gain medical knowlege, industery, study the heavens, and invent and destroy what God has done, but man can not create and that is God's mystery, His work, His superiority, and His Universe as he hung His sun, moon and stars and His Earth and (laugh) man tries to make money from it by teaching their "superior knowlege". I can read it all free. Our schools were to actually teach the knowlege of God, health and missionaries to spreading the word. Why is there this issue??

[Bob Pickle]

This discussion sometimes reminds me of the outrage against the Nazi's and Catholics for their burning of books considered as heresy, by people who forbid the study and discussion of matters they consider heresy.

Yet no one is talking about book burning or forbidding discussion or study. What is being asked is that La Sierra, Wisbey, Greer, and the rest be true to Seventh-day Adventist principles by not teaching evolution over long ages as fact in a professedly Seventh-day Adventist institution.

No one has disputed the necessity of teaching about evolution. LSU graduates need to be equipped to refute evolution. But are Greer and his comrades making any attempt whatsoever to so equip LSU students?

One serious problem is that Randall Wisbey comes across as either a spineless politician who doesn't know how to lead in a crisis, or as an apostate who himself believes in evolution over millions of years. How else does one explain his stupid responses to all the concern, responses that do nothing to help bring to an end all the controversy? (I refer to Johann's link to Wisbey's latest response.)

Having Wisbey at the helm of LSU at a time like this is about the same as having Walt Thompson chair the 3ABN Board when the out-of-control president Danny Shelton gets caught red-handed covering up allegations of child molestation. I fail to see much difference between how Wisbey and Walt have thus far handled the two scandals.

[Johann]

This discussion sometimes reminds me of the outrage against the Nazi's and Catholics for their burning of books considered as heresy, by people who forbid the study and discussion of matters they consider heresy.

Yet no one is talking about book burning or forbidding discussion or study. What is being asked is that La Sierra, Wisbey, Greer, and the rest be true to Seventh-day Adventist principles by not teaching evolution over long ages as fact in a professedly Seventh-day Adventist institution.

No one has disputed the necessity of teaching about evolution. LSU graduates need to be equipped to refute evolution. But are Greer and his comrades making any attempt whatsoever to so equip LSU students?

One serious problem is that Randall Wisbey comes across as either a spineless politician who doesn't know how to lead in a crisis, or as an apostate who himself believes in evolution over millions of years. How else does one explain his stupid responses to all the concern, responses that do nothing to help bring to an end all the controversy? (I refer to Johann's link to Wisbey's latest response.)

Having Wisbey at the helm of LSU at a time like this is about the same as having Walt Thompson chair the 3ABN Board when the out-of-control president Danny Shelton gets caught red-handed covering up allegations of child molestation. I fail to see much difference between how Wisbey and Walt have thus far handled the two scandals.

[Murcielago]

Is it possible that the SDA church is experiencing some evolution? For 2,000 years Christianity has been evolving, adapting to new environments, science, philosophy, and social norms.

The timing of the MI conference decision makes it quite clear that it was meant to make La Sierra a larger issue at the GC Sessions next month. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. With LSU based in the financial capitol of the denomination, and as popular as it is among SDA young people, I don't think that boycotts from poorer conferences will affect it financially, or deplete its base of students, however, it will cetainly broaden the discussion on where science and religion merges, and if it should.

[Murcielago]

I fail to see the correlation between an alleged criminal act, and a differing viewpoint of science.

This discussion sometimes reminds me of the outrage against the Nazi's and Catholics for their burning of books considered as heresy, by people who forbid the study and discussion of matters they consider heresy.

Yet no one is talking about book burning or forbidding discussion or study. What is being asked is that La Sierra, Wisbey, Greer, and the rest be true to Seventh-day Adventist principles by not teaching evolution over long ages as fact in a professedly Seventh-day Adventist institution.

No one has disputed the necessity of teaching about evolution. LSU graduates need to be equipped to refute evolution. But are Greer and his comrades making any attempt whatsoever to so equip LSU students?

One serious problem is that Randall Wisbey comes across as either a spineless politician who doesn't know how to lead in a crisis, or as an apostate who himself believes in evolution over millions of years. How else does one explain his stupid responses to all the concern, responses that do nothing to help bring to an end all the controversy? (I refer to Johann's link to Wisbey's latest response.)

Having Wisbey at the helm of LSU at a time like this is about the same as having Walt Thompson chair the 3ABN Board when the out-of-control president Danny Shelton gets caught red-handed covering up allegations of child molestation. I fail to see much difference between how Wisbey and Walt have thus far handled the two scandals.

[Bob Pickle]

I fail to see the correlation between an alleged criminal act, and a differing viewpoint of science.

The similarity I pointed out has to do with the way Wisbey and Walt have handled things.

In both cases there are personnel who have betrayed sacred trusts in a very serious manner, and in both cases Wisbey and Walt haven't done a thing to call the perpetrators to account, and/or to terminate them. In both cases, as far as can be seen, Wisbey and Walt have chosen to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[princessdi]

I fail to see why we continue to believe that if we don't discuss it, nor are aware of it, be that evolution or the prevalent homosexuality and presence of AIDS in our own churches, that it just doesn't exist.  I am with George, how are we to refute evolution if we don't know what it is about.  What do we counter and with what? 

Personally, for me evolution has a huge problem in that in recent history, let's say since the first man walked out of the woods....LOL!!!.......no one else has made that transition.  Somebody's million years should be up by now.  CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Faux...Ooops!   Fox, etc. should be covering "new" men every so often.................Why did the cycle stop?

Also, I can see why folks would want another alternative than that which spawn Christianity as we know it.  On a whole, we have not behaved well.  Not that long after the first church, were the Crusades, and multiple popes, schicsms, selling of indulgences to serfs, etc.Then there is the modern, most visible right wing christian, that touts that God doesn't not love you and in fact at the ready with the fire button to destroy you.........unless you look, do walk talk, and live just like us..............If I didn't know God for myself, i might have to go with evolution as an explanation for the mess made of Christianity by man.

[Murcielago]

There are so many unexplained facts whose study is unfortunately discouraged or forbidden outside the context of pre-determined conclusions, by both evolutionists and creationists. This is true of many things, not just the question of origins.

[tinka]

But George, predetermined conclusions seem to be a stabilizer where to start from beginning of all things unless "predetermined" has no beginning wouldn't you say?  I mean we all look for the sun in the morning, and the moon and stars at night and water and food to live, good and evil, sad and happy and air to breath.

 The origions of the original predetermined conclusions are not mind boggling of total confusion in an abyss of nothing as matter exists for no reason in the human mind that was predetermined to reason.....in all things. Unexplained facts are the Mysteries of God with all else explained in the Circle of Golden Thread. We are permitted as humans to stay within human boundries.  Heaven will be our school of knowlege and Mysteries of God will stay Gods as one day we will watch again the Creation of predetermination.

The knowlege of facts and forbidden facts are also predetermined.  Therefore one must believe higher matter as stablizer that stablizes human reasoning beyond mass insanity or no reasoning the same as a bugs existance with no where to go and the fact that no one has created in there self superiority.  Our existance was going to take on predetermined in the likeness of God for His Joy, to extend His love, for His Companions, for basically One big reason.   To know how it feels to be Loved Back. Can we do it? can we reason? or are we Superior??   

[Johann]

I fail to see why we continue to believe that if we don't discuss it, nor are aware of it, be that evolution or the prevalent homosexuality and presence of AIDS in our own churches, that it just doesn't exist.  I am with George, how are we to refute evolution if we don't know what it is about.  What do we counter and with what?  

Personally, for me evolution has a huge problem in that in recent history, let's say since the first man walked out of the woods....LOL!!!.......no one else has made that transition.  Somebody's million years should be up by now.  CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Faux...Ooops!   Fox, etc. should be covering "new" men every so often.................Why did the cycle stop?

Also, I can see why folks would want another alternative than that which spawn Christianity as we know it.  On a whole, we have not behaved well.  Not that long after the first church, were the Crusades, and multiple popes, schicsms, selling of indulgences to serfs, etc.Then there is the modern, most visible right wing christian, that touts that God doesn't not love you and in fact at the ready with the fire button to destroy you.........unless you look, do walk talk, and live just like us..............If I didn't know God for myself, i might have to go with evolution as an explanation for the mess made of Christianity by man.

We need to see these conflicts in the light of The Great Controversy theme. That book points out the fallacies that have hindered the work of God on earth and what remedies God has provided. I find it useful to place the conflicts and dangers in the frame of an outline of church history where we see developments in the Christian world, also after that book was written. But back to basics in general terms and round  numbers:

Europe is the World of Christianity developing onto a Catholic Church, divided into the Roman and Eastern Churches. The time frame is about AD 400 to 1600 when the writings of Augustine of Hippo gradually became more important than Scripture. Even Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other reformers rediscovered the Bible and their reformation became important in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. The Bible was translated into the languages of these countries. (Even today some people pride themselves with a theory that their translation is better than all the others - another battle with evolution!)

About this time America was rediscovered and populated by people dominated by European Protestants. Today there are probably more people from these European countries in North America than in the old countries. Around 1840 the American people "gathered at the river" and revivals took place. Influenced by great revivalists the Christan people in America were more influenced by conversion than what was taking place in Europe. Thus the influx of liberal theology came much later to America than Europe.

When European scholars "discovered" errors in the Bible and new scientific knowledge seemed to oppose certain things in the Bible this influenced a number of theologians and undermined confidence in the Bible. The new discoveries of Darvin also influenced their thinking. This started in Europe.

The first World War which started in Europe in 1914 influence the thinking of theologians like Karl Barth in Switzerland. Something seemed to be lacking in the Christianity of people when they could kill each other by the thousands. Why not get back to the Bible and the teachings of the Reformers? This might save the world.

It has been said that Barth's theology was stated in the words of the hymn, "Yes, Jesus loves me. The Bible tells me so." Thus started what some term Neo-Orthodoxy. And here I feel we are getting to understand what is happening at La Sierra University. More on that below.

There are so many unexplained facts whose study is unfortunately discouraged or forbidden outside the context of pre-determined conclusions, by both evolutionists and creationists. This is true of many things, not just the question of origins.

There might be even more to it than that. As we are facing the climax of history we need to go back to basics. In the Western World and within General Christianity we are working with two sources, with two concepts of understanding life and religion: The Hebrew and the Greek. (This has nothing to do with the two languages the Bible is written in, Hebrew and Greek languages.)

The Hebrew concept - as we find in Scripture and in Creation - God blew his spirit/air into man and he became a living soul. From then on the soul is all that man is, his thoughts, his acts, his being. His body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. When the heart stops beating his spirit returns to God but becomes a soul again at the resurrection.

According to the Greek concept the soul has alway been and will always exist. The soul enters a frail human body on earth where there is a continual conflict between the evil body and the divine soul. So there is no connection as such between the body and the spiritual. The daily  life and work has nothing to do with his religion.

I think the greatest problems in the world of religion lies between these two concepts. Some Christians read the Bible with the eyes of the Greek, others with the eyes of the Hebrew, and then there might be some who make a futile attempt at combining the two.

Neo-Orthodoxy has driven many people in the direction of Greek thought, although they emphasize a return to the Bible, conversion, justification. I have heard them stating that from the pulpit the preacher must preach the words of Scripture, also the stories found in the Bible, and tell them as if they really happened, because they create faith. But in the scientific lab the scientist is no longer dealing with religion, and evolution has nothing to do with faith - that is science. So in church these people might have a lot in common with us. Their sermons might contain the same message in words. The difference lies in the definition of soul and the dualistic view of man.

I have been to the home of a professor of biology at La Sierra. Lovely people who believe in Bible Creation. That was many years ago.

Reading what the present staff at La Sierra is writing I gather that they might be influenced by Neo-Orthodoxy. In their church services, Bible classes and devotions they might well be using the same spiritual material as the rest of us, be richly blessed by it, emphasize the importance of conversion and justification by faith, and yet teach that conclusions you make in the science department has nothing to do with their faith or religious beliefs. In fact I saw a statement in a syllabus of theirs indicating that what is taught might be in conflict with your belief, and that seemed all right.

Is there something we can learn from this? Are we also in a similar danger? I know that some Noe-Orthodox call us "Biblicists" - people who worship the Bible as an idol. Is there a danger on both sides if we go to extremes?

This is not a scholarly writing, only notes from my own memory and experiences. So I am stating this in general terms, like round numbers. If you want to ask questions or discuss certain items, that is OK with me.

[Bob Pickle]

I fail to see why we continue to believe that if we don't discuss it, nor are aware of it, be that evolution or the prevalent homosexuality and presence of AIDS in our own churches, that it just doesn't exist.  I am with George, how are we to refute evolution if we don't know what it is about.  What do we counter and with what?

But that has never been the issue. The issue has always been LSU professors teaching as fact and truth the idea that life has evolved on earth over millions of years.

Donors have given money to 3ABN, which then ended up in Danny's pockets without the donors being informed that that was what was going to happen.

Parents have sent their kids to LSU, and paid rather large bills, and LSU has used that money to convince those kids that evolution over millions of years is truth, without, as far as I know, LSU informing the parents that that was what was going to happen.

So what's the difference between 3ABN's and LSU's betrayal of sacred trusts in this comparison? The difference is that LSU's betrayal is far worse because it put at risk the eternal destiny of the kids without, apparently, the parents' knowledge.

[tinka]

 Johann,
Your memory and experiences of historical events are quite appreciated to read to this review. I know the Mormons take that view on the soul.

Your review of history in the eye's of God sure did need 3angels message brought to light, human messenger to direct back to it, and last ditch effort for the human race as only a few from each generation carried "truth".  EGW was not the only one to carry the vision. Many got the same vision but with some their superiority got in the way like the suggestions and experience that you suggested that each perceived.  The finer details of visions and writings given to a small group that was responsible for the whole world on their own shoulders were the best match one could believe. Thank you again for your posts.