Bob Ryan has used his God-given reason to observe that …

Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Richard Young.

Bob Ryan has used his God-given reason to observe that “no one has seen macroevolution happen” (which of course can’t happen in the lifetime of one human), and labels believers in macroevolution as “blind-faith evolutionists”. By the same reasoning is Bob himself a “blind faith” believer in human parthenogenesis and reincarnation? Does he know someone who has seen these events happen?

Richard Young Also Commented

A “Christian Agnostic”?
Up to this point, my understanding was that science makes abundantly clear that no human can be born of a virgin, and that no human body can come back to life days after it has deceased. Yet Sean Pitman wants us to believe that:

1. we must use our God-given brains to assess this evidence
2. we must not turn off our brains as we consider this evidence
3. we must reject this evidence, instead accepting what the Bible says
4. we must accept the Bible’s claims because we use our God-given brains
5. Satan does not want us to contemplate this evidence with our God-given brains
6. Satan wants us to act contrary to what our reason tells us
7. if we accept the virgin birth and resurrection on faith in spite of the overwhelming evidence against them, we are exercsing “blind faith”
8. if we accept what science informs us on these two issues, we likewise do so only using “blind faith”

Further, Ellen White reminds us: “Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.”

So…the science that bears on the virgin birth and resurrection from the dead can only be consistent with what scripture tells us. There can be NO contradiction, as Ellen White pointed out. Evidently, there must be some science proving that the virgin birth and resurrection are possible. After all, THERE CAN BE NO CONTRADICTION. I’d like to see this evidence for myself, but for now I’ll simply trust that Sean Pitman must be right. He has been right on so many other things, which means we can trust him to be right about this.

A “Christian Agnostic”?
Ken, you’ve sniffed out the truth about “truth”. I split a side this evening reading the “truth” and love the entertainment. Of course, the editors fully support this blogger’s “truth”, however hilarious the “critical thinking” comes across…so may our critical thinker blog on.

A “Christian Agnostic”?
A Servant said this statement from Sean Pitman was especially meaningful: “In short, Biblical credibility, with regard to those claims that cannot be directly tested and potentially falsified, is dependent upon the credibility of those claims that can be directly tested and potentially falsified.”

Are you, or Sean, suggesting that science cannot falsify the claims of a virgin birth and the resurrection of a 3 day old dead body? Surely you are not serious! This is like saying that one cannot falsify natural selection producing a structure more complex than 1000 amino acids (which Sean Pitman claims is absolutely falsifiable). The odds, by the way, of either the virgin birth or resurrrection happening MUST one in many, many billions (maybe more than one in a trillion, as there have likely been more than one trillion births). And the odds of BOTH events happening to the SAME person? Surely one in trillions upon trillions…which Sean Pitman assures us is IMPOSSIBLE according to scientific evidence based on probabilities that we are told we must trust.

Clearly, we must SUSPEND so-called “reason” and EXERCISE FAITH to believe what the Bible claims regarding Jesus’ virgin birth and resurrection? Why is this such an evil and “upside down” thing to concede? What is wrong with you people?