“It seems to me that there is very little reason …

Comment on Why the Bible? by ron.

“It seems to me that there is very little reason to accept certain fantastic Biblical stories as historical facts while rejecting others that are presented in essentially the same manner as fable or allegorical. If one is to be rationally consistent, one must either accept or reject all of the historical (and futuristic) claims of the Bible as the biblical authors intended them to be understood, or reject all of the fantastic, miraculous or magical claims of the Bible all together. I really don’t see how one can rationally have it both ways?”

This is a singular example of black and white, all or nothing thinking. A third possibility is that the Bible was never intended to be primarily a historical documentary, but rather to be aid to spiritual development. If the goal of the Bible is primarily a tool for spiritual development, then the literal historicity is totally irrelevant. It is possible to accept that the authors intended the stories to be understood a certain way for a purpose other than historical accuracy.

ron Also Commented

Why the Bible?
“So, as just one example, let’s look at the claims of the higher critics regarding the origin of the Books of Moses, or the Torah, in particular. The view of most modern critics is still based on the well-known, still popular, and yet fundamentally flawed ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ ”.

Why bother. . . Demonstrating that something already known to be flawed is in fact flawed, does not contribute to the conversation, and does not answer the question, of what difference it makes whether you believe the Bible is historical or not.

I would argue, that since you cannot, in this life, prove what happens after death, that it in fact does not matter. The best that even the most ardent believer can do is hope that there is life after death, you can never know for sure until it actually happens. The only real value is to take what spiritual instruction you can from the Bible, and live it in your daily life today. The real value of the Bible is to expand your mind and spirituality so that you will be more likely to make good decisions today. What happens or doesn’t happen after you are dead is really out of your control so there isn’t much point to worrying about it.

Recent Comments by ron

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.

You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?

I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.

I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims

And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?

It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:

While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?

While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?