Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[BobRyan]

People say that about lots of different religious texts. Without evidence to back up the Bible (such evidence being something other than the Bible itself), the claim doesn't carry any weight, except among believers.

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

Point taken. But I've found that the arguments that are used in those cases are mostly emotional arguments, they have very little actual evidence.
.

I have yet to meet an atheist or agnostic that said they decided to forget all that and just start believing the Bible is true because someone who believes the bible cried or was emotional. I have never seen any atheist give that as their reason for their switch to full-on faith in the Word of God.

Are you seeing them do that a lot ? From your response it would appear that this is all you see them doing in that regard.

Oh, don't get me started on prophecy.

There are prophecies that are only "true" because someone went in and wrote the prophecies AFTER the events that are said to have fulfilled the prophecy.

Are you saying you "hope that is the case"??

How long after the Roman Empire fell - do you really think Daniel lived????

Please be serious

 

[Kylie]

I’m not missing the point. I’m addressing your OP. Is it possible that the note was correct? Yes or no?

Is it possible that the Poetic Edda's account of creation is correct? Yes or no?

 

[Kylie]

Outside of the Bible, which God gave us, you are correct.

Special pleading fallacy. Your reasoning is invalid.

 

[Kylie]

Nope

But the Bible concludes that it is a fact. Why do you disagree?

 

[Kylie]

It’s historical evidence. We use historical evidence to prove all sorts of things.

We could also use Beowulf as historical evidence for Grendel, by your reasoning. Doesn't make it true.

A story by itself doesn't count as evidence that the story is true.

 

[Kylie]

Sure.

I say the Bible is the word of God, and the Devil, knowing that, had his subordinates write the Koran, Bhagavad-gita, A Course in Miracles, the Satanic Bible, The Preservation of Favoured Races, the Book of Mormon, and a slew of other writings, knowing that unbelievers would throw the baby (the Bible) out with the bathwater (the other writings).

It's called Diabolical Mimicry.

Of course, people of all those other faiths could, with equally valid justification, claim that their holy text is the real one and all the others - including the Bible - were written as part of this alleged diabolical mimicry.

In short, you still have nothing more than a position which you claim is true simply because you hold it.

 

[Kylie]

Granted ... how about the difference between a prokaryote and a eukaryote -- do you really think that is a bigger jump than the chimp ancestor vs human?? Given that bacteria are the most adaptive species on planet Earth?? They are literally wearing their adaptive genetic code on their sleeves just begging to adapt to their environment.

Yes, that is a very big difference. Of course, did that happen within 50,000 generations? Or did such a large change take place over a much longer time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, people of all those other faiths could, with equally valid justification, claim that their holy text is the real one and all the others - including the Bible - were written as part of this alleged diabolical mimicry.

Equally valid justification?

 

[Kylie]

Equally valid justification?

Yup. I can point out many Muslims who believe that the Koran is the divine word of their God just as strongly as you believe the Bible is the divine word of yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yup. I can point out many Muslims who believe that the Koran is the divine word of their God just as strongly as you believe the Bible is the divine word of yours.

So can I, but I don't consider that "equally valid justification" that the Bible is a product of diabolical mimicry.

As I said, I give them credit for their Koran being spiritually written and sans corruption.

Do they do the same with our Bible?

Nope. They think it has been corrupted.

But all that aside, I have a feeling that if the whole world accepted the Bible as the valid word of God, it wouldn't make any difference to those who are convinced that It is just another piece of literature.

 

[SelfSim]

But all that aside, I have a feeling that if the whole world accepted the Bible as the valid word of God, it wouldn't make any difference to those who are convinced that It is just another piece of literature.

Perhaps those who are convinced It is just another piece of literature then, have already accepted the responsibility for their own sense-making of their non-supernatural world(?)

 

[Hammster]

Is it possible that the Poetic Edda's account of creation is correct? Yes or no?

I’m addressing your OP. Why won’t you answer my question that is directed to what you specifically wanted to discuss? I’ll answer for you, since you refuse to do so.

The answer is yes, it’s possible that the documentation is correct.

 

[Hammster]

Special pleading fallacy. Your reasoning is invalid.

It’s not invalid because I’m not trying to defend scripture. I don’t need to. You know it’s true, but you suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

 

[Hammster]

But the Bible concludes that it is a fact. Why do you disagree?

It doesn’t.

 

[Hammster]

We could also use Beowulf as historical evidence for Grendel, by your reasoning. Doesn't make it true.

A story by itself doesn't count as evidence that the story is true.

It’s not a story. It’s four separate accounts that are verified by other accounts.

 

[Allandavid]

So can I, but I don't consider that "equally valid justification" that the Bible is a product of diabolical mimicry.

As I said, I give them credit for their Koran being spiritually written and sans corruption.

Do they do the same with our Bible?

Nope. They think it has been corrupted.

But all that aside, I have a feeling that if the whole world accepted the Bible as the valid word of God, it wouldn't make any difference to those who are convinced that It is just another piece of literature.

There’s an interesting corollary to your last paragraph.

If I read the statistics correctly, there is a very real prospect of Islam becoming the world’s dominant religion within the next 50 years...combination of Christians leaving the faith and a higher birth rate in Muslim communities. So, under those conditions, I guess people like you still wouldn’t regard the Q’ran as the “valid word of God” either...?

 

[SelfSim]

You know it’s true, but you suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

The only truth I suppress in unrighteousness, is an objectively untestable notion.

 

[Hammster]

The only truth I suppress in unrighteousness, is an objectively untestable notion.

No, you suppress the truth of God.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
— Romans 1:18-23

 

[Allandavid]

No, you suppress the truth of God.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
— Romans 1:18-23

Like many on these pages, Paul of Tarsus made claims.

So what...?

 

[Speedwell]

Well hmmm lets see..

=================================
Christianity Today seems like a good place to start.

2015

Adventists: Can Ben Carson's Church Stay Separatist?

"In 2014, for the 10th year in a row, more than 1 million people became Adventists, hitting a record 18.1 million members. Adventism is now the fifth-largest Christian communion worldwide, after Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and the Assemblies of God."

===============================
And then there is USA TODAY -

2011

Adventists' back-to-basics faith is fastest growing U.S. church - USATODAY.com
" Adventists' back-to-basics faith is fastest growing U.S. church"
"Newly released data show Seventh-day Adventism growing by 2.5% in North America, a rapid clip for this part of the world, where Southern Baptists and mainline denominations, as well as other church groups are declining. Adventists are even growing 75% faster than Mormons (1.4 percent), who prioritize numeric growth.

For observers outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the growth rate in North America is perplexing."
=============================

So how are they doing that?? well they do it using the very method you say in your post that you can't imagine being used.. to do that very thing. -- They start by showing that the proven predictions of the Bible - prove that the Bible is inspired by God.

Pleased to hear it--SDAs do a lot of good in the world. But I would be disappointed to learn that they no longer preached the Gospel. Fortunately, I don't think you're telling me the truth about it. I know a few of your church myself, worked with them from time to time on projects in developing countries. My distinct impression is that SDAs evangelize primarily by means of Christian witness. That is the most effective method of evangelizing anyway and would explain why they are growing so well. They aid the poor, heal the sick and bring souls to Christ. I have never seen them round people up and make them accept a particular hermenuetic before they let them in on the Good News. I also have never met an SDA as hostile to Christians of other traditions as you.