Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by BobRyan.
Here is a good example of the “tiny bible” argument Pauluc offerred recently –
Pauluc said:
Your equivocation is clearly evident within this one statement. How could you ever reach the position of being convinced if you reject any contrary data based on you current understanding? Frankly I do not find your brittle faith at all intellectually compelling or attractive. This last sentence is the precisely why I think you operate in the same mode as the new Atheists. You obviously imagine that the evidence on which they base their conclusions does not exist but you are like 2 adversaries fighting a war with the same premises and on the same field. If you accept the science you must be an atheist and reject all faith. You do not seem to appreciate that Christian faith can operate beyond this narrow view. Christianity is an oral tradition going back to the first century that calls us to accept the revelation of God in Jesus and commit to Kingdom ethics as disciples.It is a revelation that transcends this petty simplistic all or nothing view that says to propose a naturalistic mechanism of creation means that you must claim that nature is all there is and there can be no basis for faith. If there is no affinity with the new atheists as you claim why does BobRyan incessantly cite from new atheists to support his contention that to accept natural mechanism of creation mean as you say above that there can be “no rational reason to trust anything” and you must lose your faith?
Even a child can still believe in Christmas when they finally recognize there is no Santa Claus.
In Pauluc’s argument the “tiny bible” includes no statements (accurate or otherwise) on the subject of complex life coming into existence on planet earth apart from some kind of much-to-be-discarded “Santa Clause” story.
1. In that view all the Bible has to offer of substance is “Love your neighbor” and “Love God” – so that it can now be married to blind-faith-belief in evolutionism.
2. The reason that BobRyan keeps arguing the same point as Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers when it comes to the glaringly obvious fact that the Bible account cannot be married to evolutionism and that denying the Bible is in fact to embrace atheism can best be defined here – 3SG 90-91. And also in Rom 1:18-20. As we see in Rom 1:20 they are only without excuse to the extent that nature reveals “things that have been made” – and the Bible delcares that even for non-Christian pagans it is incredibly obvious.
To sink below that level is to unwittingly make a distinctively atheist argument.
The fact that Pauluc is not coming here to ask me that question – is more than a little interesting. There perhaps a sense that on Spectrum an anti-Bible anti-Creation argument will get more background applause.
But surely an argument worth its salt is worth making – with or without the background applause. (At least that was my thinking when I was posting on Spectrum’s so-called “big tent”).
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian – in Numbers 12:6 God says “IF there is a prophet among you I will make myself known to him by a dream or in a vision”.
In theory this is how Moses got supernatural divine revelation about Gen 1-2 while he was in the land of Midian (According to Patriarchs and Prophets).
I am not arguing against the use of Daniel 2 and the principle of fulfilled prophecy.
I am simply arguing in favor of the Romans 1 and Romans 10 principle that the voice of nature itself is used to convert (“faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”) as we see in Romans 10 and the ID element of nature to convict as we see in Romans 1.
I agree with your statements about the use of predictive prophecy in convincing minds. Walter Veith is one who was convinced in part by Daniel 2.
But he also claims to have been convinced by the evidence in nature that so fully debunked his prior evolutionist beliefs.
in Christ,
Bob
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian – prophecy includes what Moses wrote about creation given that moses lived about 2500 years after creation. Only divine revelation via dream/vision could have given him such a clear picture of the event.
In Romans 1 Paul says that the “invisible attributes of God are clearly seen” in the things that have been made so that those with no Bible at all are “without excuse”.
In Romans 10 Paul says “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” and “then” Paul goes on to point out that the “Word of God” that everyone is “hearing” is that which is found in nature.
in Christ,
Bob
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian Belknap: Frankly, I think Satan and all of his angels are rejoicing over all of this controversy over creation vs evolution.
The belief in evolutionism is a big part of his final plan – I have no doubt that he is more than a little satisfied with the results of those who have been evangelizing for faith in evolutionism both inside and outside Christian churches.
But having it creep up within our own SDA teaching institutions must be a special joy to someone.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
