@Bill Sorensen: If they reject “Moses and the prophets” they’ve …

Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.

@Bill Sorensen:

If they reject “Moses and the prophets” they’ve rejected empirical evidence that they know is true. It is for this reason that providing additional empirical evidence, even overwhelming empirical evidence, will make no difference.

Why not? Why won’t the presentation of additional strong empirical evidence change the mind of someone who has already rejected the empirical evidence that they knew was true?

The answer is obvious. If someone has already rejected what he knew was true, his determination of truth is no longer a matter of rational thought and empirical evidence. It is now simply a matter of desire. A rejector of known truth is simply saying, “I don’t like what I know to be reality. Therefore, I will do everything to act contrary to that reality. I will deliberately rebel against what I know to be true.”

You see, for such there is nothing more that God can do or provide to convert them or change their minds. Satan and his angels are in this camp. They know far more empirical evidence than you or I will ever know on this Earth. Yet, they reject what they know to be true, not because they don’t believe it to be true, but because they don’t have a love of the truth. They hate the Truth. Therefore, they hate God. Additional evidence of the Truth isn’t going to change their minds because their minds are based on emotion, not evidence.

Your argument that “prophecy came first, history second” is irrelevant to the fact that anyone or anything claiming to be a prophet (like Joseph Smith for example) is open to empirical reality to test the prophetic words to see if they are actually reliable and credible before the prophet or prophetic text is given any kind of authority by the intelligent candid mind.

It is for this reason that we can have a pretty good idea that Joseph Smith was not a real prophet of God while Mrs. White was. It is also for this reason that we can have a very good idea that the prophetic passages in the Bible were also from God – unlike the prophecies of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.

So, you see, even Biblical prophecies are not “self-verifying” as you have claimed. They are verified against empirical historical reality – against a form of science known as historical science.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:

Rejection of the Seventh-day Sabbath because of a rejection of the clear reading of the Genesis account of origins is a rejection of the nature of inspiration of the Bible that Mrs. White (and the SDA Church) was trying to promote. Such a rejection completely changes the picture of God in one’s mind and the nature of the Bible as well as the Bible’s power to change one’s life and one’s world perspective. The Bible means something very different if it is viewed as a allegory vs. if it is viewed as literally true on those topics where the author(s) clearly intended to be taken as describing real historical events.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:

There are many different ways to “believe in the Bible” that are completely opposed to the type of belief or faith that Mrs. White was trying to promote. Many believe that the Bible is a book of good moral instruction, but has nothing of any real value to say about the physical world. Many believe that the Bible is a collection of man’s best wisdom over the centuries, but is not actually the Word of God.

What Mrs. White was talking about is that a belief in mainstream evolutionary theories destroys a belief in the Bible as the clear Word of God on every topic it touches upon – to include the topic of origins. The evolutionary perspective undermines faith in the character of God that Ellen White understood and which the SDA Church is trying to promote. It undermines faith in the reasonableness and rationality of God – suggesting that God is willing to “command men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.”

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Shane Hilde:

Exactly! Not even Abraham was asked to believe in the naked word of God devoid of empirical evidence that would appeal to the rational candid mind. God was not offended when Abraham asked for this evidence because without such evidence, Abraham would truly have been insane to simply follow voices in His head claiming to be the voice of God without any external empirical confirmation…

There are false spirits out there that will lie to us. These spirits must be tested. And, the only basis upon which to employ and interpret tests is our God-given human reasoning abilities.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.