La Sierra University makes a significant statement

[Overaged]

**cough cough***

lol

[Stan]

if you two want to get personal please take it private

[ClubV12]

You don't need a Doctorate degree to understand or comment on the problem. You don't even need a high school diploma, you only need to know how to READ.

I've read the Boards report and the LSU response. The issues are very clear to anyone with even a marginal understanding of the beliefs of Seventh Day Adventists.

LSU was teaching evolution as the favored viewpoint over and above creation. Period. PLUS, they were marginalizing students who spoke out against this policy!!!! Quantifying the definition of "evolution" by someone with a Doctorate or otherwise, is ridiculous. Perhaps TO MUCH education is getting in the way of understanding that which is simple?

Why they were teaching evolution and what steps might be taken to correct the problem are worthy questions. But the facts, as found by the LSU Board, are not in dispute, nor should they be watered down. It's very simple, what they did violates basic beliefs of the SDA church. Not to mention the ethic and moral questions which remain.

[Overaged]

You don't need a Doctorate degree to understand or comment on the problem. You don't even need a high school diploma, you only need to know how to READ.

I've read the Boards report and the LSU response. The issues are very clear to anyone with even a marginal understanding of the beliefs of Seventh Day Adventists.

LSU was teaching evolution as the favored viewpoint over and above creation. Period. PLUS, they were marginalizing students who spoke out against this policy!!!! Quantifying the definition of "evolution" by someone with a Doctorate or otherwise, is ridiculous. Perhaps TO MUCH education is getting in the way of understanding that which is simple?

Why they were evolution and what steps might be taken to correct the problem are worthy questions. But the facts, as found by the LSU Board, are not in dispute, nor should they be watered down. It's very simple, what they did violates basic beliefs of the SDA church. Not to mention the ethic and moral questions which remain.

You are quite correct in this post. I don't think anyone was really saying that they are an "expert" on "science," half as much as the polarization of science and Bible is not right. It is science, falsely so called when someone does that.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Thanks for some clarity, Tom.

Amish has arrived with a bang as a passionate 'accuser of the brethren'.

To whom does Scripture give that title?

So you are calling someone "Satan" are you Mister Scientist? I thought I read Jeannieb43's post that called you "diplomatic?" Hmmmm I'll have to borrow Tom's dictionary.

Do a search on 'accuser' in the whole Bible. It ain't a good thing...

[Overaged]

quote=Overaged]quote=Bravus]Thanks for some clarity, Tom.

Amish has arrived with a bang as a passionate 'accuser of the brethren'.

To whom does Scripture give that title? /quote]So you are calling someone "Satan" are you Mister Scientist? I thought I read Jeannieb43's post that called you "diplomatic?" Hmmmm I'll have to borrow Tom's dictionary. /quote]

Do a search on 'accuser' in the whole Bible. It ain't a good thing...

Nice evasive answer. Why don't you make it clear for us? Yes, or no? And there is a mile of difference between "accuser" and saying what's right or wrong.

[Bravus]

I certainly did *not* call him 'Satan'. I *did* identify what he was doing as accusing the brethren, and I did ask who the Bible describes that way. it was my intention to suggest that perhaps he is not doing the work of the master who he *thinks* he is serving.

I wasn't trying to be evasive, I was hoping that in fact you *would* go to the Word. In looking at our attitudes and actions, it's the guide.

Tell me that Amish has not accused the brethren.

[Overaged]

[HeartSeeker]

Nicely put and bravo Bravus. We are so quick to condemn (an entire group) for our supposed misconceptions.

Lets look at a few players who have voiced "official" perspectives. David Asscherik seems to have been on both sides here, quoting from his open letter of April 30, 2009;

Dear Pastors Paulsen, Schneider, and Graham,

"It is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University. This is not in and of itself a bad thing. Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities. But it should be taught as a competing and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview. We need our young people to know what it is they are up against, yes, but when naturalistic evolution is taught as fact or as the preferred and normative worldview, then we can be sure that the enemy has breached our lines."

Fully agreed; many decry "science" as tool of the devil.

As a process of systematic thought and discovery (applied even, to-GASP- theology) it is not inherently evil. Adam was the first "scientist, botanist, naturalist, biologist" as the nomothete in the garden. But we should not teach it (evolution) with the agenda and preconception of proving it wrong; doing so displays our own attempt to shore up creationism, and our tenuous grasp on that.

Truth withstands scrutiny-nay, she demands it. Attempts to "shield truth" from scrutiny and dialog merely fosters the disbelievers disbelief, and highlights our own thin veneer of faith (whether its evolution, or any other issue)

As a denomination with the largest (7000-plus facilities) protestant christian educational system, should we not be dealing with this, rather than being divided far too readily over sound bites and immediate finger pointing?

David ends his open letter "If naturalistic evolution is true, Creation is cremated, the Sabbath is sabotaged, and our very name is neutered. What becomes of Scripture? And of our unique eschatology? We are not talking about bongo drums, wedding bands, and Christmas trees here."

What? We respond in exactly the same fractious capacity to all of these issues...have we learned nothing from Jesus?

He concludes to speak for many; <I genuinely feel that I have my finger on the pulse of the “average lay person” in the Seventh-day Adventist church the world over...>

There are many others (Hilde is prima facie) who have pounced on this issue with relish, and are seemingly ready to utilize it to their own ends, rather than allow fair discourse, open questioning, and permitting all of the body of Christ to formulate their own-conscience led appraisal of the deeper issues.

I'll end with this; "If the board has not yet adequately addressed this matter, then doesn’t that evince a kind of complicity, if not outright mismanagement and denominational disloyalty? I genuinely ask, at what point is La Sierra University’s board accountable and answerable to you men and the levels of church government that you represent?"

David, should we dis-fellowship the lot of them?

Are we not accountable to how we respond to our brethren inside and outside the church? How do we respond to all the issues? Why are we so afraid of real discussion and the difficult questions?

And what gives you, or anyone else, the license to moral high-road posturing?

How do we resolve the Michigan Conference taking such action;

"Effective June 1, 2010 the Michigan Conference has removed La Sierra University from its list of Adventist Colleges and Universities which qualify for employee subsidy. This means that no employee may expect tuition support if they have a dependent attending La Sierra"?

How many have allowed Dr Geraty to speak for himself? Greer, Grismer, Pitman, Taylor (and others) who had some knowledge and involvement during "the conflict" have all written. Suddenly every pseudo faith-defender and expert jumps aboard with his opining (and castigations).

Yet... we grasp the divisive soundbite, and rail blindly.

I think Creator weeps, and still rues creating us.

Gladly, though, i realize, He has not abandoned

even such rebel as i...

brothers, let us unite in LOVE

(for we surely cannot unite in opinion, dogma, or deed)

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

quote=Overaged]quote=Bravus]Thanks for some clarity, Tom.

Amish has arrived with a bang as a passionate 'accuser of the brethren'.

To whom does Scripture give that title? /quote]So you are calling someone "Satan" are you Mister Scientist? I thought I read Jeannieb43's post that called you "diplomatic?" Hmmmm I'll have to borrow Tom's dictionary. /quote]

Do a search on 'accuser' in the whole Bible. It ain't a good thing...

Nice evasive answer. Why don't you make it clear for us? Yes, or no? And there is a mile of difference between "accuser" and saying what's right or wrong.

Or if you prefer, do a search of EGW and see what she frequently says about those in the church that exhibit the spirit of the accuser of the brethren. It is among the harshest rebukes she uses. I think she rather bluntly identifies precisely what we have witnessed here.

I am quite troubled by a defense of such conduct and amazed at the level of denial I have seen when it is pointed out.

[karl]

More on this at the educatetruth website. Here is a little snip:

The following observation by the AAA [Adventist Accrediting Agency] is key to the much of the problem that exists at LSU regarding the Evolution/Creation controversy:

Quote:

A number of faculty in biology appear to make a sharp distinction between science and religion, with Creation not a matter of science but the domain of personal belief and course in the School of Religion. For them, integration of faith and learning within the science classroom and content area seems to be fundamentally incompatible, except for devotional reflections or prayer that might be offered.

This idea that there somehow exists a sharp distinction between science and religion, that there really are two very different paths when it comes to finding the truth about God and his handiwork in nature, has caused a great deal of confusion. If God exists and God is in fact the author of nature, then the study of nature can in fact lead one to a better understanding of the author of nature – i.e., God.

Yet, the LSU board actually references the book The Prism and the Rainbow by Joel W. Martin, Ph.D. where he says:

Quote:

1. Religion is not science and should never masquerade as such

2. Science is restricted to observing and testing phenomena in the natural world around us and should never be used to argue for or against a particular faith or set of religious beliefs.

By definition, then, these two areas of human endeavor, science and religion, address different issues, each using distinctive methods of inquiry, and there should be no ‘debate.’

And yet there is debate precisely because people intuitively know that if religion has absolutely no basis in empirical reality then it isn’t really worth very much – not much more than believing in Santa Claus or fairytales in general. Again, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the works of nature do in fact say something about the author of nature. Therefore, the study of science is actually the study of the very Mind of God – as Sir Isaac Newton put it.

=================

The heavens declare the handiwork of God.

[tribeofjudah]

But if those teaching evolution as fact and ridiculing creation are still in the faculty, will anything really change?

Well then, we need The Donald to go to LLU and tell them: "You're Fired"

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Yes. How about you?

By most common dictionary definitions of apostasy it means a total desertion or departure from one's religious faith.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"the total rejection of Christianity by a baptized person who, having at one time professed the Christian [read here as "Adventist"...] faith, publicly rejects it. It is distinguished from heresy, which is limited to the rejection of one or more Christian doctrines by one who maintains an overall adherence to Jesus Christ."

Maybe there are those who believe or teach heresy of one sort or another amongst the folk at LSU, but apostasy of anyone there, much less the whole institution, no.

Just as I thought. You actually don't know. All you can do is quote a dictionary. And how might you prove your last sentence?

Correction. I do know. The first sentence was not a quote from a dictionary but in my own words what I understood to be the meaning of the word. The quote was from an encyclopedia (not a dictionary... there is a difference) for the benefit of our readers unable or unwilling to look it up for themselves. It helps corroborate what I understood to be the meaning with the added bonus of distinguishing apostasy from heresy, two different but often confused concepts, as we see right here.

As for proof, I would say it can be rather easily proven from the objective evidence. (I would challenge you, or "Amish", to prove the contrary of my statement.) I was equivocal about the possibility of heresy so no need to prove that part, not to mention that heresy is not all that easily established.

But by its very definition, apostasy involves a public rejection of ones total religious faith. I would challenge anyone here to prove that LSU has in fact publicly rejected, deserted or departed completely from all things Adventist. This would require not just a departure on creationism by one or two biology faculty. It would require an official proclamation of an action by the ruling body of the university declaring itself to no longer support all of the 28 fundamental beliefs and to declare not just its independence from the Adventist denomination but its total opposition to and and non-support of the Church. Or at the very least it would require clear and convincing evidence of a consistent pattern and practice by the overwhelming majority of faculty and administration in teaching and leadership that openly demonstrates a total abandonment of all things Adventist. Has any of that happened? I stand by my statement - No, it has not.

My reaction is emphatic not so much because am here to fall on my sword defending LSU, anyone there or anything that has happened. But I have reacted so strongly because apostasy is a very strong and serious word not to be used lightly or flippantly. To level the accusation of apostasy against anyone or any group or institution is an extremely serious charge. And when it is used against a fellow brother in Christ in the Church or a group of brethren in the Church it is to assume the role and spirit of the Accuser of the Brethren, according to EGW. It is the quintessential act of judgmentalism.

I for one would prefer not to be in the business of giving the devil a helping hand. And as Bravus has so often said here, truth is important.

[HeartSeeker]

@ Karl; in fact, science (itself not so much quest for answers, but in purest form willingness to question better) arises from the same place. man observes something, and from his experiential basis, has a "feeling" or "intuition" about the nature of the observed phenomenon or object.

This "feeling" (does not all thought arise here, as does faith?)

then is tested by positing some questioning hypothesis, and trying to understand the new data, as limited, controlling, and finite as it might initially be?

Problem arises when we fail to discard or polish a hypothesis on its own merits, and try to continue to prove it, to display our own (merit). Faith often (particularly "blind faith") falls into selfsame ditch.

Was not nature Gods original holistic vehicle of communication to man (and angel) alike?

Do we want to believe Adam was "downloaded" ( a defective, even) knowledge of God, apart from his own ability to comprehend/apprehend and formulate/reformulate?

[Overaged]

But if you feel so justified in putting this worst label possible on someone; then it is you & Bravus who are in effect the accusers of the brethren. Thanks for showing us what not to do Tom & Bravus. I believe the harshest denunciation in the Bible would be to those who practice the very thing which they accuse others of.

Amish stated something that he thought is wrong. You however feel good about insinuating Bravus is correct in comparing Amish to Satan, whom we all know is the accuser of the brethren.

If it's so wrong and so Satanic for someone to say when something is not right; then you accuse Jesus of the same thing you accuse Amish of.

[Guest]

Saying something is wrong is not an accusation. If it is truely wrong, then it is merely a statement of fact.

[Tom Wetmore]

God will charge those who unwisely expose the mistakes of their brethren with sin of far greater magnitude than He will charge the one who makes a misstep. Criticism and condemnation of the brethren are counted as criticism and condemnation of Christ.--Letter 48, 1894. {3SM 345.2}

[CoAspen]

Responses to that quote should be rather interesting!!

[Gail]

God will charge those who unwisely expose the mistakes of their brethren with sin of far greater magnitude than He will charge the one who makes a misstep. Criticism and condemnation of the brethren are counted as criticism and condemnation of Christ.--Letter 48, 1894. {3SM 345.2}

Have you go this tucked away for just when you need it?

[Bravus]

I had anticipated the 'No, *you're* the accuser' move.

I've said all I can usefully say on this thread.

[Guest]

You flatter yourself greatly.

[Stan]

What is this? A contest to see who can be the rudest?

[Guest]

No, ...why, am I winning?

Sorry Bravus...........

[CoAspen]

Yes, stan...you may have asked The Question! So much death and destruction in Japan, but lets not stop seeking the rightness and wrongness of others words or actions. Who knows how many in Japan meet their 'final days' or left with no one or anything. But we can continue to argue about the smallest details of ours and others belief systems.....like it really matters!!

I would think the events would give us all pause and take time to examine our OWN lives and the relationship with God. Are we ready for our 'final day'?

[Guest]

Good question: Are we ready for our 'final day'?