Lesson from Abraham

[_The Erotic Apologist]

The Bible is full of both historic fact and prophetic revelations, that nonbelievers are compelled to accept, willfully ignore or attempt to disprove.

None of the Bible's supernatural claims are supported by independent and external proof. Moreover, to say the Bible is its own proof is an exercise in circular logic. And in any case, similar claims are made about the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and Dianetics.

Other books simply do not contain the amount of prophetic information that has come to plain rational fruition.

See above.

No other book has been studied or attacked for as long, or as persistently as the Bible has.

Similar claims are made about the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and Dianetics.

Only the Bible has received the sheer amount of both acclaim and attempted vilification --- because only the Bible is worthy of either full consideration or total denial.

Similar claims are made about the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and Dianetics. Moreover, you undermine your own credibility by attempting to construct a false dichotomy.

Only unadulterated Christianity attempts to share The Good News without demanding absolute control and manipulation of the will of the general population.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Yes, the Bible says that only through Christ may one come to God.

This is only relevant if you are predisposed to believe the Bible's supernatural claims. But unfortunately, none of these supernatural claims are supported by independent and external proof. To say the Bible is its own proof is an exercise in circular logic.

But the Bible does not insist that one can be saved by following specific religious ritual. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that one must believe in Jesus, go to a specific church, or then be put to death. The separation from God is clearly a decision made between an individual and God.

Again, this is only relevant if you are predisposed to believe the Bible's supernatural claims. But unfortunately, none of these supernatural claims are supported by independent and external proof. To say the Bible is its own proof is an exercise in circular logic.

The historic development of the biblically influenced United States provides a testimony (which was a highly influenced product of the Protestant Reformation ---- the rebirth of persistent evangelical missionary work, personal biblical study, and seeking a personal relationship with the Almighty God.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, here.

The "Christian" does not seek to become God nor improve God's attributes, nor is a keeper of HIDDEN knowledge/tallents. The "Christian" does see himself as needing salvation because of his fallen and imperfect nature, and as an emissary to inform others of God's love and salvation ------------ because the "Christian " is fully aware of his own original state as one being lost and in need of ONLY God's redemption.

Again, this is only relevant if you are predisposed to believe the Bible's supernatural claims. But unfortunately, none of these supernatural claims are supported by independent and external proof. To say the Bible is its own proof is an exercise in circular logic.

[_LittleNipper]

Please consider: http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-ol ... -prophecy/

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/argument.htm

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

http://creation.com/does-bible-trump-all-evidence

by The Erotic Apologist » Sun May 18, 2014 9:30 am
None of the Bible's supernatural claims are supported by independent and external proof. Moreover, to say the Bible is its own proof is an exercise in circular logic. And in any case, similar claims are made about the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and Dianetics.

Prophecies that are claimed to have come true in the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and Dianetics are what exactly? Please list several for each. Those found in the Book of Mormon must not appear in the Bible or they only logically represent plagiarized portions the Biblical prophecy which have already been revealed. Also, you must admit that the Book of Mormon has been attacked for a far less length of time than has the Bible.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Please consider: http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-ol ... -prophecy/

Sorry, Nipper; this site confuses "argument" with "proof".

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/argument.htm

Sorry, Nipper; this site confuses "argument" with "proof".

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

Sorry, Nipper; this site confuses "argument" with "proof".

In other words, if you're simply going to cut-and-paste then I'm going to do the same.

And in any event, none of these sites even attempts to reconcile the discrepancy between the supernatural word of the Bible versus the natural world that you and I inhabit. In other words, the Bible's supernatural claims are irrelevant unless one is predisposed to believe in them.

[_huckelberry]

Sorry, Nipper; this site confuses "argument" with "proof".

Erotic Apologist. I think I understand your intention with this phrase but I though it a bit ambiguous. After all ,all proofs are arguments that people find relatively convincing.

But the sites present material more suggestive of your earlier theme of asking why people lie to support faith?
///////////
from the site:
"Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:(1)

It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
It would be preserved through time without corruption
It would be completely accurate historically.
It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life."
//////////////
The Bible has become available world wide in the last century but has not been available to the majority of the worlds people for the preceeding few thousand years.With the the four subsequent points the Bible flat fails. It fails to a degree that the statements are used as arguments against the Bible.(I think you have used them that way yourself from time to time.

[_LittleNipper]

Sorry, Nipper; this site confuses "argument" with "proof".

Erotic Apologist. I think I understand your intention with this phrase but I though it a bit ambiguous. After all ,all proofs are arguments that people find relatively convincing.

But the sites present material more suggestive of your earlier theme of asking why people lie to support faith?
///////////
from the site:
"Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:(1)

It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
It would be preserved through time without corruption
It would be completely accurate historically.
It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life."
//////////////
The Bible has become available world wide in the last century but has not been available to the majority of the worlds people for the preceeding few thousand years.With the the four subsequent points the Bible flat fails. It fails to a degree that the statements are used as arguments against the Bible.(I think you have used them that way yourself from time to time.

I must beg to disagree entirely. When God created Adam and Eve, they walked with God. It is apparent to anyone who studies the Bible that Man forsook God. God did not desert man. Each generation simply became more and more dependent on their own desires, values, and will. The Bible is truthful. Example: Either the Flood happened or it did not. One cannot say that to believe that the Flood happened is unscientific unless one actually has absolute proof that the Flood is a lie. There is more and more evidence that points to the reality that the Flood actually happened then existed say a 100 years ago. Yet earlier generations actually accepted the Flood on faith and now as that faith has been eroded, more circumstantial evidence is being discovered that provides food for thought to those who will actually consider such issues. For instance, actual tissue of a T-Rex has been discovered. The scientist that is dead set against believing that GOD created man and did it in 6 days is very hard pressed to figure out some "logical" means that would allow such decomposing tissue to exist for 6000 years, let alone millions of years... And yet those who call themselves scientific are willingly looking for a "scientific" answer to their dilemma, instead of admitting that for the time being they must assume that the said tissue is most likely only a few thousand and not hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. This is entirely because evolutionists are believers in a purely nature explanation for our existence and not so concerned with science as they might wish the general public to imagine. They are afraid of seeming to appear merely human.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Erotic Apologist. I think I understand your intention with this phrase but I though it a bit ambiguous. After all ,all proofs are arguments that people find relatively convincing.

Yes--on second glance it does seem a bit ambiguous. I think the ambiguity comes from my having attempted to draw the same distinction between argument and proof that exists between evidence and proof. It makes more sense if you replace argument with evidence, which is what I should have done to begin with.

But the sites present material more suggestive of your earlier theme of asking why people lie to support faith?
///////////
from the site:
"Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:(1)

It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
It would be preserved through time without corruption
It would be completely accurate historically.
It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life."
//////////////
The Bible has become available world wide in the last century but has not been available to the majority of the worlds people for the preceeding few thousand years.With the the four subsequent points the Bible flat fails. It fails to a degree that the statements are used as arguments against the Bible.(I think you have used them that way yourself from time to time.

You're absolutely right--they tend to work better as arguments against the divinity of the Bible than for it. Sometimes I wonder if the many people who claimed to have read Evidence that Demands a Verdict have actually done so.

[_ludwigm]

Where are you, Abraham?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I must beg to disagree entirely. When God created Adam and Eve, they walked with God. It is apparent to anyone who studies the Bible that Man forsook God. God did not desert man.

But what if you're not a Christian? What if you're not predisposed to accept the Bible's supernatural claims as truthful? If you're not, then this is all basically meaningless. When you preach the Bible to an unbeliever it's basically the same as when a Mormon preaches the Book of Mormon to you. To you the Book of Mormon irrelevant; to me, the Bible is irrelevant.

[_ludwigm]

Where are you, Abraham?

[_huckelberry]

NIpper, flesh decomposes in months or perhaps a few years. Why would you believe it would last five thousand years from a hypothetical flood? Asked another way, if it lasted five thousand years why not longer? A lack of exposure to oxygen is a possible cause. But beyond that the evidence for an ancient earth with processes uninerupted for millions of years is what I haves seen with my own eyes hands and feet. I am not relying upon the opinions of experts. Even if i go blind the lies from your websites will not erase what I have seen and know to be true.