The Literal Truth
The following is by a Mr. Ron
Spencer of Portland,
Oregon. He describes himself as "a devout member of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church
who has studied deeply into the relationship of science and faith." He states that he is also a long-time reader
of both Adventist Today and EducateTruth.
He noted that when he visited EducateTruth he was "appalled at the anemic position taken by those who developed that web site. The dangers from science FAR TRANSCEND the teachings of Charles Darwin! In the following short paragraphs, [Mr. Spencer states that he will] outline that threat and what we need to begin to do TODAY in Adventism to remedy the situation. Call it a Modest Proposal, if you will." By the way, he addressed his email to "Elder Taylor." In the interest of accuracy, I should explain that I was ordained many years ago as a local church elder.
: : :
Science was a very big deal back in the late 1950s.
Those were the days of the Red Scare and Sputnik, and from the top echelons word had come down: "Democracy needs better scientists to stop the Red Tide."
So my earnest little (5'1") Adventist school teacher followed orders from Washington and introduced us early to Pythagoras, Euclid, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, and a footnote or two on Charles Darwin.
Darwin was the Great Satan, so to speak, but some of the others were dangerous, too. Pythagoras, we were told, "worshipped numbers" and "did not believe men should marry women (the word "homosexual" was not used, of course).
Einstein too was shown to be dangerous. We were warned that Einstein's ideas "teach that the universe is billions of years old." That Einstein was of Jewish descent explained it, of course. Satan was using him to destroy faith in Jesus. So my stalwart little teacher said little about Einstein, except that his views were nonbiblical and therefore dangerous. But I still got a kick out of his smile, in pictures.
She told us that Galileo was heroic, for he had stood up
against that great menace, the Roman Catholic Church. But his views on gravity
were troubling, as were Newton's.
For if the sun was not literally created until the Fourth Day of Creation, how
could the earth have been rotating around it in literal evenings and mornings
of time?
If the stars were not created until the Fourth Day, how was the earth held in space for three full days? The Newtonian concepts of immutable gravity were clearly at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and the teacher warned us not to accept their views as the "best explanation."
She said that more probably, the Throne of God in Orion is the Center of the Universe, and that the earth was held in place by God in this way, until He created the solar system and the rest of the universe. "This is a better explanation, and Ellen White's writings support it," she smiled. I was convinced.
Then, very quietly, in a conspiratorial stage
whisper, she warned, "Some Adventist scientists are saying that the sun,
moon, and stars were not created on the Fourth Day, but became visible that day.
These are dangerous thoughts. The Bible says clearly, 'God made' the sun, moon,
and stars that day. That means that the universe as we know it did not exist
until the Fourth Day. Only God, heaven, and the earth existed until that
moment. We simply cannot accept, as Adventists, that the universe has existed
for billions and billions of years."
Then she explained an alternative theory that I accepted
then, and still hold today. It's all so logical: "When God created the
universe, before the entrance of sin, light obviously traveled much, much
faster than it does today. Sin slowed light down. That's always the nature of
sin."
What a relief! Certainly God inspired the thinking of this
wonderful little lady!
She went on to tell us, "God will not allow sinful man
to walk on the moon. Mrs.
White has told us that sin will
not be allowed on other planets. So if you ever hear that man has reached the
moon, don't believe it, any more than if your dead grandfather appeared by your
bed at night. Satan wants to deceive us, and he will
try to fool us by making it appear that man has reached the moon."
Sure enough, Satan did just that
about 10 years later. I have been surprised by how many Adventists have been
deceived. But I had been forewarned by that little angel of light, my
second-grade teacher. July
20, 1969 was the Great Hoax of the Century.
I have remained firm in my faith, though many so-called
conservative Adventists now believe that the universe is many billions of years
old; that the sun, moon, and stars simply became visible, on the Fourth Day of
Creation, and that Orion is neither the center of the universe nor the probable
seat of God's throne.
Most now have been led astray by Einsteinian views,
including the myth of moon landings.
How can Jesus
return to gather us to heaven while so many of the very elect are so deceived?
Our universities must help return us to the earlier days when our belief in the
literal truth of the Bible was absolute.
I am not a scientist or academician, so what I say, I say
modestly. Here is my proposal:
1. Teach Adventist
students in our schools that modern science is riddled with fallacies and
deceptions.
2. Publish science texts that cast serious question on the views of Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, and Newton, and that prove that the lunar landing did not actually occur.
3. Terminate and if possible disfellowship any Adventist teacher who at any time allows for the possibility that these men's views have any valid content whatsover.
4. Develop a coherent
scientific explanation, based on the Bible record, to offer a true picture of
how (1) the speed of light has slowed down dramatically, since the introduction
of sin, (2) how God—not matter—is the ultimate gravitational force in the
universe, and (3) how Darwin's views, junk DNA,
and Carbon decay can all be explained within a 6,000-year time frame by showing
how the incidence of mutations and carbon decay have accelerated since the
entry of sin, in direct and inverse proportion to the downgrading of the speed
of light.
I would be happy to spearhead this effort, though I lack
traditional scientific credentials. But I am a fairly smart guy, as you can
tell by my writing, and I'm not clueless. I believe that I have been called to
stand in the breach at such a time as this, in defense of the literal truth. I
am calling on Adventist scientists to stand up at such a time as this and lead
the charge!
Even so, come Lord Jesus!
Ron Spencer
Portland, Oregon
- Ervin Taylor's blog
- Login or register to post comments
![]() | Ervin Taylor | Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside, and executive publisher of Adventist Today. Dr. Taylor blogs on the creation/evolution divide, science & religion, ethics, and Adventist history/theology. He can be reached at erv.taylor@atoday.com |


Comments
Re: The Literal Truth
Re: The Literal Truth
Re: The Literal Truth
Erv,
If you're going to paint me and those at EducateTruth as being a bunch of nut cases, why not at least attack my actual views instead of building such obvious strawmen misrepresentations? Why this attraction to tabloid-style cheep shots? I know you're looking for increased readership over there at AT, but what kind of readers?
The SDA position says nothing about the age of the universe. It only says that the creation week, as described in the Bible, is a real historical description of a literal 6-day creation week. Here on EdTruth I and several others have pointed out that the SDA position on origins does not counter the idea that the universe may be very old indeed. I myself hold to this position and the Bible also suggests this idea - as in the book of Job where the Sons of God sang together and the creation of this world.
The SDA Church is also unlike the Catholic Church during the "Dark Ages" in that the SDA Church does not think to take on political power or civil authority. All are free to join or to leave. However, as with any viable organization, if you expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church, you will be expected to do as the Church asks you to do as a paid employee/representative. Suggesting that all should be paid regardless of any ideas which counter the stated position of the Church is the suggestion of pure anarchy.
So, if you think the SDA Church is wrong, great, say and do what you want, but don't expect to get paid for it from the SDA Church...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
I just noticed something I missed before. In addition to the line, "Call it a Modest Proposal, if you will." Spencer also writes, "I am not a scientist or academician, so what I say, I say modestly. Here is my proposal:"
Twice he telegaphed that his email is a satire after the fashion of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." There's simply no excuse for anyone but the dullest plodder to take this at face value.
Ervin, I hope you saw this for what it is, and just decided to pass on the joke. If you really thought Spencer genuinely believes what he wrote, then you suffer from an underdeveloped sense of humor. Realizing that it is a joke, even I find it pretty funny (if somewhat sacrilegious) and I would think your side of the creation/long ages divide would find it especially funny.
Re: The Literal Truth
Many AT readers admire good satire and have a sense of humor which some seem to lack. There is nothing better than satire to expose and unreasonable proposition.
For those who would like to enact loyalty pledges for all SDA employees, who should design such a pledge? Should it be affirmation of the 28 Fundamentals, with always possible additions at any time? Have you considered the eventual results?
How many dedicated scientists would be willing to teach their students straight from the Bible ignoring all scientific evidence not withstanding? What happens to the integrity of a professional who prostitutes all his studies and knowledge to conform to a restricted standard dictated by a church? Their duty is no longer to their discipline, to which they've devoted 20+ years, so why spend all the time and money only to be required to teach straight from the Bible?
With such a proposal, these SDA schools would very shortly become mere Bible colleges, with no qualified teachers, there will not be accreditation for students, and soon, many fewer students. Will tuition have to go up to counter the loss of students? Where will the qualified teachers be found?
Let's see a realistic proposal that would result from the suggestions from Educate Truth rather than criticism. Anyone can criticize, but to offer a viable solution requires much more. Let us know exactly how you plan to address what you see as a real challenge. "Put up or shut up" is a good antidote for easy criticism.
Re: The Literal Truth
I find it most interesting that Erv Taylor tries to compare my thinking with that of Hitler and the Nazis. This is a classic attempt to portray or at least suggest that anyone who disagrees is morally corrupt if not downright evil. It couldn’t be that I’m just sincerely wrong? – could it?
And, as far as repeating something over and over again, isn’t Erv the pot calling the kettle black here? Just a cursory review of AdventistToday will show that Erv is no less a broken record on this topic than I am – which is very interesting coming from someone who admittedly knows of no convincing empirical evidence for the existence of God. Even though he publicly pays lip service to the idea that their is a God, Erv is essentially agnostic in his thinking because he sees no physical evidence which necessitates the God argument. Yet, he is the executive editor of a “progressive” Adventist journal? Why, if not for anything other than social reasons, would anyone with this frame of mind think to take on the title of “SDA”?
Yet, when it comes to producing “facts” in support of his notions of science, such as his repeated claim that amino acid racemization dating is a valid independent dating method, he brings nothing to the table but bald assertion as far as I can tell – even in the face of numerous recent publications to the contrary and repeated requests, on my part, for Erv to present some actual published data to back up his claims.
The same is true of his “overwhelming” evidence for an ancient age of the geologic column and fossil record. If this claim is true, I’d love for someone like Erv to explain the general lack of expected uneven erosion, the maintenance of sedimentary layers for tens of millions of years on mountain ranges, the lack of sediment in the oceans, the lack of expected bioturbation within the geologic record, Chadwick’s universal paleocurrents, the existence of sequencable proteins and flexible soft tissues within many dinosaur bones, numerous Lazarus taxa, extensive, very thick and very pure coal seams, residual radiocarbon in both coal and oil, the lack of a statistically viable evolutionary mechanism, and on and on.
These aren’t simply minor problems with the mainstream paradigm that so impresses Erv. These are huge problems which not only fundamentally undermine the long-age perspective for life on this planet, but support the recent catastrophic model very well at the same time.
Even if all of the GRI scientists came to this conclusion, which simply isn’t true, it wouldn’t be correct. Beyond this, I personally know several current and retired GRI scientists and other well educated and well informed SDA scientists who do in fact believe that the significant weight of evidence is strongly in favor of a resent catastrophic model (Arthur Chadwick, Tim Standish, Leonard Brand, Ariel Roth, etc).
Of course, young-life scientists are currently part of a distinct minority within the scientific community. But, this doesn’t mean that they are wrong or that they are incapable of thinking scientifically or of doing good science with high levels of predictive value.
As an example, the catastrophic model was used to predict that formations thought to be termite nests within the geologic column must not be real termite nests. This prediction was confirmed, fairly recently, by Ariel Roth who proved that these formations where the result of inorganic processes.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Termite
The weakness in the modern evolutionary synthesis isn’t limited to biology, or mechanism, but extends to geology and various mainstream dating methods as well. While not everything is yet understandable, the significant weight of evidence fits far more comfortably within a recent catastrophic model.
Now, I know that each one of us thinks the other can’t seem to see the forest for the trees. That is why each individual person following this discussion will have to do his/her own bit of investigation regarding arguments on both sides of this issue. As it currently stands, at LSU anyway, students are only getting a very limited one-sided picture when it comes to interpreting the data that is actually available.
Excellent prediction. Of course, I will also be prophetic, with a very high degree of predictive value, and predict that Erv will continue to insist that his little bit of unexplained data should really be given a weight of 99%. It’s like the intelligentsia during Jesus’ day suggesting that He performed miracles, like raising the dead, through the power of Satan. Sometimes people are simply incapable of correctly weighing the evidence before them. It is easier to simply pick the popular side rather than to come to an unpopular, but otherwise obvious, conclusion.
Could this also be said of me? Of course. Bias is a possible blinder for all of us. However, I can assure you, I do in fact wish to know the actual truth – even if that truth be in favor of Erv and the ToE and quite distasteful to me. I am, therefore, as honest in my thinking and conclusions and my efforts to be scientific as I know how to be. Certainly no one can fault me for the earnestness and sincerity of my search and efforts thus far – which have been fairly extensive over the course of more than 10 years. And, I certainly do not fault Erv for his earnestness or obvious sincerity of opinion either. Ultimately, again, it all boils down to an individual search. Are you going to go with arguments from authority? – or are you going to consider as much of the available evidence as you can for yourself?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Correction: Ervin Taylor is the executive publisher of Adventist Today, not "executive editor"as stated. The current editorial responsibilities for Adventist Today fall strictly under two individuals: Marcel Schwantes as online editor and J. David Newman as print editor. ~ AT Moderator
Re: The Literal Truth
Hypothesis: Sean's post clearly demonstrates the principle that nobody's perfect.
I found Mr. Spencer's piece mildly amusing, The blog entries alerting us to the fact that it was satire were uproariously funny; thanks.
"The dangers from science FAR TRANSCEND the teachings of Charles Darwin!"
I agree, the major danger of science is that it is so dismissive of tradition. Tradition is vital to all religions and critical to fundementalists who pour all their efforts into defending traditions. Even I like traditions but I see them as only traditions rather than indicators of truth.
Re: The Literal Truth
First of all, I have never said in print that Sean was a "nut-case." As for some others who have posted on the EducateTruth web site, well . . .
Second, in my comment about the use of a propaganda technique used in a European country in the 1930s, I was indeed referring to the "Big Lie" approach used in Germany under Adolph Hitler. However, please note I was referring to the "technique" employed. Who said anything about someone who disagrees as being "morally corrupt is not downright evil?"
Third, it has been suggested that I solicited or even wrote this piece. I did not. I am not that creative.
Fourthly: among the characteristics that Adventist Today is looking for in its readers are intelligent, mature individuals who will think for themselves, become familiar with the issues and facts effecting the contemporary Adventist church, contribute their views concerning church affairs in a responsible manner, and speak out forcefully when they see injustices in church affairs being perpetuated.
Finally, we hope our readers will also have a sense of humor.
Re: The Literal Truth
Come on now... When you post tabloid stuff like you have here in specific reference to my efforts in particular, you are in fact suggesting that I'm more than just a little bit cracked. Certainly that is how many would and have interpetted it. Don't tell me that this wasn't your intention.
So, next time, why don't you promote a piece that actually gets my actual position right instead of attacking the usual strawmen?
Anytime a person compares anthing anyone does to what Hitler and the Nazis did, you have to know the obvious implication is that it is evil. If that wasn't your intention, take note and remember not to use Hitler as your comparison next time.
Also, it does strike me as strange that when I repeat myself in answer to the same question, I'm being a repetative Nazi using an evil tactic, but when you do it, it is what? - just being consistent?
You promoted it. It doesn't matter if you wrote it or not.
Then why not write a serious article every now and then instead of relying so heavily on tabloid-style over-the-top nonsense that doesn't remotely resemble reality? If you're actually tring to make serious statements, why not a little bit of serious honest straight-forward journalism and commentary in general?
Your intent was obviously serious, not humerous. Sure, you are in fact trying to use humor to poke fun at the nutty notions of those who disagree with you. This is not, however, an attempt to laugh with another, but to laugh at another. That's the difference between funny humor and serious humor. Serious humor is a very common and occasinoally an effective debating technique - at least it is effective for some who are esspecially good at it (i.e., keep trying ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
Sean, I get the impression that you personally despise Erv. I can understand your position. There are a few individuals who hold positions so different from mine that it is difficult for me to relate to them in a charitable manner. Erv doesn't happen to be one of those people. He reminds me, in his picture, of J.H. Kellogg. I always liked Kellogg, even if he did eat peanuts between meals.
if Erv is an agnostic, as you say, I doubt that beating him over the head is going to impart to him any redemptive faith. If he spent his career dating things and concluded that the short time scenario of Scripture is implausible, what should he do?
Other people, professionals in fields related closely to Biblical studies and interpretation, also have issues with the chronological records in Genesis. They don't subscribe to the Biblical interpretations of people who are now being derided as fundamentalist Adventists.
Years ago Andrew Fearing made an impassioned plea at PUC for young Adventist youth to pursue church work in pastoral and evangelical lines. "Don't let our church fall into the hands of former potheads," he said.
Some of the people who adopt rigid views of Scriptural interpretation have themselves smoked one too many. From out of control, they swing to ultra control. Only strict, straight lines are suitable to those who previously ran in circles.
I'm a fundamentalist Adventist in certain respects. I happen to believe in a literal six day creation. I also respect those who, in good faith, hold different views. Faith is the operative word here. It's pointless to discuss these issues with people who don't have Christian faith. They can not believe.
I had a discussion with a Lutheran pastor regarding some of these issues. They saw their church torn asunder over matters of interpretation which bore directly on Genesis. I don't doubt his Christian faith, even though he saw things differently than I do.
I, personally, don't care if Adventism is shredded and buried. I do care about Jesus, the cross, his resurrection, and ascension. That may not be enough for some people. It works allright for me.
Re: The Literal Truth
Re: The Literal Truth
Sean wrote:
Anytime a person compares anthing anyone does to what Hitler and the Nazis did, you have to know the obvious implication is that it is evil. If that wasn't your intention, take note and remember not to use Hitler as your comparison next time.
As an actual German, (I speak the language and hold the passport), let me say that references to Hilter and the Nazis are certainly overused and sometimes missused (e.g.the SoupNazi) But Erv addressed his concerns correctly by not mentioning either by name. Further if someone could point to a better example of an organization which so explicitly used the Big Lie strategy I'd love to hear of it. Right now I would say Dick Cheney is a stellar candidate, (Saddam and 9/11), but I don't think that would invite any less criticism.
Re: The Literal Truth
From Martin Schratt:
How about the photoshopped Obamanazi and his Hitler 'stache?
I, too, found the essay posted by Erv to be astoundingly amusing - truly Today's Adventist paen to Swift.
In the finest tradition of satirists, the author hit so close to home as to make anyone who grew up SDA squirm a little bit. To those more directly in the crosshairs, it would induce no small amount of undergarment wadding, as indicated by Sean's immediate howls of protest.
Some of my favorite bits and pieces: dangerous thoughts, the moonwalk myth, God lives in Orion, worshipping numbers... all good stuff, although I am laughing at myself!
Sean - I don't think this was directed at you. Any of us that grew up SDA heard and believed some or all of those things at one time, and we should be able to laugh about a thing or two there, in spite of the fact that the laughter is really self directed.
Erv - thanks for posting it.
Re: The Literal Truth
The article was specifically directed at "those who developed Educate Truth". That would be, mainly, Shane Hilde and I.
To be honest, I also find it amuzing, but for different reasons. It is amuzing to me to see someone so desperate to counter the opposition that he resorts to such over-the-top strawmen misrepresentations and tabloid-style sensationalism that doesn't remotely reflect the true positions or efforts of his opposition. This is strawman building to the extreme...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
While I clearly disagree with Erv and think his tactics beneath him and even somewhat immature, I certainly don't despise him or even personally dislike him. I think him honest and sincere. On the golf course (if he plays golf) I think I would really enjoy his company and hit it off famously. Some of my best friends are agnostic and a few are ardent atheists. Yet, even though we strongly disagree on such topics as this, we still get along.
So, I just think Erv is very misguided is all - - nothing personal. Of course, he thinks the same of me.
I don't debate with Erv on these forums for his sake. I don't think there's anything anyone could say that would change Erv's mind. I debate all such people who strongly disagree with me for my own sake and for the sake of those who haven't yet made up their minds. It seems to me beneficial for people to hear the other side of the story...
Your point? There are obviously many people who disagree with the stated fundamental positions of the organized SDA Church. So what?
You, and Erv, seem to me to be arguing for no controls whatsoever - i.e., no real internal Church order, government, or, especially, discipline. That isn't a reciepe for an organization. That's a reciepe for chaos and collapse.
Erv is a social Adventist. He is also a social Christian. He believes in Christian morals and ethics, but not in the basis of the Gospel's Good News regarding the reason to believe in a bright literal physical future. He sees no empirical evidence which even necessitates God's existence.
This is a very logical conclusion for those who believe in Darwinism and other features of methodological naturalism. As William Provine once put it, "Religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism". - Academe, January 1987, pp. 51-52.
This is why it is only logical that the only things those like Erv have left are the social and ethical elements of religion. While these elements are very good indeed (they are the very basis of salvation), they aren't the basis of the conscious Christian hope or the Gospel's very solid and rational Good News.
This is why the opinions of Erv, if brought into the organized SDA Church and supported under paid representation, would end up destroying what is unique about the SDA Church vs. any other ordinary social club of nice friendly ethical people. The SDA Church, I hope, will continue to go well beyond being simply a nice friendly social club for agnostics. Those clubs are already available. We simply don't need yet another one in civil society...
I don't think it is pointless. There is a place for apologetic arguments in support of useful or solid faith that goes beyond warm fuzzy feelings inside. Personally, I don't put any stock in blind faith. If I became convinced of Erv's perspective, I'd leave the SDA Church and Christianity as well. I might believe in some form of a God, but certainly not the Christian-style God.
I don't doubt that many people have intense feels of what they would call faith. But, again, feelings of faith aren't enough for me. I don't find such "faiths" personally helpful. For me, useful religious and religious faith must be based on empirical evidence to at least some degree.
This is the reason why I consider Christianity and its basis in the Bible to be superior to a religion like that of the Latter-day Saints where their holy book, the Book of Mormon, is clearly, in my mind at least, falsified by the physical evidence. Their faith is indeed a blind faith as I see it.
As I see it, Christianity is far more solid since the Christian faith need not be simply an intense desire or feeling, but can be much much more than that. It is, or at least it can be, scientifically tested to a significant degree to see that it is in fact consistent with the available physical evidence. This empirical consistency supports the metaphysical claims of Christianity which cannot be subjected to scientific investigation.
Those are some wonderful basic truths. However, in my opinion at least, other discoveries about the truth of God have been discovered that are also very important to understand and to share with the world...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
Re: The Literal Truth
Sean, Whether Erv and you are golfing buddies or not, is for you to decide. Some of your posts come across as if you have a high level of personal animosity for Erv. Scorn might be a better way to frame the tone of your posts. If that's the way you want to appear, carry on.
"I don't doubt that many people have intense feels of what they would call faith. But, again, feelings of faith aren't enough for me. I don't find such "faiths" personally helpful. For me, useful religious and religious faith must be based on empirical evidence to at least some degree."
Not to get off the subject but I'd be interested in hearing about the "empirical evidence" which informs your faith. What empirical evidence do you have that Jesus was born of a virgin, died a propitiatory death, and rose from the dead? Do you have any empirical evidence that Elijah hacked the priests of baal to death with his sword, after God manifested his power on Mt. Carmel?
What empirical evidence is there for any of the redemptive truths of Scripture?
"Your point? There are obviously many people who disagree with the stated fundamental positions of the organized SDA Church. So what?"
If you are more concerend about preserving church dogma than truth, there is no "what" to the "so." I don't like the implications of Erv's views. If the Creation and Flood narratives are fables, the authority of Scripture is severely compromised. It is possible however, to believe in the central point of the Bible, the sacrifice of Christ, and not exhibit the type of rigidity regarding chronology that some, apparently such as yourself, demand.
My Lutheran friend, contrary, to your description, has a faith which focuses on Christ's redemptive work as a propitiatory sacrifice. That is much more important than many features of the Adventist scheme, including rigid interpretations of chronology. Personally, I don't have a problem with the 6000 year narrative. I do have an issue with those who would pillory people who do.
www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com
Re: The Literal Truth
You should take a look at Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for Christ"... or a sermon I gave a little while back on why I'm a Christian:
There is a great deal of fascinating empirical evidence in support of the miraculous life of Christ. Can I demonstrate that he was actually born of a virgin? Not directly. However, there is a lot of indirect empirical evidence that he was who he claimed to be - to include his claim for a virgin birth. If there were no physical evidence in support of his untestable metaphysical claims you'd have no better basis in believing his claims vs. the claims of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... as Dawkin's puts it.
The validity of the metaphysical claims of Scripture is backed up by the trustworthiness of Scripture regarding those things that can be tested and validated. It has to do with establishing the overall credibility of the witness. Those things that can be tested and turn out credible support the reality of those things that cannot be directly tested, but which come from the same source.
Jesus himself recognized this concept in his healing of the paralytic. He asked, "Which is easier, to forgive sins or heal?" He then proceeded to heal the paralytic physically - as a demonstration that he also had the power to forgive sins. It was a physical demonstration in support of a metaphysical reality. Make sense?
This is what makes the Bible a more reliable book regarding its metaphysical statements vs. something like the Book of Mormon. How so? Because, the Bible backs up its metaphysical claims with trustworthy descriptions of the physical world - to include accurate historical accounts and other physical realities.
Exactly so. If Erv's views are correct, the compromise of the Scriptures is so severe that there really is no more solid basis for the Gospel's "Good News" anymore. Many have recognized this problem - including Erv. That is why Erv admittedly doesn't see any empirical evidence which necessitates God's existence much less his personal involvement with our world. He is a social and ethical Christian, but he really doesn't have a solid hope in the Gospel's Good News.
This is not to disparage Erv as an honest and sincere person. I think Erv will be in Heaven someday. However, it is still sad for me that Erv doesn't seem to recognize the fantastic view of God that is currently available.
It is hard to recognize the reality or solid meaning behind the nature and sacrifice of Christ when little if any of the physical realities mentioned in the Bible can be trusted. I certainly wouldn't trust in the sacrifice of Christ if I honestly believed that most of the Bible was completely off base. I wouldn't be a Christian at all in that case.
That kind of faith simply doesn't do it for me and for people like me. You might say that I'm too stuck in my head instead of my heart. That may be true, but for me, my heart follows my head - not the other way around. I see Christianity, in particular, as being a thinking person's religion.
Are there those who go after God and Christianity with simply a heart-fealt faith? - no need for mental confirmation? Sure. And, that's great for them. It just doesn't do it for me. In this sense, I'm very sympathetic to the likes of Richard Dawkins. Given his basic premise as true, I think he is one of the most logical, consistent, and sincere people I know.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
If there is "empirical evidence" for Jesus' virgin birth, please present it to the many skeptics.
If there was a virgin birth, it was never part of the requirements for becoming a Christian, as Paul, the founder of the first Christian church, never mentioned nor expressed any idea of Jesus' virgin birth. Mark, the earliest gospel, likewise never mentioned virgin birth. The later gospels were written in an effort to show that Jesus had all the marks of former gods who were also products of a virginal conception and birth.
If belief in Jesus' virgin birth had ever been a concept that was mandated for Christians, it was not mentioned in the NT, but only became a doctrine four centuries later, as many of Christian requirements were incrementally added.
That Christians must believe in the virgin birth has no origin in the Bible and should not identify Christians today.
Re: The Literal Truth
Re: The Literal Truth
Sean, How do you understand the ~10,000 year chronology in the LXX? The LXX was the primary OT quoted in the NT. Jesus himself quoted from it. Places where it differs from the Hebrew MT are the preferred reading, since they rather than the Hebrew MT appear in the NT. One possibility, of course, is that the Hebrew text we now have is not the original upon which the LXX is based. In that case, however, it would appear that the longer chronology is the more acurate one.
No offense to Erv, but I don't see how you, Sean, can pillory the man for being an agnostic and then say you expect him to be in heaven. If he can be in heaven, as an agnostic, who rejects the supernatural in Scripture, including the Creation and its redemptive corollaries, explain to me again why people become Christians and how it is that we are saved by faith in the shed blood of Christ.
I believe that people who have rejected the Bible as God's inspired word and actively war against it in an attempt to destroy the faith of others are going to fry in the deepest recesses of hell. Yet you, who I criticized for being uncharitable toward Erv, imagine the two of you walking together, arm in arm, along the gilded paths of paradise.
Of course, Erv is not one who has made war on Scripture in the same vein as other outspoken critics who appear on various websites, at least not that I have seen.
Re: The Literal Truth
I suppose Isaiah 7:14 has no part in Christianity? Also, Paul very much believed in the divinity of Christ - which necessitates both His virgin birth and His resurrection from the dead.
Paul specifically notes the divinity of Christ in Romans 9:5:
Also, in Philippeans 2:5-8 Paul writes that the man Jesus was equal with God while still being fully human:
Clearly, Paul believed and taught that Jesus was the God-man. In other words, Paul clearly believed in the idea of Jesus' Divine pre-existence as God - a God who then humbled Himself as a servant and became wrapped in humanity. Paul repeatedly affirms his belief in the Divinity and humanity of Jesus because only God tied up with humanity could reconcile sinful and fallen humanity to Himself. According to Paul, and to other biblical authors, Jesus is the link between God and humanity.
In short, Paul did in fact believe in the Virgin Birth. You may not, but Paul most certainly did. Without it, there is no Gospel or Christian hope in a bright future...
The NT gospels all have manuscripts dating within 80 years of Christ's death and ressurection. You're quite mistaken.
You are at odds even with the most critical of biblical scholars today. The original biblical basis of at least the assertion of the virgin birth of Christ is undeniable for any serious biblical scholar.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
Sean, you wrote: "If there were no physical evidence in support of his untestable metaphysical claims you'd have no better basis in believing his claims vs. the claims of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... as Dawkin's puts it." You then added, "Are there those who go after God and Christianity with simply a heart-fealt faith? - no need for mental confirmation? Sure. And, that's great for them. It just doesn't do it for me. " And then, of the author of The God Delusion, you concluded with, "I'm very sympathetic to the likes of Richard Dawkins...I think he is one of the most logical, consistent, and sincere people I know."
If you are sincere in stating "that's great for them," then why don't you stop belittling the faith of others, including that of mormons, other faith groups, and your some-beloved-some-despised Adventist brethren? I find it difficult to believe that the thief on the cross lacked the ability to distinguish between a man he presumably had never met before and a Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm sure you do, too. I don't think your hero's analogy is at all meaningful (and how illusive that you praise Godless Dawkins while criticizing and putting down so many fellow believers). You should not be surprised that many of us would take the thief's simple faith any day over your cranial faith.
Re: The Literal Truth
I have no personal problem with a bit longer chronology. I always say that I personally believe that life on Earth has existed for less than 10,000 years or so. The real issue here is that the Biblical creation account in 6 literal days is completely at odds with mainstream science with life evolving slowly over billions of years. One or the other of these ideas is false.
I'm not pilloring anyone for being agnostic - or even athiestic. As I've already pointed out, some of my very good close personal friends are agnostic and a few are very strong atheists. It is simply as statement of fact that Erv is essentially agnostic in his thinking. That doesn't make him a good or a bad person. It's just a fact.
As far as being saved, even the Bible says that the heathen can be saved without ever hearing the name of Jesus or God or the Plan of Salvation - being a law unto themselves. The Royal Law of Love just happens to be written on the hearts of all humanity. If you life according to that law as best as you know how, you will be saved. You are saved based on your motive, not your knowledge or lack thereof. No one will be tricked out of heaven. Mrs. White also points out that there will be some very surprised people in heaven someday who will have to have the whole story explained to them there. Zachariah 13:16 says essentially the same thing...
So yes, while we are all saved by the blood of Christ and what He has done for us, direct knowledge of this event isn't what saves us. It is a gift given to all humanity if they know it or not. This gift can be accepted without even knowing that it has been accepted - through a life lived according to the motive of love.
Exactly... so who is being more uncharitable? Hmmmm?
The fact is that people can reject the word of God without a complete understanding of what they are in fact rejecting. It is not a moral wrong to be honestly confused. Those who are lost will not be lost because they rejected what they didn't honestly understand - but because they rejected what they honestly knew was right, but deliberately chose what they clearly knew was wrong.
This might sound like insanity. Why would anyone deliberately choose what was clearly known to be wrong? Well, that's the very definition of sin. It is a form of insanity. If there could be any rational explanation for it, it would no longer be sin (to paraphrase Mrs. White here).
Erv makes war on Scripture in the sense that he reinterprets everything to read completely different than a clear reading of the text would indicate - or he argues that the passage doesn't have literal importance, only symbolic or ethical importance as a moral fable. That's the problem with Erv's views in my opion - as honest and sincere as he may be...
Erv is a good person. He is just a very confused good person is all...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
I'm not at all surprised. As I said, I'm not speaking for the benefit of those like you. If your feelings-based faith does it for you, that's great. It just doesn't do it for me or for those who think like I do.
I'm also not personally attacking anyone. There's a difference between explaining the problems with a system of faith vs. attacking someone personally. It's not the same thing.
In short, I'm simply explaining why I'm a Christian vs. being part of some other religion, like the LDS Church for example. There is a logic to Christianity which the LDS Church simply doesn't have. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Not all faiths are equal in my opinion. Again, its nothing personal. I don't think this is a matter of salvation. However, I do believe that my faith is able to provide a much firmer basis for hope in some very good news for the future... and for a better understanding of God here and now...
If you didn't believe your religious persuasion was inherently superior to this or that other group in some significant way of practical importance to yourself and to the world, what's the point of taking on the title of any particular organization? It isn't being morally judgemental. It is simply an effort to spread the good news as you see it in the most effective manner possible. That's all.
I really don't understand your repeated attempts to paint me in the most unfavorable light you can... Why this need to make me into some shaddy person who doesn't even spend time with his family or do anything of practical importance for those in physical need? Why invent this stuff?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
"If you didn't believe your religious persuasion was inherently superior to this or that other group in some significant way of practical importance to yourself and to the world, what's the point of taking on the title of any particular organization?"
There is some distinction between religious beliefs (a set of assumptions, values, and practices) and faith (a measure of trust, applied often to things unseen). I see no need for smugness about my beliefs or my faith--superiority may be an issue for you, but it is not for me or many others. Since you asked, most of us simpletons seek a comfortable match between our beliefs and those of a denomination, with the ultimate goal of building our personal faith (how does this escape you?) and encouraging (rather than drawing comparisons between and belittling) the faith of others. I don't think you get this.
"I really don't understand your repeated attempts to paint me in the most unfavorable light you can..."
Have you noticed that everywhere you post, whether here, at Educate Truth, or the many creation/evolution blogs to which you contribute, you generate a negative reaction--often quite strong--to what you write? (I think you thrive on this.) People, including quite a number of Christians and Adventists, find your comments unapologetically arrogant, judgmental, and condescending. So, you see, perhaps it's not just me. You could paint yourself in a different light.
Re: The Literal Truth
The following website that lists the results of quite a few public polls (from Newsweek, Gallup, Fox News, About.com, NBC News, and Pew Research) is definitely worth a visit: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm. Some basic conclusions:
1 - Beliefs by the general public remained consistent between 1982 and 2004: roughly 45% creationist view; 38% theistic evolution; 11% naturalistic evolution. A different poll in 2005, using what appeared to be the same questions, suggested a higher proportion of creationist views (corresponding percentages were 55%, 27%, and 13%).
2 - Men more so than women, those with higher degrees and incomes, caucasians more so than African-Americans, and scientists much more so than the general population believed in evolution. Only 5% of scientists aligned themselves with the creationist view, 40% with theistic evolution, and 55% with naturalistic evolution. I was a tad bit surprised, expecting a higher percentage in the last category.
3 - In a 2005 poll, 44% of the general population believed specifically in a six-day creation.
4 - The U.S. holds far more conservative views on origins than many other countries, especially Britain.
5 - Roughly twice the proportion of democrats and independents believe in evolution compared to republicans.
6 - No mention was made of Seventh-day Adventists, Educate Truth, Sean Pitman, Shane Hilde, Irv Taylor, Gary Bradley, Ellen White, La Sierra University, or drooly wooly mammoths.
7 - For those who insist that the majority of SDAs have abandoned creationism, these results certainly suggest otherwise. Furthermore, if prior surveys of SDA scientists are at all credible (the questions were very poorly constructed), there is a huge difference in the proportion believing in creation (far greater than 5%) compared to the general population of scientists.
I should add that the questions asked were consistent for some polls taken repeatedly but differed for others.
How soon do you suppose this information will be posted at Educate Truth (probably without mention of my name)? And many of them detest me (not that I mind). Before my posts there were blocked because, according to Hilde (and I quote him), "the issue that is being discussed is an internal church affair," I was amazed by how they incessantly labeled me an evolutionist in spite of my frequent declarations to the contrary. It's not their position that I object to; it's the method (exceedingly unChristlike) and the persistent distortions of truth that perplex me.
Re: The Literal Truth
My personal beliefs don't make me morally superior or of greater value than anyone else. All are of equal moral worth in the sight of God since God paid the same price for all...
However, if you don't believe that your own personal ideas regarding what is most likely true or false are of any greater value than anyone else's ideas, you wouldn't share your own views as strongly as you do. It is only because you believe that your ideas on reality might be of some benefit to someone else that you share them. In other words, you think you are more "right" than some other people out there - to include me.
On top of this, sharing a particular point of view that you might consider to be of some important value to others may be done more effectively through an organized group of like minded people - i.e., an organized church in this case.
Therefore, in my support of the organized church there is no moral superiority whatsoever. However, there is the idea that the SDA Church has something uniquely beneficial to offer to the world that no other organization has.
As an illustration, say you found the Fountain of Youth or Health and wished to share your discovery with those you care about. You would say, please, drink this water and it will make you young and healthy. Someone might say, "It is very ellitist and arrogant of you to think your water superior to mine! How unChristian of you!" Of course, that isn't your motive at all. You simply want to share what you have found to be so valuable for yourself and you know would be valuable for others as well if they only tried it.
It's like Paul explaining to King Agrippa that he wished all were just like he was - except for his chains (Acts 26:29). Was this an arrogant statement on the part of Paul? In some sense yes, but not in an unChristian way at all. If being a Christian didn't have any superior advantages vs. being something else, there would be no point in preaching the Gospel - - right? Why take someone away from something else that is just as good if not better? Hello! There would be no reason for that... right?!
Jesus really does think to call us to a better life. There is nothing that anyone else has to offer that compares. Is this arrogant thinking? Again, yes, but not in a selfish sort of way, but in a sharing sort of way that has the motive of giving what is good to those who would wish to have it. No one should be forced to drink from the cup of the Gospel. But, the desire to share it with others cannot be helped by those who have drunk from it...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
Who on this forum has the official prerogerative to speak for the church? It seems that some have taken it upon themselves to act as if they were the arbiters of "correct SDA doctrine."
If the official church wishes to disfellowship, terminate employees, or more, shouldn't we allow the church to handle its designated duties without our assistance? To call for the church to terminate an employee is not the right of any one member, but only the employing organization, which should be the one that hired her. Otherwise, any employee would have no assurance from day-to-day that she might be judged by any member as being unfit for the position. Is that what is being suggested by some here?
Re: The Literal Truth
Elaine said:
"To call for the church to terminate an employee is not the right of any one member, but only the employing organization, which should be the one that hired her. Otherwise, any employee would have no assurance from day-to-day that she might be judged by any member as being unfit for the position. Is that what is being suggested by some here?"
First, speaking for myself, I'm not asking for the termination of any employee. Second, as an active-money-contributing member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I have a vested interested in LSU.
Aside from the ethical issues surrounding the practices of these LSU professors, LSU administration is failing to hold them responsible to upholding the church's position, which is what they are being paid to do. Thousands of concerned Adventists expressed their concern. The board heard those concerns and is now in the process of dealing with this issue. So the proper authorities are now taking responsibility, and would have earlier if they had been apprised of this issue.
Elder Graham didn't know what was going on till this year. A lot of people didn't, and now they do. So things are happening, and that's a good thing.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Re: The Literal Truth
"So things are happening, and that's a good thing."
Perhaps you will enlighten the readers and tell us what "things are happening"?
Since you claim not to have pushed for the resignation of science teachers that are not adhering to your definition of Creation, is merely an investigation into their teaching prompting the writing of such letters?What do you wish to occur? What has been the outcome so far that you can attribute to your position?
Normally, a well-trained professional in his respected field,is not consistently expected to be under surveillance by either the administration or other than students. If the university has decided that their qualifications met their standards, how and why are you prepared to second-guess their judgment?
Could you give us you qualifications, in a short paragraph, that you wish to be signed by all the faculty? Or, is it just the science teachers? Are you aware that both literature and history will cover topics that also may question the SDA position that you are attempting to protect. The Babylonian story of Creation, long predating the Bible one (uniquely similar to Gen. 1) is probably taught in literature classes, as well as the Homeric Epics and Shakespeare! For shame: his writings are full of violence, sex, and even murder! Should those teachers also refrain from such devilish studies?
Remember Galileo? Because his experiments and conclusions did not agree with the Church at that time, he was punished, and the church recanted a "brief" 400 years later. How can you be so sure that the teachers at LSU are not teaching the scientific evidence as has been adopted by practically all good scientists in the last 50 years? Must science pass a church's theological position (positions that are never set in concrete and frequently change) that may be contrary to a given belief today, but accepted tomorrow? Theological beliefs DO change, and even within the Adventist church. Science is ALWAYS subject to change as newer evidence is revealed, just as church doctrine has changed when newer "revelation" is accepted.
Finally, what would LSU need to do to get you complete approval?
Re: The Literal Truth
If I had a nickle for every time this situation is compared to Galileo... What a common strawman...
You do realize that the SDA Church doesn't have and doesn't want the ability to "punish" anyone. The SDA Church has no civil power and doesn't want civil power. Civil power is and should always be left to civil government.
This is not to say, however, that the SDA Church should exersize no powers of internal government, order, and discipline. If you don't like what the SDA Church stands for, you are at perfect liberty to leave without any consequences whatsoever. However, if you freely decide to take on a paid position as an official representative of the SDA Church, in any capacity, you are obliged, morally, to do what the SDA Church asks of you in your official paid capacity. If you do not do what you are specifically asked to do, you are actually stealing from your employer's time and money. There's just no other way to put it.
This has nothing to do with what happened to Galileo under the assumed civil power of the Catholic Church of his day.
Also, it doesn't matter if science or church views change. If an organization is to remain viable, it cannot allow individual representatives to change substantially faster than the organization as a whole. If the individual is so far "advanced" ahead of the organization that the individual is fundamentally at odds with the current position of the organization itself, the organization simply cannot maintain that individual in their advanced state - - at least not without eventually crumbling into chaos and oblivion...(i.e., becoming disorganized)
No public university would tolerate the hire of any professor who did not subscribe to certain stated fundamental positions of the university - even if that professor just so happened to be far in advance of the university's views in reality.
It's simply a matter of praticality when it comes to maintaining viable organizations. "A house divided cannot stand..." is an obvious truism for very good reason...
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
"No public university would tolerate the hire of any professor who did not subscribe to certain stated fundamental positions of the university - even if that professor just so happened to be far in advance of the university's views in reality."
Please give an example of a public university that fired a university a tenured professor for defying the university's fundamental positions. It is extremely difficult to fire a tenured professor at a public university, as several recent news items have disclosed. Even for a professor who taught there was no Holocaust could not be fired! There are extremely wide latitudes for teachers in public universities, much, much more lenient than a private religious school.
"the SDA Church doesn't have and doesn't want the ability to "punish" anyone."
If the purpose of EducateTruth is not to fire anyone (of course no individual has that authority), even by questioning the doctrinal teaching and protesting to the university administration is tantamount to possible punishing of teachers. What affect is desired by EducateTruth if not to call attention to these teachers??
Some of us remember the wholesale eviction and resignation of teachers, even the president, of SAU back in the 80s over doctrine. Is this not a repetition of that?
Re: The Literal Truth
Asking a person to resign from employment because he/she refuses to do what you're paying him/her to do is not, by any stretch of the imagination, acting as an "inquisition". It's like arguing that any effort to remove a thief from employment is behaving like an inquisition...
Come on now... If you would actually read what I wrote in context you would know the answer to your question. Firing a paid representative because he/she is not doing what you paid him/her to do (just the opposite in fact), despite repeated and very clear requests on the part of the employer, is not a civil "punishment". It is not like what the Catholic Church did to Galileo during the Dark Ages - despite your suggestions. It is the maintenance of the internal order and government of the Church as an organization. That's all. The attempted comparison to some sort of inquisition here is nonsense.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Re: The Literal Truth
God has been around forever in the past. He wasn't twiddling his thumbs for all past eternity. I don't buy the big bang theory - too many physical problems and the evidence is weak. How long was some earth form here before creation week?? could be billions, or trillions or more of years.
Radiometric dating is of no help here - it has its own problems too!!
Re: The Literal Truth
Re: The Literal Truth
Elaine, you are correct that teachers at public universities are given wide latitude to express unpopular views. But the latitude is not unlimited, as witness the case of Ward Churchill, formerly of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who opined that the 9/11 victims who worked in the twin towers were "little Eichmanns" engaged in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism." He was purportedly fired for research misconduct--plagiarism, fabrication, etc.-- but the reality is that he would never have been fired for academic misconduct had not his controversial statements--statements so hatefully and viciously anti-American as to be beyond the pale--become public.
I might add, as a postscript, that comments essentially identically to those written by Ward Churchill were preached from the pulpit by Jeremiah Wright, longtime pastor of Barack Obama, and this fact proved no obstacle to the latter's election to the presidency of the United States. So I guess the Board of Regents of CU was considerably more scandalized by these type of comments than was the American electorate as a whole.
Re: The Literal Truth
Yes, I am aware of Ward Churchill and the fracas involved shows that it rather difficult to fire a tenured professor. I do believe that tenure is valuable because if any teacher can lose his position at every turn of whims, his professional security would mean little. Professors are there NOT to indoctrinate but to present various views so that students will learn to study for themselves and weigh both pros and cons. Remember, in the Bible, believers are to be prepared to defend their faith, and an unchallenged faith is worthless and subject to every wind that blows.
As badly as we might be offended by Jeremiah Wright, it is his church that has the power to remove him, not anyone else. Maybe the electorate is more tolerant of various opinions, than some are. Our liberty is no better than are worst enemy; when we wish freedom to express our opinions, we also must allow our opposition that same freedom.
Re: The Literal Truth
Re: The Literal Truth
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com & www.letsfocusonlife.com
I do not share the views of those who defend the theory of evolution; nevertheless, I have developed an appreciation for good satire. Like caricature, satire is expected to distort reality for the sake of making a point. In this respect, Ron Spencer has done a superb job. Satire is based on the writer's ability to distort certain factual features in order to entertain while attempting to suggest that his opponents are defending an illogical position on a given issue.
In this respect, Spencer's contribution was probably beneficial for the present dialogue because it gave Sean Pitman, Shane Hilde, and others a chance to express themselves and thus clarify their true position. A good example of this is found in Shane's explanation that he has not been calling for the La Sierra University science teachers' dismissal, but rather asking the univeristy to be transparent in its advertising of the product it has been offering its students.
Re: The Literal Truth
Announcement: We have a new moderation policy [see posted announcement]. We are aiming to raise the bar in our forums and by doing so we are moderating all comments before they are published. Please read the announcement and stay informed as it may affect your future comments.
Marcel Schwantes
Online Editor, Adventist Today
Re: The Literal Truth
It is clear to most of us that the current post is satirical. Furthermore, in Erv's dialogue and comments regarding Sean Pitman I think it would be clear what Dr. Taylor is saying.
With regards to Sean's "scientific rigor" that remains dubious. Dr. Pitman is looking at the the evidence, biological, paleontological etc and saying that the conclusions are wrong and then attempts to use the genesis story along with a catastrophic flood to explain what we see. Dr. Pitman engages in a classical attack, that is there is a small % of data that cannot be explained within current paleontological or geophysical models. AHA! He then wants to throw it all out and explain the data using what he, a priori, knows to be the truth.
From what I have read for myself using modern geological and paleontological materials the young earth creationist view is simply untenable. That does not mean God was not involved in the creative process. Science does not use God or supernaturalism to explain natural phenomena.
In the satire pasted into this blog, the authors intent is clear. Once you view the genesis story as non-literal many of its spiritual truths become evident.
I agree with another post that Sean's reaction to this blog is as amusing as the satire itself. So "educate truth" is the "truth" website now? No, its simply the "truth" as seen by those who developed and maintain the website. The developers of "educate truth" should look at other websites whose authors suggest that the Pterodactyls were created with other flying creatures on the 5th day.The authors suggest that this is recorded in the bible. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/flyingserpent.html Do they have the "truth"?
I do not understand the apoplectic reaction of some fundamentalists SDA's when science does not support their position. In addition, theologians including contemporary SDA theologians suggest that many parts of the bible are not to be taken literally. Many of those in the theological disciplines are experts in biblical languages and can ferret out what appears in some cases to be metaphorical language.
Well at least Sean recognizes the difficulty in explaining a virginbirth. In reality I suspect there was some sperm in the woodpile somewhere but we can't have that now can we?
The idea of a son of a god being produced in a virgin human vessel predates biblical scripture. So there is nothing new there. In fact if the god is conceived by normal mechanisms the claim to divinity is compromised. No matter how Christ was conceived, the redemption story is still compelling. Is it not?