Hello, and thank you for your acceptance into the forum. I noticed a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics, being one myself.
This one seems like the recently started, so here is as good a place as any.
All matter appears to have been formed from energy shortly after the big bang, when temperatures were cool enough to allow the forming of matter. I assume however you are referring to where that energy for that came from, to which the answer is as far as I'm aware, nobody knows. From a practical outlook, I highly doubt it would be possible to observe any "before" state of our universe.
Kind regards
Bea
Hi Bea, and welcome to the forum! :)
Quote from: Beatrice on April 28, 2015, 11:07:57 PM
Hello, and thank you for your acceptance into the forum. I noticed a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics, being one myself.
Have you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?
Quote from: Beatrice on April 28, 2015, 11:07:57 PM
This one seems like the recently started, so here is as good a place as any.
All matter appears to have been formed from energy shortly after the big bang, when temperatures were cool enough to allow the forming of matter. I assume however you are referring to where that energy for that came from, to which the answer is as far as I'm aware, nobody knows.
Which is the point of the thread. If your presumption that energy came first were correct, energy can't come from nothing can it?
Quote from: Beatrice on April 28, 2015, 11:07:57 PMFrom a practical outlook, I highly doubt it would be possible to observe any "before" state of our universe.
Kind regards
Bea
Again, welcome to the forum!
Thanks for your response.
QuoteHave you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?
I have read it yes, as well as many other scriptures from other religions. Admittedly I haven't read a lot about history, archaeology and prophecy, but what I have read has left me unconvinced .
QuoteIf your presumption that energy came first were correct, energy can't come from nothing can it?
Find a "nothing" to experiment on and it would be a fantastic opportunity to check :P. Almost by definition though such a thing could not be observed however, so it is unlikely we will ever know.
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 07:49:04 AM
Thanks for your response.
QuoteHave you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?
I have read it yes, as well as many other scriptures from other religions. Admittedly I haven't read a lot about history, archaeology and prophecy, but what I have read has left me unconvinced .
That's a shame that you didn't spend more time with Bible prophecy and the mathematical odds against it being an accident.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm
Besides having Jesus dwelling in me, fulfilled Bible prophecy makes the most compelling case for me since I'm not the kind of guy that would settle for pure blind faith, but instead seek to draw conclusions based on consideration of the available evidence.
You don't have to read much of the following link page, on the restoration of Jews to their land, to get the gist of this stunning fulfillment of prophecy, as anticipated by Christians centuries before it was fulfilled:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm
Now consider the nature of the conflict as a result of THE false prophet that was also prophesied:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict
Particularly what constitutes the ONLY unforgivable sin in Islam:
http://www.petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm
Finally consider how Daniel prophesied the restoration of Jews to their land, and then to their city, and pinned it right to the year mathematically:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 07:49:04 AM
QuoteIf your presumption that energy came first were correct, energy can't come from nothing can it?
Find a "nothing" to experiment on and it would be a fantastic opportunity to check :P. Almost by definition though such a thing could not be observed however, so it is unlikely we will ever know.
But don't we already know that everything cannot have come from nothing? Isn't that a physical matter of fact?
QuoteYou can Bing search the first year of Cyrus in Babylon to be 537-536 BC
I'm not quite sure you have the right dates for this one.... when I searched I found multiple sources saying it was 559 BC
Quotehttp://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm
The main issue I have with the prophecies regarding Jesus is that there is very scant evidence that much of it took place outside of the Bible. Are there any records from his time about his life that were not written by people who worshiped him?
QuoteBut don't we already know that everything cannot have come from nothing? Isn't that a physical matter of fact?
You would have to examine "nothing" first, and I'm pretty sure such a thing cannot really be observed ;D. I would assume you are correct, but it really would be impossible to know wouldn't it, at least with our current level of observational technology.
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 09:48:43 AM
QuoteYou can Bing search the first year of Cyrus in Babylon to be 537-536 BC
I'm not quite sure you have the right dates for this one.... when I searched I found multiple sources saying it was 559 BC
Daniel was captive in Babylon from where he was prophesying. He was referring to the first year of Cyrus rule over him as captive
in Babylon. If you do a search like - first year cyrus babylon 537 536 (http://www.bing.com/search?q=first+year+cyrus+babylon+537+536&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=first+year+cyrus+babylon+537+536&sc=0-35&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=609b1c1e3f894f0e93062df8d6a89c19) - you will find it is considered supportable dating by more than a few, for the first year of Cyrus
in Babylon. Please also note that outside of the sites you find in that search that I maintain (as listed in my signature below with the exception of EllisSkolfield.net), none of those sites that are dating it at 536-537, but brother Skolfield's and mine, are grinding the same mathematical ax (that I learned from him).
However most scholars do recognize a year or two leeway in dating of this period.
Now consider the verse textually as well: ".....when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.". Isn't that exactly what happened when Jews (the only "holy people" in Daniel's day) were restored to their rule over Jerusalem in 1967? They were restored to rule over their land in 1948, and to their city in 1967 to complete the process of ending the shattered strength, or as the KJV puts it ".....shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people....."
Isn't that surprising? Something coming to pass that was prophesied exactly 2500 years in advance?
Let alone how powerfully our method and dating is confirmed by the parallel problem that begins with the first year of Belshazzar:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm#first_year_belshazzar
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 09:48:43 AM
Quotehttp://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm
The main issue I have with the prophecies regarding Jesus is that there is very scant evidence that much of it took place outside of the Bible. Are there any records from his time about his life that were not written by people who worshiped him?
There were even prophecies about His life, written by people that lived many hundreds of years before He was made manifest to the world. Consider the great detail in Psalms 22, regarding the crucifixion of Christ, penned not only before He was born, but long before crucifixion was ever even invented:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm
Isaiah 53 is another Messianic prophecy that has brought many Jews to Christ over the last 2,000 years:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/isaiah_53.htm
We have a forum section (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=68.0) dedicated to the historicity of Jesus Christ and Christian apologetics.
Lee Strobel gets into a lot of what you are asking about regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikxb09pyZwM
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 09:48:43 AM
QuoteBut don't we already know that everything cannot have come from nothing? Isn't that a physical matter of fact?
You would have to examine "nothing" first, and I'm pretty sure such a thing cannot really be observed ;D.
Isn't that what we observe in space? An empty void/vacuum?
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 09:48:43 AMI would assume you are correct, but it really would be impossible to know wouldn't it, at least with our current level of observational technology.
QuoteDaniel was captive in Babylon from where he was prophesying. He was referring to the first year of Cyrus rule over him as captive in Babylon.
Are you sure? In the text that I'm reading it, the author clearly calls him "King of Persia", and not of Babylon. If "King of Babylon" was his correct title for the author to write then why would they not say that?
Even if it was correct, your date seems out by a few years (as I saw you acknowledge) as every source apart from yours seems to indicate it was 539 BC
Regarding the Jesus prophecies, the reason they have failed to convince me is not because the Old and New Testament prophecies fail to match up (which they do), it is that there is not really much evidence from outside sources that they took place in the first place. Thanks though, interesting reading.
QuoteIsn't that what we observe in space? An empty void/vacuum?
Even this is still something. Even if very thinly spread out there is still matter and energy. Think about it this way, the singularity that went "bang" would have been so dense that it would absorb matter, energy, even time. It would have been everything in existence with nothing outside it.
Even if you head outside the solar system you would still receive heat from our sun, and the tiny lights of billions of tiny stars. Like I said, I'm not sure we could ever truly observe "nothing"
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 04:44:09 PM
QuoteDaniel was captive in Babylon from where he was prophesying. He was referring to the first year of Cyrus rule over him as captive in Babylon.
Are you sure? In the text that I'm reading it, the author clearly calls him "King of Persia", and not of Babylon. If "King of Babylon" was his correct title for the author to write then why would they not say that?
Even if it was correct, your date seems out by a few years (as I saw you acknowledge) as every source apart from yours seems to indicate it was 539 BC
Try the search link again. The following are just a few that I grabbed from the first 3 pages of search results:
(if you don't know how to search a web page, hold down Ctrl and press f, and then in the box that appears at the lower left of your browser enter Cyrus, to search/skim the following links).
"The archeology record indicates that Cyrus enters Babylon the year following his victory, entering the city BC 537, and that after the following year (which would be 536 BC), in 535 BC, Cyrus is crowned king of Babylon in a large display."
http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/Myfiles/Chronology/cyrus.html
".....first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun till late in the year 538 B.C. to extend over into the following year of 537 B.C."
http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/babylon/babylon18.html
"The Bible shows that the Jews returned to their homeland in the first year of King Cyrus, which would have been 537-B.C.E."
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
"He died 536 b.c., and Cyrus succeeded him; and as the order to rebuild the temple was in the first year of Cyrus, the time referred to in this chapter....."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/9-1.htm
"The Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus in 536 BC., after they succeeded the Babylonian Empire. The first king of the Persian Empire was Cyrus, who issued the famous decree for the Jews to return to their homeland to rebuild their Temple."
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/04-persian-empire.html
"Therefore, the ascension year of Cyrus over the province of Babylon was 537/6 B.C., and his first calendar year was 536/5 B.C."
https://www.wake-up.org/Daniel/DanChap5.htm
Why didn't you respond to the first year of Belshazzar, of the confirming parallel problem, as well? These "times" problems, as well as several more math problems assigned to us through prophecy, are explored on the page at this link.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm#first_year_of_belshazzar
Did your comment "...every source apart from yours seems to indicate it was 539 BC..." suggest you were putting effort into being honest enough with yourself to consider the evidence, or instead putting all of your effort into
DISbelief, even at the expense of truth?
Would you at this point agree that 537-536 is supportable dating - at least in the opinion of many - for the first year of Cyrus (as likely hundreds or perhaps even thousands of sites attest)?
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 04:44:09 PM
Regarding the Jesus prophecies, the reason they have failed to convince me is not because the Old and New Testament prophecies fail to match up (which they do), it is that there is not really much evidence from outside sources that they took place in the first place.
Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot? By admitting that the Old and New Testaments match up, you are tacitly admitting that Old Testament prophecy penned centuries before Jesus, is fulfilled, which not only demonstrates the veracity of the prophecy but the historical matter of fact of its fulfillment.
Again I think this video could help you begin to see, the historicity of the execution of Christ as being "indisputable":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikxb09pyZwM
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 04:44:09 PMThanks though, interesting reading.
QuoteIsn't that what we observe in space? An empty void/vacuum?
Even this is still something. Even if very thinly spread out there is still matter and energy.
That's the whole point. I had put something like "with the exception of light and energy from stars" but decided it was obvious and removed it. The very mass and energy that you describe
was created. It came from nothing, by the hand of the Creator.
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 04:44:09 PMThink about it this way, the singularity that went "bang" .........
Back to your failed premise. When there is nothing, there is nothing to go "bang", is there?
Except of course - if that is the way it happened - at the hand of a Creator.
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 04:44:09 PM....... would have been so dense that it would absorb matter, energy, even time. It would have been everything in existence with nothing outside it.
Even if you head outside the solar system you would still receive heat from our sun, and the tiny lights of billions of tiny stars.
The very things that God
created. Like DNA.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2333.0
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 04:44:09 PMLike I said, I'm not sure we could ever truly observe "nothing"
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 07:49:04 AM
Thanks for your response.
QuoteHave you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?
I have read it yes, as well as many other scriptures from other religions.
It isn't like reading a novel Bea, as it requires spiritual discernment. A person has to repent and be of and with God before one can fully understand.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 07:49:04 AMAdmittedly I haven't read a lot about history, archaeology and prophecy, but what I have read has left me unconvinced .
How many other things are you so firmly decided about, and committed to, while remaining in self-admitted self-imposed relative ignorance to the subject? Putting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html#us) believe there is no God.
How did Christians know centuries in advance that Jews would be restored to their land?
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm
Is it just some strange accident that the tiny little strip of land of Israel, that God gave the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, went from utter desolation of the beginning of the 19th century, to becoming a geopolitical focus of the world today?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/abomination_of_desolation.htm
Zechariah 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
Are we to believe it is just a coincidence that 1/3 of mankind believe Christ was crucified, died and was resurrected from the dead, who understand we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.
While a directly opposing 1/4 of mankind is required to DISbelieve the crucifixion of Christ and thus reject His shed blood, and deny and blaspheme the Son of God, as articles of their faith in THE false prophet Muhammad?
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict
Who are also commanded to conquer and ultimately subjugate all of mankind to eventually denying the whole subject of the Gospel and denying the Son of God.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm
That is, to turn the whole world antichrist:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
Who are taught that to confess that Jesus is the Son of God or even pray in Jesus' name would be to commit the single most "heinous" and ONLY UNFORGIVABLE sin in Muhammadanism.
http://www.petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm
That Muhammad was as much the opposite of Jesus Christ as the Quran is the Gospel. That specifically counter-Gospel antichrist anti-religion of Islam, is an inversion of Christianity.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
How do you explain all that? Coincidence?
Is the murder, mayhem and misery that is being perpetrated around the world particularly against Christians, by THE false prophet Muhammad's orthodox followers, just some freaky accident?
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muslim_persecution_of_christians.htm
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict
Why don't you try reading a little of this book and see if you find it fun to read:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_great_detective.htm
QuoteIt isn't like reading a novel Bea, as it requires spiritual discernment. A person has to repent and be of and with God before one can fully understand.
Surely reading something being claimed as fact is true based on merit and not on the person reading it? That's like when Muslims claim you have to read the Quran in Arabic.
QuoteHow many other things are you so firmly decided about, and committed to, while remaining in self-admitted self-imposed relative ignorance to the subject?
I have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity. I have not made any such claim.
QuotePutting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens believe there is no God.
OK, 2 things with this.
1. Is it your claim that ideas are correct based on popularity? Specifically popularity in the US?
2. Your claim of 4% appears to have been disputed.
The CIA data appears too be from 2007, a quick search will reveal that the numbers are a bit higher than that now by the way. Also of note are the people who responded Buddhist, many of whom are atheist, and those who responded Jewish, as there is a portion of them who identify both a Jewish and atheist.
QuoteAre we to believe it is just a coincidence that 1/3 of mankind believe Christ was crucified, died and was resurrected from the dead, who understand we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Again with the popularity angle?
QuoteDidn't you just shoot yourself in the foot? By admitting that the Old and New Testaments match up, you are tacitly admitting that Old Testament prophecy penned centuries before Jesus, is fulfilled, which not only demonstrates the veracity of the prophecy but the historical matter of fact of its fulfillment.
Not at all. They would have to have actually happened, and for there to be evidence to suggest that.
Ah, I've actually read the book this was based on (I think I was still in school?)
All of his extra-Biblical sources were born well after Jesus was claimed to have been killed?
Josephus wrote his book in the 90's, Tacitus was born in the 50's, Lucien's work is satire, not history, and written more like 100 years after the fact. Mara bar Serapion was written somewhere between the 70's and the third century. I have to say, for a journalist and lawyer, Lee seems to be quite easily convinced.
He assumed that 2 generations is not enough time to develop mythology? I'm very surprised he would say that. Most obvious example is the Mormons. Joseph Smith had mythology regarding the church and himself while he was still alive, I hardly think that is a good piece of evidence for the church.
QuoteCriterion of Embarrassment
This is just silly now. His claim is basically that the more ridiculous a claim is the more it is supposed to be true.
Sorry I have to head out for the day, I'll watch the rest of the clip later.
Kind regards, have a nice day.
Bea.
QuoteThe very mass and energy that you describe was created. It came from nothing, by the hand of the Creator.
And what is your evidence for this?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PM
QuoteIt isn't like reading a novel Bea, as it requires spiritual discernment. A person has to repent and be of and with God before one can fully understand.
Surely reading something being claimed as fact is true based on merit and not on the person reading it?
If you revisit the verse you didn't include in your quote, you will see I wasn't expressing a personal opinion. We need God's help for understanding and discernment:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=prayer+before+reading+scripture&qs=n&pq=prayer+before+reading+scripture&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=d2e81fd946c14ce98020f9b5e1c11211&first=1&FORM=PERE
It's the same reason Jesus spoke in parables:
Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables: 12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2306.0
Unless and until you ask Jesus to come into your heart and life, and repent and become born again, you will not be given the ears to hear or eyes to see and understand the mystery of the kingdom of God.
And yes for me it is true based on merit as well, through the very things I have provided links to, that you admitted to not being very educated about. Why did you simply drop the subject of Daniel's math rather than pursue it? I selected that subject as I thought mathematics of prophecy could be a something you might be able to see, in the absence of spiritual discernment. Some thing that might inspire that first spark of cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PMThat's like when Muslims claim you have to read the Quran in Arabic.
No it's not like that at all. The Quran was inspired by Satan as confirmed by the fact that it rejects the whole subject of the Gospel, as further evidenced by it commanding its adherents to fight and slay others until they are subjugated to Muhammad's followers (actually Satan).
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm
The reason for the anxiety about translation of the Quran is because as one expert (Gerd Puin quoted in the link) put it of one of the oldest qurans, about 20% of the verses simply don't make sense. If they don't even make sense in Arabic, they obviously cannot be translated.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2576.0
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PM
QuoteHow many other things are you so firmly decided about, and committed to, while remaining in self-admitted self-imposed relative ignorance to the subject?
I have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity. I have not made any such claim.
You introduced yourself as: "I noticed
a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics,
being one myself."
Just grabbing the first quote in a search for the term:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense,
the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense,
atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is
the absence of belief that any deities exist."
So by claiming you were an atheist, you were automatically taking the above quoted position. Why on earth didn't you label yourself an agnostic, or better, a seeker? When atheists come to internet forums they generally come to specifically preach the absence of a deity. To convince others that there is no such thing as God. Was it unreasonable for me to believe you were any different than any other proselytizing atheist when in the same sentence you said you were here to "offer you some answers"?
Agnostic:
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
You aren't even as unbelieving as an agnostic if you: ".....have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity." since even agnostics are decided that "nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God".
In your position I would describe myself as a "seeker", but only if I was actually putting effort into seeking out the truth - wherever it is to be found - based on a consideration of the evidence from both sides. As opposed to pure blind faith in disbelief.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PM
QuotePutting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens believe there is no God.
OK, 2 things with this.
1. Is it your claim that ideas are correct based on popularity? Specifically popularity in the US?
Since 19th century pop-eschatology has precluded a near unanimity of the "church" from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation, it should be obvious that we aren't seeking to win any popularity contests here.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/#limitations_futurism_preterism
The fulfillment of prophecy that I have been showing you through links, is not something you can find in a back slidden nicolaitan institutional "church". Yet it is reinforced mathematically and the math is supported textually.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm
Let alone the present day reality of the murder, mayhem and misery perpetrated by Satan's people:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PM
2. Your claim of 4% appears to have been disputed.
The CIA data appears too be from 2007, a quick search will reveal that the numbers are a bit higher than that now by the way.
You missed the point. I said that the 4% was not the reason, but was the result of widespread ignorance to the things of the Spirit of God. You yourself admitted to being less educated than you could otherwise be, on the very things that make the most compelling case for God.
No question the trend is toward Godlessness through pop-culture and abject ignorance. In Europe and Australia the numbers run more into 25-30% Godless. Which makes an even more compelling case for God, since this apostasy or "falling away" is yet another fulfillment of prophecy:
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm
And Europe is paying the price as Islam continues its European conquest:
"The proliferation of mosques housed in former churches reflects the rise of Islam as the fastest growing religion in
post-Christian Europe."
"As Islam replaces Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe....."
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm#apostasy_in_europe
It wouldn't be the first time that God used His enemies to punish His back-slidden people.
While at the same time 6 million Muslims come to Christ every year in Africa alone, with about 40% of those doing so through a dream, vision, or being spoken to directly by Jesus Christ. Many former Imams are Christian pastors.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PMAlso of note are the people who responded Buddhist, many of whom are atheist, and those who responded Jewish, as there is a portion of them who identify both a Jewish and atheist.
QuoteAre we to believe it is just a coincidence that 1/3 of mankind believe Christ was crucified, died and was resurrected from the dead, who understand we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Again with the popularity angle?
Again with your partial quoting in your continuing effort to
misunderstand. I was comparing 1/3 of mankind that believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with 1/4 of mankind that are required to
directly oppose the Gospel as an article of their faith in THE false prophet Muhammad.
That doesn't even include other antichrists (like atheists) that aren't compelled to contend against the Gospel as an article of their faith:
1 John 2:22 ..... He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PM
QuoteDidn't you just shoot yourself in the foot? By admitting that the Old and New Testaments match up, you are tacitly admitting that Old Testament prophecy penned centuries before Jesus, is fulfilled, which not only demonstrates the veracity of the prophecy but the historical matter of fact of its fulfillment.
Not at all. They would have to have actually happened, and for there to be evidence to suggest that.
This is what I meant by putting your effort into DISbelief. You ignored the case I made through mathematics, and ignore the stunning fulfillment of prophecy of Jews restored to their land. Just as you recognize the Messianic prophecies, yet then suggest they weren't fulfilled. This even as so many atheists and agnostics don't deny Jesus was crucified, because the evidence is too compelling to deny.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PM
Ah, I've actually read the book this was based on (I think I was still in school?)
All of his extra-Biblical sources were born well after Jesus was claimed to have been killed?
Josephus wrote his book in the 90's, Tacitus was born in the 50's, Lucien's work is satire, not history, and written more like 100 years after the fact. Mara bar Serapion was written somewhere between the 70's and the third century. I have to say, for a journalist and lawyer, Lee seems to be quite easily convinced.
Your comment suggests Lee is the only person that has actually bothered to consider the evidence and then make an informed decision. Muslims tend to attack the messenger in efforts to run and hide from the message too. But there's no shortage of such messengers.
"Randall Niles was the definitive skeptic, critic, and cynic. Forged in the fires of Georgetown, Oxford, and Berkeley, Randall's peers knew him as a "practicing atheist." Then, in what seemed to be overnight, people witnessed a dramatic shift in his life. Go on a journey with Randall as he poses questions, explores assumptions, and challenges his long-held preconceptions about life, purpose, and meaning.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PMHe assumed that 2 generations is not enough time to develop mythology? I'm very surprised he would say that. Most obvious example is the Mormons. Joseph Smith had mythology regarding the church and himself while he was still alive, I hardly think that is a good piece of evidence for the church.
Joseph Smith wasn't in the first or second generation after the cross, but didn't come along until the 19th century. Let alone that he was inspired by a shimmering apparition that called itself the angel "Maroni".
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
And once again it is a "good piece of evidence" in the case for God:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/traditional_framework.htm#cults
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 01, 2015, 05:14:53 PM
QuoteCriterion of Embarrassment
This is just silly now. His claim is basically that the more ridiculous a claim is the more it is supposed to be true.
Sorry I have to head out for the day, I'll watch the rest of the clip later.
Kind regards, have a nice day.
Bea.
QuoteThe very mass and energy that you describe was created. It came from nothing, by the hand of the Creator.
And what is your evidence for this?
That they exist. That everything didn't come from nothing.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rather than devoting your effort to further indoctrinating yourself into DISbelief, why don't you instead put a little effort into learning a little more about those things that you admitted to not knowing much about, rather than continuing to argue through ignorance? I left more than enough links to get you started.
Why don't we revisit the odds against the math of Daniel's prophetic dreams being an accident, along with the miracle of the fulfillment of prophesy of the restoration of Jews to their land, after being scattered among the Gentile nations for 3500 years.
Do you believe that tiny little strip of land becoming a geopolitical focus of the world is nothing more than an accident?
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm
QuoteYou introduced yourself as: "I noticed a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics, being one myself."
Just grabbing the first quote in a search for the term:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
So by claiming you were an atheist, you were automatically making the above quoted claim. Why on earth didn't you label yourself an agnostic, or seeker? When atheists come to internet forums they generally come to specifically preach the absence of a deity. To convince others that there is no such thing as God. Was it unreasonable for me to believe you were any different than any other proselytizing atheist when in the same sentence you said you were here to "offer you some answers"?
Agnostic:
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
You aren't even as unbelieving as an agnostic if you: "I have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity." since even agnostics are decided that "nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God".
Common misunderstanding on the terms actually.
Theism - believes in a deity.
Atheism- does not believe in a deity.
Gnostic- Claims to have knowledge
Agnostic - Does not claim to have knowledge.
I personally am an agnostic atheist, someone who does not make a claim that there are no deities, but who does not think any exist based upon the current evidence. To suggest something does NOT exist is quite the claim, and anyone who claims to be gnostic about such absolute matters has quite the Burden of proof to fulfil.
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms :)
QuoteRather than devoting your effort to further indoctrinating yourself into DISbelief, why don't you instead put a little effort into learning a little more about those things that you admitted to not knowing much about, rather than continuing to argue through ignorance? I left more than enough links to get you started.
I will continue to read the links and watch the clips as I get time to, and thank you for them. But I have legitimate criticisms of what you have provided me with so far, and I remain unconvinced that they point to the existence of a deity.
QuoteYour comment suggests Lee is the only person that has actually bothered to consider the evidence and then make an informed decision. Muslims tend to attack the messenger in efforts to run and hide from the message too. But there's no shortage of such messengers.
Regardless of where he got his information, he is being rather dishonest. Listening to him without actually checking his claim I can see why that would be easy to believe, but for all his evidence of a historical resurrection, he leaves out a tonne of relevant information, most notably that none of the authors were contemporaries of when Jesus was supposed to have been killed and resurrected.
Also, his claims that myths take a long time to appear is utterly ridiculous, and his "criterion of embarrassment" is one of the silliest arguments of reasoning that I have heard. I think there is a case for a historical Jesus existing, but then why does he have to make up ludicrous evidence to try and support it, and rely on sources written hundreds of years after the fact?
QuotePerhaps you didn't know this but Joseph Smith wasn't in the first or second generation after the cross, but didn't come along until the 19th century. Let alone that he was inspired by a shimmering apparition that called itself the angel "Maroni"
My point was addressing the fact that mythology indeed can spring up quickly. I think his claims are ludicrous, but the fact remains that people believed them within his lifetime and died for their beliefs, which was one of Strobel's pieces of evidence for the resurrection being true.
QuoteThat they exist. That everything didn't come from nothing.
Again I am curious as to why you would claim this. The very concept of "nothing" is not something that can be even studied, assuming we are referring to the same aspect of nothingness.
Also, as per the Big Bang Theory, the universe didn't come from nothing, it came from a singularity. As to where THAT came from, my honest answer is I don't know.
have a nice day
Bea
Sorry, I didn't notice you had logged in and posted, as I continued to edit (soften) and embellish the posts.
You have a great day yourself Bea!
Quote from: Beatrice on May 03, 2015, 06:54:14 AMCommon misunderstanding on the terms actually.
Theism - believes in a deity.
Atheism- does not believe in a deity.
Gnostic- Claims to have knowledge
Agnostic - Does not claim to have knowledge.
I personally am an agnostic atheist, someone who does not make a claim that there are no deities, but who does not think any exist based upon the current evidence. To suggest something does NOT exist is quite the claim, and anyone who claims to be gnostic about such absolute matters has quite the Burden of proof to fulfil.
:)
Quote from: Beatrice on May 03, 2015, 06:54:14 AMAgnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms :)
Which is why I suggested that neither term applies that well to your later self-description - particularly not atheist.
Quote from: Beatrice on April 30, 2015, 09:48:43 AMThe main issue I have with the prophecies regarding Jesus is that there is very scant evidence that much of it took place outside of the Bible. Are there any records from his time about his life that were not written by people who worshiped him?
If that really is your main issue in rejecting His existence and/or crucifixion, a group that not only does not worship Him but has one of the biggest axes to grind against Him, doesn't even accept the unhistorical pop-suggestion that He didn't exist or wasn't crucified:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=jews+believe+jesus+was+crucified&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=jews+believe+jesus+was+crucified&sc=2-32&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=9fec41da84ee4ab8b43e3373c101499f
Why do you suppose it is that Jews haven't spent the last nearly 2,000 years trying to rewrite history and campaign against the existence and crucifixion of Jesus?
But let's stop all this skipping around and ignoring posts (if I failed to respond to a point you made please direct me, as I have utmost respect for the time you choose to invest in posting) and focus on Daniel's prophetic math. Unless I missed it, so far your response to the prophetic math was a wish to disbelieve that 537-536 is supportable dating for the first year of Cyrus in Babylon, and a desire to disbelieve that Cyrus was considered the king of Babylon (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Ezr&c=5&v=13&t=KJV#s=408013).
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17835#msg17835
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17839#msg17839
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm
QuoteWhich is why I suggested that neither term applies that well to your later self-description - particularly not atheist.
I am unsure if deities can exist, and I personally do not believe any of them exist based on the evidence. I am an agnostic atheist. If you prefer to label me something else that is fine, as long as it is accurate.
QuoteIf that really is your main issue in rejecting His existence and/or crucifixion, a group that not only does not worship Him but has one of the biggest axes to grind against Him, doesn't even accept the unhistorical pop-suggestion that He didn't exist or wasn't crucified
Yes, that a man named Yeshu was executed (assuming you are referring to the Talmud). I have much less trouble believing this, as it isn't an extraordinary claim, and is repeated by Mara bar Serapion. However neither of them have anything to say about the either the divinity of Jesus, or any claim to the supernatural, which are really the things that matter, and if true, are claims that historians of the time would take note of (mass feeding, healing, resurrection, sudden darkness etc.). Also the Talmud was written hundreds of years later.
If these miraculous things did occur, then why did nobody write about them outside of those people who worshipped him?
QuoteWhy do you suppose it is that Jews haven't spent the last nearly 2,000 years trying to rewrite history and campaign against the existence and crucifixion of Jesus?
I don't think it is the existence and crucifixion of Jesus that is hotly disputed. If anything, that is all I've seen that there is a case for.
QuoteBut let's stop all this skipping around and ignoring posts (if I failed to respond to a point you made please direct me, as I have utmost respect for the time you choose to invest in posting) and focus on Daniel's prophetic math. Unless I missed it, so far your response to the prophetic math was a wish to disbelieve that 537-536 is supportable dating for the first year of Cyrus in Babylon, and a desire to disbelieve that Cyrus was considered the king of Babylon.
I thought I mentioned this before, but that is ok. I have several problems with that prophecy.
I did not dispute that Cyrus was the king of Babylon, indeed he was. As a conquerer he had a great deal of titles it seems, up to and including "King of the Four Corners of the World". The main issue is that he is not referred to as such in the passage, but rather Cyrus of Persia. Now I understand that for your dates to work out you have to assume he was referring to his reign as king of Babylon, but if that is the case then why does the text say King of Persia?
If the book is being claimed as historical fact then why does it refer to him by an incorrect title?
Apologies if I have ignored posts, there is a lot to read and I don't get a great deal of spare time to respond.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 03, 2015, 06:42:18 PM
QuoteWhich is why I suggested that neither term applies that well to your later self-description - particularly not atheist.
I am unsure if deities can exist, and I personally do not believe any of them exist based on the evidence. I am an agnostic atheist. If you prefer to label me something else that is fine, as long as it is accurate.
QuoteIf that really is your main issue in rejecting His existence and/or crucifixion, a group that not only does not worship Him but has one of the biggest axes to grind against Him, doesn't even accept the unhistorical pop-suggestion that He didn't exist or wasn't crucified
Yes, that a man named Yeshu was executed (assuming you are referring to the Talmud). I have much less trouble believing this, as it isn't an extraordinary claim, and is repeated by Mara bar Serapion. However neither of them have anything to say about the either the divinity of Jesus, or any claim to the supernatural, which are really the things that matter, and if true, are claims that historians of the time would take note of (mass feeding, healing, resurrection, sudden darkness etc.). Also the Talmud was written hundreds of years later.
If these miraculous things did occur, then why did nobody write about them outside of those people who worshipped him?
QuoteWhy do you suppose it is that Jews haven't spent the last nearly 2,000 years trying to rewrite history and campaign against the existence and crucifixion of Jesus?
I don't think it is the existence and crucifixion of Jesus that is hotly disputed. If anything, that is all I've seen that there is a case for.
QuoteBut let's stop all this skipping around and ignoring posts (if I failed to respond to a point you made please direct me, as I have utmost respect for the time you choose to invest in posting) and focus on Daniel's prophetic math. Unless I missed it, so far your response to the prophetic math was a wish to disbelieve that 537-536 is supportable dating for the first year of Cyrus in Babylon, and a desire to disbelieve that Cyrus was considered the king of Babylon.
I thought I mentioned this before, but that is ok. I have several problems with that prophecy.
I did not dispute that Cyrus was the king of Babylon, indeed he was. As a conquerer he had a great deal of titles it seems, up to and including "King of the Four Corners of the World". The main issue is that he is not referred to as such in the passage, but rather Cyrus of Persia. Now I understand that for your dates to work out you have to assume he was referring to his reign as king of Babylon, but if that is the case then why does the text say King of Persia?
Because Babylon was located within the Persian empire.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/johns_eight_beasts.htm
(http://www.beholdthebeast.com/2cca3a60.jpg)
You see what I mean about where you put your effort? Even though you recognize he was known as the king of Babylon, because he was the king of the Persian empire, somehow that just isn't good enough because it doesn't advance your desire to disbelieve. While I just grabbed them at random while only seeking out the dating, I am confident you will find no shortage of corroboration of it being about the first year of Cyrus in Babylon in those sites that are far more detailed on the subject - that are not making the mathematical case - of which I grabbed only a handful for you when you earlier wished to disbelieve my dating was unique to me.
Since reason has become a casualty, perhaps the subject in broader and more current terms might help. Do you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 03, 2015, 06:42:18 PM
If the book is being claimed as historical fact then why does it refer to him by an incorrect title?
Apologies if I have ignored posts, there is a lot to read and I don't get a great deal of spare time to respond.
QuoteYou see what I mean about where you put your effort? Even though you recognize he was known as the king of Babylon, because he was the king of the Persian empire, somehow that just isn't good enough because it doesn't advance your desire to disbelieve.
I think you misunderstand me Pete.
The passage states
QuoteIn the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel
Now I understand that both the King of Persia was also the King Of Babylon (and a bunch of other King of such-and-such), but those titles are obviously not interchangeable.
The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Persia was 599 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Media was 550 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Lydia was 574 BC
and of course the first year of Cyrus the King of Babylon was 539 BC
Does this make sense to you?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 04, 2015, 06:14:01 AM
QuoteYou see what I mean about where you put your effort? Even though you recognize he was known as the king of Babylon, because he was the king of the Persian empire, somehow that just isn't good enough because it doesn't advance your desire to disbelieve.
I think you misunderstand me Pete.
The passage states
QuoteIn the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel
Now I understand that both the King of Persia was also the King Of Babylon (and a bunch of other King of such-and-such), but those titles are obviously not interchangeable.
The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Persia was 599 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Media was 550 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Lydia was 574 BC
and of course the first year of Cyrus the King of Babylon was 539 BC
Does this make sense to you?
Yes it does, as I already explained. You keep wishing this were about me, but your argument is with everyone who recognizes the same dating.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17839#msg17839
Now as you point out there are others who consider other dating but since 537-536 BC for Cyrus works out so perfectly to 1967, the year that ended the shattering of the strength of the holy people, or brought an end to the scattered power of Jews over Jerusalem when they regained control of their city, I have no doubt the dating that so many of us recognize is correct.
Particularly since it is confirmed by the first year of Belshazzar which is commonly dated at 553-552 BC, which works out to 1948, when Jews were initially delivered out of Satan's hand and 2500 years of being scattered among and persecuted by Satan via gentile ruled kingdoms.
Two parallel problems that work out over a span of 2500 years to perfectly pin two dates.
If you claimed to be heavily studied in this particular area of scripture and history it might be one thing. But your unwillingness to simply accept the dating from sources besides myself that do present themselves as being studied in this area, and simply move on from there, demonstrated that further discussion on this subject will not be fruitful except perhaps for the benefit of those that read this thread after us who we can leave consideration of the reasonableness or lack thereof of our respective positions to discern. That's why I had already moved on to the broader topic about which I hope you can indulge me.
Do you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?
QuoteYes it does, as I already explained. You keep wishing this were about me, but your argument is with everyone who recognizes the same dating.
Nobody has disputed the first year of the reign of Cyrus King of Persia as far as I am aware. Neither do I ;D
QuoteI have no doubt the dating that so many of us recognize is correct.
No doubt, despite the fact there are completely legitimate claims regarding the date? How is that even possible? There are multiple dates proposed, and you have provided zero evidence that your date is the correct one?
QuoteTwo parallel problems that work out over a span of 2500 years to perfectly pin two dates.
They really aren't. Either the title given to Cyrus the Great is incorrect in the book of Daniel is incorrect, or your starting date cannot be correct.
QuoteNow as you point out there are others who consider other dating but since 537-536 BC for Cyrus works out so perfectly to 1967
You don't work out historical dates this way. There is no historical justification you have provided for the year you have given. Do you have any sources that show where that date came from?
QuoteDo you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?
Regarding what exactly?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 04, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
QuoteDo you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?
Regarding what exactly?
Are you familiar with the history of the modern day restoration of Jews to the land of Israel and when it began (perhaps more properly, modern day
increase of Jews in Israel, since they have been there for thousands of years)?
QuoteAre you familiar with the history of the modern day restoration of Jews to the land of Israel and when it began (perhaps more properly, modern day increase of Jews in Israel, since they have been there for thousands of years)?
Only the basics. Is there something specifically that you would like to discuss regarding it?
Also, I was wondering if you found any historical basis for your starting date of Cyrus the Great's rule in Babylon being what you claim instead of the other other date which seems to have a much larger consensus?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 04, 2015, 06:38:45 PM
QuoteAre you familiar with the history of the modern day restoration of Jews to the land of Israel and when it began (perhaps more properly, modern day increase of Jews in Israel, since they have been there for thousands of years)?
Only the basics. Is there something specifically that you would like to discuss regarding it?
For openers, about what time in history did it begin?
What was Israel like at the time?
Since you desire to disbelieve it was prophesied in scripture, even though centuries in advance so many were convinced in no uncertain terms through Bible prophecy that it was going to come to pass, do you then suppose it was just some sort of a weird accident?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 04, 2015, 06:38:45 PMAlso, I was wondering if you found any historical basis for your starting date of Cyrus the Great's rule in Babylon being what you claim instead of the other other date which seems to have a much larger consensus?
First you wished to believe that I was alone with the dating, and now that your false presumption failed you, next you desire to do history by Internet consensus. Any excuse at all that helps to advance your pure blind faith in disbelief. Yet there it is. Jews restored to rule over their land after 2500 years of being scattered among the gentile nations.
I'll let the physical matter of historical fact of the Jews being restored to rule over their land, on the dating that the mathematical miracle prophesied, confirm the dating that myself and others hold.
About 8-10 years ago 688 AD was the Internet "consensus" dating for the founding year of the Dome of the Rock (http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm#revelation_1260_days). However Microsoft Encarta published another date and that became the new Internet consensus.
Consider the lies parroted as truth even by sources that are traditionally trotted out as informational, like Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3355.0
Let alone the Muslim lies and vandalism that permeate Wikipedia.
http://www.petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htm
As I indicated it is pointless to waste any more discussing that with you, as you further confirmed with your last post. Why not some time studying the subject when you get a chance?
Would begin your study with those that date it at 536-537, or those that date it otherwise? We both know the answer, don't we?
That's why I went to the broader topic of just what it is that Daniel prophesied. The end of the scattered strength of the holy people, and Jews restored power over their land, and then city.
Are we to believe, that you would allow yourself to believe, that Daniel prophesied the year of 1967 even if it were the consensus dating? Ya right. But you are providing a good example of faith in disbelief. While still not a peep on Daniel's other "times" problem.
QuoteFirst you wished to believe that I was alone with the dating, and now that your false presumption failed you, you desire to do history by Internet consensus. Anything excuse at all that helps to advance your pure blind faith in disbelief. Yet there it is. Jews restored to rule over their land after 2500 years of being scattered among the gentile nations. I'll let the physical matter of fact of the Jews being restored to their land, and the mathematical miracle attests, confirm the dating that myself and the others hold
I'm not asking whether anyone agrees with you, I'm just saying that most scholarly reports seem to suggest a starting date of the reign of Cyrus was 539 BC, and I have not found one yet that claims that the previous ruler, Nabonidus ended his reign at a different time. Perhaps you can find some? I have had no luck
QuoteAbout 8-10 years ago 688 AD was the Internet "consensus" dating for the founding year of the Dome of the Rock. However Microsoft Encarta published another date and that became the new Internet consensus.
Sorry to repeat myself, but did you find any evidence to suggest your date is correct in the end? And while I admit I have only looked on the internet, I have consulted a fair few articles from peer reviewed journals to try and ascertain an accurate date on the beginning of Cyrus' reign in Babylon, and when Nabonidus lost his empire.
QuoteWhy don't you spend some time studying the subject when you get a chance?
Gladly, I have thoroughly enjoyed researching Persian and Babylonian history whilst looking into this matter.
QuoteYou wouldn't really expect us to believe, that you would allow yourself to believe that Daniel prophesied the date of 1967 even if it were the consensus dating, do you?
I would be very open to that, except that there are considerable problem that I have no answer for as yet, most notably:
1. Why is Cyrus given an incorrect title (specifically one that effects the date), from someone who definitely SHOULD have known his correct title.
2. What historical justification is there for the starting date you have provided rather than 539 BC?
QuoteSince you desire to disbelieve it was prophesied in scripture, even thought centuries in advance so many were convinced in no uncertain terms through Bible prophecy that it was going to come to pass, do you then suppose it was just some sort of a weird accident?
I don't "disbelieve" it same as I don't "disbelieve" in a deity, I just am yet to be convinced by the evidence you have provided. Which biblical passages are you referring to regarding the restoration of Israel?
I'll continue to look into this Nabonidus business. Have a good one!
Quote from: Beatrice on May 05, 2015, 06:51:21 AM
QuoteFirst you wished to believe that I was alone with the dating, and now that your false presumption failed you, you desire to do history by Internet consensus. Anything excuse at all that helps to advance your pure blind faith in disbelief. Yet there it is. Jews restored to rule over their land after 2500 years of being scattered among the gentile nations. I'll let the physical matter of fact of the Jews being restored to their land, and the mathematical miracle attests, confirm the dating that myself and the others hold
I'm not asking whether anyone agrees with you, I'm just saying that most scholarly reports seem to suggest a starting date of the reign of Cyrus was 539 BC, and I have not found one yet that claims that the previous ruler, Nabonidus ended his reign at a different time. Perhaps you can find some? I have had no luck
QuoteAbout 8-10 years ago 688 AD was the Internet "consensus" dating for the founding year of the Dome of the Rock. However Microsoft Encarta published another date and that became the new Internet consensus.
Sorry to repeat myself, .......
No need to become disingenuous. You are obviously not sorry about repeating yourself, even after I pointed out the futility of our continuing with this subject, since you put all your effort into disbelief.
I presented lots of links as well as searches many posts ago (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17839#msg17839).
Here's another:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=first+year+cyrus+%22536%22+%22537%22+darius&qs=n&pq=first+year+cyrus+%22536%22+%22537%22+darius&sc=0-28&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=bb605c565b4845488e69864eab5673ef&first=1&FORM=PERE
Quote from: Beatrice on May 05, 2015, 06:51:21 AM........ but did you find any evidence to suggest your date is correct in the end? And while I admit I have only looked on the internet, I have consulted a fair few articles from peer reviewed journals to try and ascertain an accurate date on the beginning of Cyrus' reign in Babylon, and when Nabonidus lost his empire.
That ignores Darius the Mede's brief reign.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=5&t=KJV#s=855031
Here's the first example I spotted:
http://www.presentruth.com/2008/06/darius-the-mede-his-identity-revealed/
Quote from: Beatrice on May 05, 2015, 06:51:21 AM
QuoteWhy don't you spend some time studying the subject when you get a chance?
Gladly, I have thoroughly enjoyed researching Persian and Babylonian history whilst looking into this matter.
Then try this:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=darius+the+mede+ruled+babylon+two+years&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=darius+the+mede+ruled+babylon+two+years&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=139bc42466944ef385fec42ca95a2b1d
Quote from: Beatrice on May 05, 2015, 06:51:21 AMQuoteYou wouldn't really expect us to believe, that you would allow yourself to believe that Daniel prophesied the date of 1967 even if it were the consensus dating, do you?
I would be very open to that, except that there are considerable problem that I have no answer for as yet, most notably:
1. Why is Cyrus given an incorrect title (specifically one that effects the date), from someone who definitely SHOULD have known his correct title.
2. What historical justification is there for the starting date you have provided rather than 539 BC?
QuoteSince you desire to disbelieve it was prophesied in scripture, even thought centuries in advance so many were convinced in no uncertain terms through Bible prophecy that it was going to come to pass, do you then suppose it was just some sort of a weird accident?
I don't "disbelieve" it same as I don't "disbelieve" in a deity, I just am yet to be convinced by the evidence you have provided. Which biblical passages are you referring to regarding the restoration of Israel?
I'll continue to look into this Nabonidus business. Have a good one!
Considering your ducking and dodging the subject of the restoration of Jews to Israel, and now your having ignored it altogether, is it safe for me to presume that you join those that suggest that Israeli Jews are what those that don't care for their rule consider "occupiers" of "Palestine"?
QuoteConsidering your ducking and dodging the subject of the restoration of Jews to Israel, and now your having ignored it altogether, is it safe for me to presume that you join those that suggest that Israeli Jews are what those that don't care for their rule consider "occupiers" of "Palestine"?
Not at all. I respect their right to the land that the Jewish people received at the end of WWII.
What are you thoughts on land rights in general? How far back should historical ownership be recognised?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 05, 2015, 09:09:50 PM
QuoteConsidering your ducking and dodging the subject of the restoration of Jews to Israel, and now your having ignored it altogether, is it safe for me to presume that you join those that suggest that Israeli Jews are what those that don't care for their rule consider "occupiers" of "Palestine"?
Not at all.
Good, then this might be easier for you to see than an anti-Zionist.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/anti_zionism.htm#anti_zionists
Quote from: Beatrice on May 05, 2015, 09:09:50 PMI respect their right to the land that the Jewish people received at the end of WWII.
That isn't when they received it but when the international community recognized their rights to the land that they restored from utter desolation over the prior century and a half, as well as their need for a homeland in which they could govern and protect themselves, after 3500 years of persecution while scattered out within the gentile nations of the world.
The Jewish people actually "received" that land over 3,000 years ago, as an everlasting possession, through an everlasting covenant.
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/#everlasting_covenant
However 1200 years of Islamization rendered the Holy Land - at-one-time the land of milk and honey - a depopulated, denuded, desertified wasteland.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/history_of_modern_zionism.htm#desolation_of_israel
Desolated just as prophesied:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/abomination_of_desolation.htm
Then through the unparalleled hard working and industrious nature (http://www.zionismchristian.com/index.htm#families_of_earth_blessed) of the Jewish people, they restored the land, also as prophesied.....
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_prophecy.htm
.....and fruited it:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_prophecy.htm#desert_fruited
Just as Christians anticipated through Bible prophecy, centuries before that restoration began:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on May 05, 2015, 09:09:50 PMWhat are you thoughts on land rights in general? How far back should historical ownership be recognised?
I understand that God sees humanity as essentially divided into two groups, Jew and Gentile, and within those groups sub-groups of regenerate and unregenerate persons. God assigned the Jews that land as an everlasting possession through an everlasting covenant, so as a Christian, in this particular case, the answer to your question should be obvious.
Let alone that when Jews began to be restored to their land at the beginning of the 19th century, they began rebuilding the despoiled land that had been desolated by Islam, buying title to properties that were titled as they went along. So their modern day rights were through claim and title as well. Consider what Tel-Aviv was still like even as late as the beginning of the 20th century, nearly a century into the restoration of Jews to their covenant land:
Image of Tel-Aviv during the 1909 lottery for building sites.
(http://www.zionismchristian.com/065587b0.jpg)
IAF Flight over Tel-Aviv's beaches for Israel's 63rd Independence Day
(http://www.zionismchristian.com/06858900.jpg)
The struggle the Godless have put the Jews through to keep their land, and prevent them from simply being left alone to live in peace even on the little scrap of their covenant land they do control, was also prophesied:
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/index.htm#burdensome_stone
While a Godless media continues to obscure the identities of the parties that are actually in conflict:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/palestine_palestinians.htm#the_conflict
According to the Bible though, didn't the Jews themselves conquer and mistreat the previous owners quite badly? What happened to their ownership of the land?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 06, 2015, 06:21:20 AM
According to the Bible though, didn't the Jews themselves conquer and mistreat the previous owners quite badly?
Not until after God gave the Canaanites 400 years in which to repent from such as sorcery, spiritism, divination, idolatry, incest, pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, ritualistic prostitution, and even sacrifice of children to idols.
http://www.petewaldo.com/old_testament_violence.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on May 06, 2015, 06:21:20 AMWhat happened to their ownership of the land?
God commanded His people to kill them and make the land their own. However they failed to do as God commanded and kill all of the Canaanites, but enslaved some instead, and their seed are likely among those who continue to be the bane of the Jews in Israel today.
I was reading your website and found this
QuoteIt's possible that even the Canaanite babies could have been rife with disease and thus otherwise faced a lifetime of suffering. At a minimum those babies were spared from growing up, and being indoctrinated into such as bestiality and sacrificing of their children to idols, thus separating themselves from God forever. So any babies or children that were killed, were actually saved, through a merciful God. Our temporal life in this world is but a vanishing vapor, compared to the eternity of our next life.
Are you actually defending the murder of babies?
Also regarding this section
QuoteHowever the verses once again may well indicate elimination of those that were rife with sexually transmitted diseases
Are you actually suggesting that having an STI is something someone should be punished for?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 06, 2015, 06:49:36 AM
I was reading your website and found this
QuoteIt's possible that even the Canaanite babies could have been rife with disease and thus otherwise faced a lifetime of suffering. At a minimum those babies were spared from growing up, and being indoctrinated into such as bestiality and sacrificing of their children to idols, thus separating themselves from God forever. So any babies or children that were killed, were actually saved, through a merciful God. Our temporal life in this world is but a vanishing vapor, compared to the eternity of our next life.
Are you actually defending the murder of babies?
Even after quoting it, it's simply amazing that you can't understand it.
All innocents who have died or been killed are with the Lord today. Is it that difficult to understand? Killing them simply accelerated the process while precluding them from growing up in understanding, and thus being held accountable for their actions, as they were seduced by their community into the same kinds of behavior and thus be lost to the Lord forever. It would also preclude them from poisoning YHWH's people with the same. Since the Canaanites engaged in bestiality, pedophilia, incest, ritualistic prostitution and such, they were likely rife with disease. Consider the widespread practice of "thighing" infants and children in the Muslim world, even today, as to how an infant could receive STDs.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2589.0
Through ritualistic prostitution and poisoning children the entire community may well have been rife with disease.
Numbers 31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and
whosoever hath touched any slain, purify [both]
yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
Might that suggest, "if ya got any on ya, wash it off!"?
The Jews failure to obey YHWH and complete the task may not only be the reason that seed of the Canaanites could be the bane of Jews - and the rest of humanity - unto this day, but may also be responsible for so many suffering from venereal disease and such over thousands of years.
Since I trust in God, and recognize that all innocent people that have passed from this earth are with Him, I don't have to be concerned about the whys.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 06, 2015, 06:49:36 AMAlso regarding this section
QuoteHowever the verses once again may well indicate elimination of those that were rife with sexually transmitted diseases
Are you actually suggesting that having an STI is something someone should be punished for?
You have just sanctioned and approved such behavior, as not deserving of punishment, of the guy in Key West that gave dozens of women aids by having sex with them without telling them he had aids before he poisoned them with it. In a Godless world, absent justice, apparently such behavior should not be punished. I have even witnessed atheists suggest the world would be a better place without Christians, and left to the Godless to run.
https://www.mercyships.org/about-mercy-ships/the-result/
Which would of course would be consigning the fate of the world to guys like PolPot and Hitler. The Islamic world demonstrates who would run the show, since the ultimate arbiters of Islam would obviously be the most violent and murderous among them, armed with a beheading knife in one hand, while being supported by the Quran and Hadith in the other.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm
By criticizing YHWH for divine justice you sanction sacrifice of children to idols. You also sanction such behavior as the widespread Muslim practice of "thighing" infants and children as not deserving of punishment. That's the problem with moral relativism. You may not believe in Satan, but that certainly doesn't preclude Satan from believing in you.
Just as YHWH wanted to save His people's minds from being poisoned by the Canaanites behavior, He also may well have wanted to save them from being physically poisoned, and preclude their behavior and diseases from spreading throughout mankind.
I quite literally cannot believe what you are saying.
I had thought you must have been mistaken, but it really does appear that in this circumstance you are 100% condoning the cold blooded slaughter of infants.
QuoteBy criticizing YHWH for divine justice you also sanctioned sacrifice of children to idols. You also sanction such behavior as the widespread Muslim practice of "thighing" infants and children not deserving of punishment. That's the problem with moral relativism. You may not believe in Satan, but that doesn't preclude him from believing in you.
Please do not claim to speak for me on this regard. I do not condone any of those things, nor do I condone the murder of innocent children.
QuoteYou have just sanctioned and approved such behavior, as not deserving of punishment, of the guy in Key West that gave dozens of women aids by having sex with them without telling them he had aids before he poisoned them with it.
I was actually talking about the victims in this case, who would have had the diseases through no fault of their own, if what you are claiming is true, that child sexual abuse was around. I do not sanction his behavior of course, but recognise that the victims of sexual assault who contract STD's have done nothing wrong, and deserve no punishment.
QuoteThat's the problem with moral relativism
I'm not quite sure why you would accuse me of this. My position is (and always will be) that murdering an infant is morally wrong. You appear to be the one saying it is justified in certain circumstances though?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 05:51:34 AM
I quite literally cannot believe what you are saying.
I had thought you must have been mistaken, but it really does appear that in this circumstance you are 100% condoning the cold blooded slaughter of infants.
QuoteBy criticizing YHWH for divine justice you also sanctioned sacrifice of children to idols. You also sanction such behavior as the widespread Muslim practice of "thighing" infants and children not deserving of punishment. That's the problem with moral relativism. You may not believe in Satan, but that doesn't preclude him from believing in you.
Please do not claim to speak for me on this regard. I do not condone any of those things, nor do I condone the murder of innocent children.
Even as you continue to insist on sanctioning such behavior through your continuing criticism of YHWH.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 05:51:34 AM
QuoteYou have just sanctioned and approved such behavior, as not deserving of punishment, of the guy in Key West that gave dozens of women aids by having sex with them without telling them he had aids before he poisoned them with it.
I was actually talking about the victims in this case, who would have had the diseases through no fault of their own, if what you are claiming is true, that child sexual abuse was around. I do not sanction his behavior of course, but recognise that the victims of sexual assault who contract STD's have done nothing wrong, and deserve no punishment.
QuoteThat's the problem with moral relativism
I'm not quite sure why you would accuse me of this. My position is (and always will be) that murdering an infant is morally wrong. You appear to be the one saying it is justified in certain circumstances though?
The bridge you seem unable to cross, is that all of the innocents are living in bliss today - specifically as a result of their being killed - because your view is only of the flesh and this very temporary temporal world.
Plus your carping on this tangent helps you drop and ignore the rest of the subjects we are discussing, eigh?
So how do you explain the restoration of Jews to control over their land, while remaining a cohesive group over thousands years, while being scattered throughout the gentile nations?
QuoteEven as you continue to insist on sanctioning such behavior through your continuing criticism of YHWH.
Criticising one group does not mean sanctioning their opponent.
QuoteThe bridge you can't seem unable to cross, is that all of the innocents are living in bliss today - specifically as a result of their being killed - because your view is only of the flesh and this very temporary temporal world.
So, speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 06:11:14 AM
QuoteEven as you continue to insist on sanctioning such behavior through your continuing criticism of YHWH.
Criticising one group does not mean sanctioning their opponent.
Now you're not even making sense.
Criticizing YHWH's removal of that abhorrent behavior
is tacit approval of it. Sanctioning sacrifice of children to idols, of which the community was ritualistically engaged.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 06:11:14 AM
QuoteThe bridge you can't seem unable to cross, is that all of the innocents are living in bliss today - specifically as a result of their being killed - because your view is only of the flesh and this very temporary temporal world.
So, speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?
First of all the term murder suggests malice.
Secondly, since God specifically commanded it in this particular historical instance, YHWH's people were not wrong for carrying out God's commands. The Cannanites were murderers themselves, through sacrifice of children to idols (which you have tacitly sanctioned), and even through nothing more than their spreading disease. Since YHWH hasn't given such commands for thousands of years, and when He did so it was limited to specific historical events, it otherwise remains wrong and against His God's commandments to kill. But I've every confidence you'll continue to carp on in efforts to avoid the other subjects.
What you are wishing is that you are in a position of being able to judge a specific historical event that occurred thousands of years ago, while insisting on remaining spiritually blind as you do.
QuoteCriticizing YHWH's removal of that abhorrent behavior is tacit approval of it.
The abhorrent behavior of being sexually abused? Remember we are talking about infants here, who almost by definition are not responsible for their behavior at all.
QuoteFirst of all the term murder suggests malice.
Use kill if you like, or whatever equivalent word you would like to use to take a human life.
Let me ask again then. Speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 06:29:36 AM
QuoteCriticizing YHWH's removal of that abhorrent behavior is tacit approval of it.
The abhorrent behavior of being sexually abused? Remember we are talking about infants here, who almost by definition are not responsible for their behavior at all.
Which is how we can rest assured that they are with the Lord.
While by criticizing YHWH's justice and interest in eliminating the problem entirely, you tacitly champion similar behaviors in the world today, like the Islamic practice of thighing infants.
And you are blind to the fact that it is precisely because of these early lessons at the beginnings of YHWH's revelation to mankind, that became a part of all of us, are the very reason that the Spirit of God is still moving on you enough to allow you to recognize what is right and wrong. That's where, what you might call a "conscience", comes from.
And again, the reason you find yourself befuddled by all of this, has already been explained to you in detail.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17843#msg17843
That reason being that you are standing outside the kingdom and Spirit of God:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 06:29:36 AM
QuoteFirst of all the term murder suggests malice.
Use kill if you like, or whatever equivalent word you would like to use to take a human life.
Let me ask again then. Speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?
Already asked and answered in the prior post. Please reread it. See what I mean about carping away on this topic so you can run and hide from the others?
Or maybe I shouldn't have presumed you knew what YHWH commanded:
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Next perhaps you will be breaking out another treasured doctrine of the religion of atheism, like "Hitler was a Christian", perhaps?
So murdering a kid is wrong unless God says it is ok? That IS moral relativism.
QuoteWhile by criticizing YHWH's justice and interest in eliminating the problem entirely, you tacitly champion similar behaviors in the world today, like the Islamic practice of thighing infants.
Completely false. I have already stated my views on this, do not continue to misrepresent my views.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 07:31:30 AM
So murdering a kid is wrong unless God says it is ok?
Since God gave His people a direct command to do so, yes, it was OK. After all it is God - the same one who ordered it - who was then to sort them all out after the fact, and bring the innocents unto Himself. What is it about that that is so hard for you to understand?
It's all about faith in God. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son, simply because God asked him to, as a test of his faith. But God stopped the test at the last minute, after Abraham demonstrated his great faith.
Through your self-imposed spiritual blindness, you can't see it is Satan himself that causes you to champion the Canaanite's sacrifice of children to idols, while criticizing God for passing divine justice. There are only to sides. You have chosen Satan's side, like every other antichrist.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 07, 2015, 07:31:30 AMThat IS moral relativism.
QuoteWhile by criticizing YHWH's justice and interest in eliminating the problem entirely, you tacitly champion similar behaviors in the world today, like the Islamic practice of thighing infants.
Completely false. I have already stated my views on this, do not continue to misrepresent my views.
By criticizing God for patiently waiting 400 years for the Canaanites to repent, and then passing divine judgment and prescribing their punishment, you are championing all of the lurid behavior of the Canaanites.
Put in secular terms, you have taken the side of the murderer, against the court that would imprison or execute him, to meet out justice for his behavior. Just like others that parrot this cherished doctrine in the religion of atheism.
There are only two sides. You have taken the side of the Canaanites, specifically against God - taken the side of Satan the opposer - but then that is to be expected of a self-proclaimed atheist.
QuoteWhen God gives someone a direct command yes, it is OK
This is literally moral relativism.
QuoteBy criticizing God for patiently waiting 400 years for the Canaanites to repent, and then passing diving judgment and punishment, you are championing all of the lurid behavior of the Canaanites.
This is what is known as a false dichotomy, presenting only two options when there may be more available. I have presented my argument several times now, please stop attributing views to me that I have not expressed.
I could have sworn there was a commandment regarding that or something :P
Quote from: Beatrice on May 08, 2015, 05:11:22 AM
QuoteWhen God gives someone a direct command yes, it is OK
This is literally moral relativism.
QuoteBy criticizing God for patiently waiting 400 years for the Canaanites to repent, and then passing diving judgment and punishment, you are championing all of the lurid behavior of the Canaanites.
This is what is known as a false dichotomy, presenting only two options when there may be more available.
That's really quite hilarious. You accuse moral relativism even as you search for grey area. Now
that is moral relativism. While my argument is black and white since there are only two sides. That of God's and that of the Canaanites. That of good and that of evil.
You have so brainwashed yourself into the religion of atheism and moral relativity you can't even see yourself seeking out grey area as an escape.
This whole exercise would be amusing if it weren't so tragic.
You are an atheist. So from where you stand there is no God and none of this ever happened. So there were no people killed for you to need to wonder about their disposition, let alone a need to accuse God of murdering them.
I am in the kingdom of God. From where I stand I can rest assured that all innocent/regenerate people that have ever died or been killed are with the Lord, whether they are the innocents that were killed along with the guilty Canaanites, or those killed at the hand of an abortionist, or died in childbirth, or died as a child before reaching a point of understanding and thus accountability, or lived and died in some remote backwater where the Gospel had not been brought.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 08, 2015, 05:11:22 AMI have presented my argument several times now, please stop attributing views to me that I have not expressed.
I could have sworn there was a commandment regarding that or something :P
You said you read the Bible. Perhaps I should have qualified it by asking how much of the Bible you've read, and in what context, and at what point in your life. Could you please indulge me?
I am unsure you are using the standard definition of moral relativism. But you can see that if killing an innocent person is acceptable under some circumstances and not under others, then that is moral relativism yes?
My position is, and always will be that killing an innocent child is wrong.
QuoteIt's almost laughable if it weren't so tragic. You are an atheist. So from where you stand there is no God and none of this ever happened anyway.
I do not believe deities exist based on what evidence I have seen, but that isn't the same as denying they exist. It is by nature very hard to absolutely prove a negative.
As to the historicity of events in the scriptures, I do not deny that all of it happened. There seem to be historical grains of truth in them, as there are in many stories of old. Some of it there does appear to be a distinct lack of evidence however (global flood etc.)
QuoteYou said you read the Bible. Perhaps I should have qualified it by asking how much of the Bible you've read, and in what context, and at what point in your life. Could you please indulge me?
Sure, have read it cover to cover twice, once close to a decade ago, the other around two years ago. As to the context/point in my life, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but if you clarify I will gladly give you an answer. I have also read various books, chapters and verses when looking into particular things.
While I know it is separate to the canon I have also read the Apocrypha through once
Quote from: Beatrice on May 08, 2015, 05:55:05 AM
I am unsure you are using the standard definition of moral relativism. But you can see that if killing an innocent person is acceptable under some circumstances and not under others, then that is moral relativism yes?
I already explained that the
specific historical event of God ending the suffering of the Canaanites was acceptable because God commanded it. Period. It's been almost 3,000 years since any Old Testament saints are recording as having used the sword in God's service. As you may have noticed at the beginning of that web page (http://www.petewaldo.com/old_testament_violence.htm):
As Don Richardson reports in "Secrets of the Koran", "By Muhammad's day, 1,500 years had passed since any Hebrew prophet was described in the Old Testament as using a sword in the service of God. Neither Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Amos, Malachi nor any other later Hebrew prophet is described as using the sword or prescribing its use."
Quote from: Beatrice on May 08, 2015, 05:55:05 AMMy position is, and always will be that killing an innocent child is wrong.
I praise the Lord for lifting those Canaanite children up unto Himself - along with the rest of the innocents - before they had to suffer a lifetime of disease, pain and depression that would have resulted from their being indoctrinated by their community into incest, pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and ritualistic prostitution. Let alone saving them before they reached an age of accountability for those actions, which would have separated them from God forever.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Yet because you suffer from self-imposed blindness to the Spirit of God and can't see past the flesh and kingdoms of this world, your position is effectively that it's unfortunate that the Canaanite children weren't given the opportunity to be subjected to a lifetime of suffering, from sexually transmitted and other diseases, while being raped by their parents and then going on to engage in ritualistic prostitution as well as have sex with animals and same-sex anuses while joining the community in the sacrifice of children to idols.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 08, 2015, 05:55:05 AMQuoteIt's almost laughable if it weren't so tragic. You are an atheist. So from where you stand there is no God and none of this ever happened anyway.
I do not believe deities exist based on what evidence I have seen, but that isn't the same as denying they exist. It is by nature very hard to absolutely prove a negative.
As to the historicity of events in the scriptures, I do not deny that all of it happened. There seem to be historical grains of truth in them, as there are in many stories of old. Some of it there does appear to be a distinct lack of evidence however (global flood etc.)
QuoteYou said you read the Bible. Perhaps I should have qualified it by asking how much of the Bible you've read, and in what context, and at what point in your life. Could you please indulge me?
Sure, have read it cover to cover twice, once close to a decade ago, the other around two years ago. As to the context/point in my life, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but if you clarify I will gladly give you an answer.
You answered it. It was an age related question following my having been in the Topix forum and chatting with an atheist at some length, before he disclosed that he believed had read enough of the Bible by the time he reached 9 years of age, to make a decision that there is no God. So from then on, before wasting much time, I queried atheists about it first. As it turned out, the vast majority of atheists that I have chatted with insist on self-imposed abject ignorance to the scriptures, as well subjects like related history, archaeology and fulfilled prophecy.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 08, 2015, 05:55:05 AMI have also read various books, chapters and verses when looking into particular things.
While I know it is separate to the canon I have also read the Apocrypha through once.
Were you raised by atheists or agnostics?
Roman Catholic church or other?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 08, 2015, 05:55:05 AM
I am unsure you are using the standard definition of moral relativism. But you can see that if killing an innocent person is acceptable under some circumstances and not under others, then that is moral relativism yes?
My position is, and always will be that killing an innocent child is wrong.
So what's your position on the over 50 million abortions that have been performed since Roe vs Wade?
QuoteI already explained that the specific historical event of God ending the suffering of the Canaanites was acceptable because God commanded it. Period. It's been almost 3,000 years since any Old Testament saints are recording as having used the sword in God's service. As you may have noticed at the beginning of that web page:
...again, isn't this still moral relatavism?
Quote1,500 years had passed since any Hebrew prophet was described in the Old Testament as using a sword in the service of God. Neither Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Amos, Malachi nor any other later Hebrew prophet is described as using the sword or prescribing its use.
This is kind of irrelevant isn't it? Your god still prescribed infanticide and genocide. Presumably such a being would not change right?
QuoteI praise the Lord for lifting those Canaanite children up unto Himself
Let's not mince words here, and call it what it is: murdering babies.
Quotethat would have resulted from their being indoctrinated by their community into incest, pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and ritualistic prostitution. Let alone saving them before they reached an age of accountability for those actions, which would have separated them from God forever
These are horrible things, but why could the Israelites (or indeed their God) rescued them instead of butchering them? Also I haven't asked before, but what is your source that the Canaanites did these things? I woudn't mind having a look at it if you know where it comes from.
QuoteWere you raised by atheists or agnostics?
Roman Catholic church or other?
Remember Pete, those things are not mutually exclusive. I have said a few times I am both atheist and agnostic. To answer your question though, one parent was a deist, the other atheist.
QuoteSo what's your position on the over 50 million abortions that have been performed since Roe vs Wade?
A tragedy for sure. What is your position?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 10, 2015, 07:11:31 PM
QuoteI already explained that the specific historical event of God ending the suffering of the Canaanites was acceptable because God commanded it. Period. It's been almost 3,000 years since any Old Testament saints are recording as having used the sword in God's service. As you may have noticed at the beginning of that web page:
...again, isn't this still moral relatavism?
Quote1,500 years had passed since any Hebrew prophet was described in the Old Testament as using a sword in the service of God. Neither Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Amos, Malachi nor any other later Hebrew prophet is described as using the sword or prescribing its use.
This is kind of irrelevant isn't it? Your god still prescribed infanticide and genocide. Presumably such a being would not change right?
QuoteI praise the Lord for lifting those Canaanite children up unto Himself
Let's not mince words here, and call it what it is: murdering babies.
Not a surprise to see Satan - the father of lies - increasingly speaking for you. I already explained that God rescued the innocents, who are with Him now and will be forever, while the rest received just recompense for their actions.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 10, 2015, 07:11:31 PM
Quotethat would have resulted from their being indoctrinated by their community into incest, pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and ritualistic prostitution. Let alone saving them before they reached an age of accountability for those actions, which would have separated them from God forever
These are horrible things, but why could the Israelites (or indeed their God) rescued them instead of butchering them? Also I haven't asked before, but what is your source that the Canaanites did these things? I woudn't mind having a look at it if you know where it comes from.
See what I mean? Now Satan's got you trying to assign innocence to the Canaanites in your continuing quest to assign guilt to God. As I indicated earlier, your railing against YHWH and support of the Canaanites makes you an accessory to their sins, including the sacrifice of children to idols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice#Phoenicia_and_Carthage
Try a search like - sins of the Canaanites (http://www.bing.com/search?q=sins+of+the+canaanites&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=sins+of+the+canaanites&sc=6-22&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=2796fc9dc1d54fe79ded0cde93b0b402).
You wish the Canaanites were innocent of those sins, so you can continue to accuse God of murder, even though all of those same sins are even committed in the world today including, I would suggest, what is tantamount to sacrifice of children to the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/#black_stone_idol
Quote from: Beatrice on May 10, 2015, 07:11:31 PM
QuoteWere you raised by atheists or agnostics?
Roman Catholic church or other?
Remember Pete, those things are not mutually exclusive. I have said a few times I am both atheist and agnostic. To answer your question though, one parent was a deist, the other atheist.
QuoteSo what's your position on the over 50 million abortions that have been performed since Roe vs Wade?
A tragedy for sure.
Unsurprisingly vague.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 10, 2015, 07:11:31 PMWhat is your position?
That those mothers had their children killed.
That much of the world is guilty of the most widespread practice of infanticide in the history of mankind.
That politicians who codify as a right, the killing of those children, are accessories to that killing to the same extent as a person that hires a trigger-man to kill someone.
So what does that suggest about those who vote to put those politicians into office?
Do you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
Do you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
Pete, you are not answering my questions.
Is it not moral relatavism to sugges that to murder an innocent baby under some circumstances is permissable, and not under others?
What is your source that the Caananites did these kind of things?
QuoteSee what I mean? Now Satan's got you trying to assign innocence to the Canaanites in your continuing quest to assign guilt to God.
No I am not, I have looked for historical sources regarding what the Canaanites would like and have only found Bible verses and not anything else that remotely indicates the things you describe.
Hi again, I remember you posted this awhile ago
QuotePutting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens believe there is no God.
I mentioned at the time that the data was old, and in the last few days it appears a new survey has been done regarding religious demographics in America and thought you may be interested.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/)
(http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/PF_15.05.05_RLS2_1_310px.png)
Quote from: Beatrice on May 12, 2015, 06:15:44 AM
Pete, you are not answering my questions.
You are lying. I have answered it repeatedly. Specific historical events that happened thousands of years ago were exceptions because God specifically commanded it. Since I trust in God I know he had good reason to end the suffering of the Canaanites and bring any innocents unto himself.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17880#msg17880
Let alone you are wishing you were ruled over by moral reprobates like of Adolf Hitler, since defense against such barbarians often results in collateral damage in the deaths of innocents of all ages.
It is you going on and on like a chatty Kathy doll that has the ability to pull its own string, carping on about this exception, while ignoring point after point in post after post throughout our conversation. At the same time saying "gee I never saw any evidence of God" when the fact in you ignore the evidence and just keep on proclaiming it. Whether the origin of matter and energy (http://www.bing.com/search?q=second+law+thermo+dynamics+energy+and+matter+cannot+be+created&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=second+law+thermo+dynamics+energy+and+matter+cannot+be+created&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=fea77806de434595a7b15e8dc924f6e3), or DNA or such compelling biblical evidence as the restoration of Jews to their land and Daniel having prophesied the years, 2500 years in advance.
Perhaps you won't get the significance of it all until you are compelled to prostrate yourself toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca and pray in the "vain repetitions of the heathen" five times a day, to the Arabian pagan's deity "Allah" and his "messenger" Muhammad.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict
Quote from: Beatrice on May 12, 2015, 06:15:44 AMIs it not moral relatavism to sugges that to murder an innocent baby under some circumstances is permissable, and not under others?
What is your source that the Caananites did these kind of things?
The scriptures, which demonstrate their veracity as a reliable record of ancient history, through fulfilled prophecy (http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm), archaeology and mathematics.
Additionally, the writings of folks that are far more studied on the subject, to which I left links.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 12, 2015, 06:15:44 AM
QuoteSee what I mean? Now Satan's got you trying to assign innocence to the Canaanites in your continuing quest to assign guilt to God.
No I am not, I have looked for historical sources regarding what the Canaanites would like and have only found Bible verses and not anything else that remotely indicates the things you describe.
I left links to many more studied on that subject than I. You need to answer to this, this time.
Which of the sins of the Canaanites, that you are wishing were innocent, are not practiced in the world today?And of course accusing me of ignoring as you do so, once again.
If your opinion on the following has changed, please answer honestly, and according to whatever opinion you would have stated prior to coming to this forum.
Do you believe the woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
Do you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
QuoteYou are lying. I have answered it repeatedly.
You answered some other question, but you haven't addressed the issue that you are describing moral relatavism.
QuoteWhether the origin of matter and energy
This isn't evidence for a deity. I told you honestly that I did not know where the original energy and matter for the universe came from. Just because you say it was your God doesn't make it a fact Pete. If you have evidence to suggest it then please show it.
Quoteor DNA
DNA suggests common descent, not the Biblical account. I haven't asked yet, but do you interpret Genesis literally and reject evolution?
Why would DNA suggest a deity?
QuoteDaniel having prophesied the years, 2500 years in advance.
I raised legitimate questions you could not satisfactorily answer in this regard regarding the dates. You have no reason other than faith that you could name to pick your date over the other much more accepted historical dates.
Also, one more question regarding the your prophecy: what is this describing to you from Daniel 12:2?
QuoteAnd many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
QuotePerhaps you won't get the significance of it all until you are compelled to prostrate yourself toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca and pray in the "vain repetitions of the heathen" five times a day, to the Arabian pagan's deity "Allah" and his "messenger" Muhammad.
I have literally no idea where this came from. Why would I have such compulsions to do such a thing?
QuoteThe scriptures, which demonstrate their veracity as a reliable record of ancient history, through fulfilled prophecy, archaeology and mathematics.
I am trying to be objective here Pete.... but are you seriously suggesting that the best source for accurate historical information on a people group is a book written by the people who committed genocide against them, murdered their babies and took over their land?
QuoteDo you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
No
QuoteDo you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
No. I do not know, or have been presented with any information regarding when a fetus becomes a human being. When that is answered, I will have an answer.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 13, 2015, 04:38:53 AM
Hi again, I remember you posted this awhile ago
QuotePutting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens believe there is no God.
I mentioned at the time that the data was old, and in the last few days it appears a new survey has been done regarding religious demographics in America and thought you may be interested.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/)
(http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/PF_15.05.05_RLS2_1_310px.png)
Like me for example. I was affiliated with Calvary Chapel in 2003. I am unaffiliated with any Christian denomination today, primarily because it became too difficult to be exposed to unsound eschatology. Because of pop-approaches to eschatology of futurism and preterism, that began to come into vogue in the 19th century, the "church"
has precluded itself from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/#limitations_futurism_preterism
I know for a fact that disillusionment with unsound eschatology is a big reason that the unaffiliated group is growing. Another reason is that much of the body of Christ is returning to the 1st century model of meeting in homes in an every-member-functioning ecclesia. A book you might enjoy on the subject of what happened to the "church" is "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola.
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/product-reviews/141431485X/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_see_all_top?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=byRankDescending
It's also heartening to see that so many are escaping the bondage and false doctrines of Roman Catholicism.
QuoteI am unaffiliated with any Christian denomination today, primarily because it got too difficult to be exposed to unsound eschatology.
You have to look into the data, but there was a response as Christian-Other, which I assume that would cover. They grew from 0.3 to 0.4.
QuoteI know for a fact that disillusionment with unsound eschatology is a big reason that the unaffiliated group is growing. Another reason is that much of the body of Christ is returning to the 1st century model of meeting in homes in an every-member-functioning ecclesia. A book you might enjoy on the subject of what happened to the "church" is "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola.
I'll check it out, thanks for the link.
Again, you have to check out the data on the link more, but "Unaffiliated" had only three sub responses, Atheist, Agnostic and Nothing in Particular.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 13, 2015, 06:56:08 AM
QuoteI am unaffiliated with any Christian denomination today, primarily because it got too difficult to be exposed to unsound eschatology.
You have to look into the data, but there was a response as Christian-Other, which I assume that would cover. They grew from 0.3 to 0.4.
And far worse elsewhere (http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm#apostasy_in_europe), which I already covered in detail in the post at this link:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17844#msg17844
Quote from: Beatrice on May 13, 2015, 06:56:08 AMQuoteI know for a fact that disillusionment with unsound eschatology is a big reason that the unaffiliated group is growing. Another reason is that much of the body of Christ is returning to the 1st century model of meeting in homes in an every-member-functioning ecclesia. A book you might enjoy on the subject of what happened to the "church" is "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola.
I'll check it out, thanks for the link.
I noticed you can pick up a used copy for under $5. That book has spoken to a lot of people who had left the "church".
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/dp/141431485X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
Quote from: Beatrice on May 13, 2015, 06:56:08 AMAgain, you have to check out the data on the link more, but "Unaffiliated" had only three sub responses, Atheist, Agnostic and Nothing in Particular.
As I pointed out in that prior post apostasy in the church is another fulfillment of prophecy, that further demonstrates the veracity of scripture.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm
Quote from: PeteWaldo on May 13, 2015, 06:26:33 AM
Which of the sins of the Canaanites, that you are wishing were innocent, are not practiced in the world today?
Do you believe the woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
Do you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
My apologies, I did answer that up but stuffed up my formatting, I will edit it after this post.
QuoteWhich of the sins of the Canaanites, that you are wishing were innocent, are not practiced in the world today?
I'm not wishing they are innocent, please decease bearing false witness against me. Just because I am not willing to take a book written by their slaughterers at face value does not mean I think they were innocent, it means I have yet to ascertain whether they were guilty.
You know, like how courts work, innocent until proven otherwise? If you have evidence not written by the people who committed their genocide I would be very interested to read it.
Quote from: PeteWaldo on May 13, 2015, 07:48:16 AMDo you believe the woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
Do you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
If you prefer:
Do you believe women should have the right to hire an abortionist to kill their children?
Do you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
QuoteDo you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
No
Quote
Do you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
No. I do not know, or have been presented with any information regarding when a fetus becomes a human being. When that is answered, I will have an answer.
Copied from previous post.
Quote
I noticed you can pick up a used copy for under $5. That book has spoken to a lot of people who had left the "church".
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/dp/141431485X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
So I've read the first few chapters. Is it basically saying that the root of many practices of the modern church come from pagan belief? Because I thought everyone knew that.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 14, 2015, 06:45:12 PM
QuoteDo you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
No
Quote
Do you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
No. I do not know, or have been presented with any information regarding when a fetus becomes a human being. When that is answered, I will have an answer.
And if their answer is that a mother has a right to kill her child up until the day before it is born (as no shortage of feminists believe), then you would be satisfied to agree that would be morally and ethically just and OK.
So if some men arbitrarily proclaim (and it would always necessarily have to be arbitrary) that a child becomes a child at 213 days of age, then killing it before that time would be OK, even though the exact day of conception is at least relatively indeterminable. You pass your moral responsibility on to others, deluding yourself into believing that that lets you off the hook, for deciding what is right and wrong. What is good and evil. When a mother is legally licensed to slay her child, and when that child is given the right to life,f usurping the mother's "right" to kill it. That way you can pretend to yourself that you don't need to decide for yourself. The epitome of moral relativism. Even beyond, since you believe you can pass your responsibility for moral judgment on to others, to determine for you.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 14, 2015, 06:45:12 PMCopied from previous post.
I did miss that in that post.
So you criticize God for desiring an end to the sacrifice of children to idols, suffering and disease of a few Canaanites, while you turn a blind eye to the state-legal slaughter of 50 million children in our times. Regarding the spurious nature of the lawyer invented law I would encourage you to research Sandra Cano (http://www.bing.com/search?q=roe+v+wade+sandra+cano&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=roe+v+wade+sandra+cano&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=c1f23acffe4949f3a15ae559af74ecc6) and Norma McCorvey (http://www.bing.com/search?q=roe+v+wade+Norma+McCorvey&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=roe+v+wade+norma+mccorvey&sc=1-25&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=4f5cfa4abbc44a639315a21638cb82fa).
You know as well as I that at the moment of conception the blueprint is complete, the die is cast, and all that is left to be done is cell division. Simply put, to grow. Sometimes even diseases, that the person will suffer late in life, are already programmed in.
You also know as well as I that no human being would ever be able to answer your question, so it is nothing more than a convenient dodge of your support for the state-sponsored slaughter of those 50 million children. In other words far worse than moral relativism, and into immoral hypocrisy, while running and hiding from truth. From where I stand not much different than Germans that remained silent during Hitler's holocaust. I would encourage you to research the procedure used in "partial-birth abortion (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=partial+birth+abortion&view=detailv2&&&id=9240A47A5F751B4D609BBBD3770C0BB7E60AB6B6&selectedIndex=0&ccid=n7E58m0b&simid=608025442487962872&thid=JN.tj4aW5hO4VBSPiNwG61KQg&ajaxhist=0)".
(http://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Partial_Birth_Abortion.jpg)
Even from a purely secular viewpoint, Blacks is the basis of our Common Law, which defines a child as a person at conception. So according to the U.S. Constitution, that child from the moment of conception is endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is of course, why it is considered a double-homicide, when a pregnant woman is murdered.
When a person hires another to murder someone, the person who did the hiring is more responsible than the trigger man, since the murder would have never taken happened in the first place if it hadn't been hired done.
So where does that leave the politicians that license the abortionist to slaughter children?
Where does that put the people who vote those politicians into office?
And of course from a spiritual point of view, a person is given a soul at least by conception, as far as the physical world is concerned.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 14, 2015, 06:45:12 PM
Quote
I noticed you can pick up a used copy for under $5. That book has spoken to a lot of people who had left the "church".
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/dp/141431485X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
So I've read the first few chapters. Is it basically saying that the root of many practices of the modern church come from pagan belief? Because I thought everyone knew that.
As you read on you will find that the point of the book, is that the problems within the institutional "church" have always been men usurping the authority that belongs to Jesus Christ, who has always been the head of the church. What you point out is just one manifestation of that usurpation.
Pete, I know this is an emotional issue for us, but seriously, how do you go from me saying this:
QuoteDo you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
No
to this response
QuoteYou pass your moral responsibility on to others, deluding yourself into believing that that lets you off the hook, for deciding what is right and wrong
QuoteThat way you can pretend to yourself that you don't need to decide for yourself.
Quotewhile you turn a blind eye to the state-legal slaughter of 50 million children in our times.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the ninth commandment.
When you get a chance, could you please address the following questions I asked previously:
QuoteDNA suggests common descent, not the Biblical account. I haven't asked yet, but do you interpret Genesis literally and reject evolution?
Why would DNA suggest a deity?
Quotewhat is this describing to you from Daniel 12:2?
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Quoteare you seriously suggesting that the best source for accurate historical information on a people group is a book written by the people who committed genocide against them, murdered their babies and took over their land?
in regards to the biblical genocide of the Canaanites
And also whether you have any extra biblical sources for the things you claim the Canaanites did.
Thanks! Hope you are well and had a good few days since we last communicated.
Bea
Please review the post as I was still editing before your response. Will return when I get a chance.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Pete, I know this is an emotional issue for us, ........
Moral absolutes as opposed to moral relativity take the emotion out of it for me. It is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AM........ but seriously, how do you go from me saying this:
QuoteDo you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
No
to this response
QuoteYou pass your moral responsibility on to others, deluding yourself into believing that that lets you off the hook, for deciding what is right and wrong
QuoteThat way you can pretend to yourself that you don't need to decide for yourself.
Quotewhile you turn a blind eye to the state-legal slaughter of 50 million children in our times.
Leaving it up to others to decide what is right and wrong for you constitutes a tacit nod of approval for whatever they decide. And yes, turning a blind eye. I'm sure there was no shortage of Germans during WW2 that passed their responsibility for judgment off onto the State as well. As far as what you have written thus far, I didn't notice any rejection of approval of abortion even up to the day before birth, if that's what others should happen to decide for you.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the ninth commandment.
When you get a chance, could you please address the following questions I asked previously:
QuoteDNA suggests common descent, not the Biblical account. I haven't asked yet, but do you interpret Genesis literally and reject evolution?
I don't have a firm opinion as I haven't been called to that area of study. There is no shortage of opinion within the Christian community. But when I see charts of human population I do have to wonder, how we are supposed to have been around for millions years, yet populated from virtually zero to seven billion over the last 6,000 years. Let alone the absence of a transitional form fossil record that even Darwin noticed.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Why would DNA suggest a deity?
We don’t need to spend our time with this. Your argument is with scientists who have gained that opinion. Try a search like - scientists dna god (http://www.bing.com/search?q=scientists+dna+god&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=scientists+dna+god&sc=0-15&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=8ca1f5c17e694382ac5a1f592e550bac)
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Quotewhat is this describing to you from Daniel 12:2?
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
You post like a Muslim. Rather than continuing on with points like fulfilled Bible prophecy (http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm), and the subject of Daniel's math, how energy was created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) without a Creator, you simply leave them behind and obfuscate by starting yet another subject.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Quoteare you seriously suggesting that the best source for accurate historical information on a people group is a book written by the people who committed genocide against them, murdered their babies and took over their land?
in regards to the biblical genocide of the Canaanites
Satan is a champion of the Canaanites and sacrifice of children to idols as well. While you may not believe in him, what you wrote indicates that he certainly hasn't stopped believing in you!
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AMAnd also whether you have any extra biblical sources for the things you claim the Canaanites did.
I left links for you. The scholars who are called to that area of study are sufficient on the specifics for me. Fulfilled Bible prophecy, and even simply looking around at the state of the world as it is today (http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict), are sufficient to prove the existence of my God that passed judgment and justice on the Canaanites - that commanded an end to the suffering of the Canaanites.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on May 19, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Thanks! Hope you are well and had a good few days since we last communicated.
Bea
You too.
QuoteIt is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
But you yourself condoned the murder of babies, quite explicitly under certain circumstances?
QuoteAs far as what you have written thus far, I didn't notice any rejection of approval of abortion even up to the day before birth
Perhaps you missed what I said, and you later quoted:
QuoteDo you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?
No
QuoteWe don’t need to spend our time with this. Your argument is with scientists who have gained that opinion.
My apologies, you brought it up and I was curious as to what you meant by it. I would be quite surprised if this was the majority interpretation, mostly due to the large amounts of junk DNA, and the horrible, horrible things that can be caused as a result of DNA mutations.
QuoteBut when I see charts of human population I do have to wonder, how we are supposed to have been around for millions years, yet populated from virtually zero to seven billion over the last 6,000 years
You are assuming I believe that we have always multiplied as fast. This is really not true however, due to advances in society (ceasing from being nomads to farming etc.) and more discoveries in medicine.
QuoteLet alone the absence of a transitional form fossil record that even Darwin noticed.
There have been literally hundreds of transitional fossils found. For a few famous examples have a quick search for Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik. The reason Darwin noted there weren't any because at the time he wrote the Origin of Species, there had been none discovered. The future discovery of them proved his prediction correct. If you look at the quote, he even accurately guessed WHY there were none found at the time. :D
QuoteYou post like a Muslim. Rather than continuing on with points like fulfilled Bible prophecy, and the subject of Daniel's math, how energy was created from nothing, you simply leave them behind and obfuscate by starting yet another subject.
Like a Muslim? I'm not sure I follow. My apologies. I was just curious, as it appeared to be part of the prophecy and I was unaware to what it was pointing to.
QuoteI left links for you.
I did look. It is frankly very hard to find ANY information on what you are describing regarding the Canaanites. There were a few stories regarding some of them that you were describing, but almost nothing specifically regarding Canaanites. But surely a mere story isn't proof yes? One could easily point to Biblical narratives that describe child sacrifice and incest among the Israelites too, but that hardly makes it a fact yes?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 21, 2015, 06:53:04 AM
QuoteIt is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
But you yourself condoned the murder of babies, quite explicitly under certain circumstances?
We have a historical record of a specific event of a few thousand years ago in which God ordered it. It is what it is. Those babies, and any other innocents killed, are with God.
While your inability to discern the difference between right and wrong and good and evil is so relative, indistinct and confused, you assign the task to others, while your standing by in silence expresses tacit approval for the continuing silent holocaust and genocide of 50 million babies
in our times.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 14, 2015, 06:45:12 PM
QuoteDo you believe a child should be legally recognized as a person at conception?
No. I do not know, or have been presented with any information regarding when a fetus becomes a human being. When that is answered, I will have an answer.
See what I mean? Excusing away your inability to discern the difference between right and wrong because you are waiting for what you know is unanswerable, to be answered by others, before you can decide what is morally right and wrong.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 21, 2015, 06:53:04 AM
QuoteWe don’t need to spend our time with this. Your argument is with scientists who have gained that opinion.
My apologies, you brought it up and I was curious as to what you meant by it. I would be quite surprised if this was the majority interpretation, mostly due to the large amounts of junk DNA, and the horrible, horrible things that can be caused as a result of DNA mutations.
QuoteBut when I see charts of human population I do have to wonder, how we are supposed to have been around for millions years, yet populated from virtually zero to seven billion over the last 6,000 years
You are assuming I believe that we have always multiplied as fast.
My observation had nothing to do with what I assume you believe. I was stating an offhand opinion regarding charts of human population.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 21, 2015, 06:53:04 AMThis is really not true however, due to advances in society (ceasing from being nomads to farming etc.) and more discoveries in medicine.
QuoteLet alone the absence of a transitional form fossil record that even Darwin noticed.
There have been literally hundreds of transitional fossils found. For a few famous examples have a quick search for Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik.
It's all about what you choose to put your faith in (http://www.bing.com/search?q=archaeopteryx+is+not+a+transitional+form&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=archaeopteryx+is+not+a+transitional+form&sc=1-44&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=7fd995d2ad1e453cb41da1e1b3312ca3). Like having faith in an opinion that a species is instead a transitional form, while remaining in self-admitted self-imposed ignorance to the things of the kingdom of God like the related history, archaeology and mathematics of fulfilled Bible prophecy, and the odds against fulfillment thereof (http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm). Essentially, pure blind faith in what to
disbelieve. And some claim that atheism isn't a religion!
Quote from: Beatrice on May 21, 2015, 06:53:04 AMThe reason Darwin noted there weren't any because at the time he wrote the Origin of Species, there had been none discovered. The future discovery of them proved his prediction correct. If you look at the quote, he even accurately guessed WHY there were none found at the time. :D
QuoteYou post like a Muslim. Rather than continuing on with points like fulfilled Bible prophecy, and the subject of Daniel's math, how energy was created from nothing, you simply leave them behind and obfuscate by starting yet another subject.
Like a Muslim? I'm not sure I follow. My apologies. I was just curious, as it appeared to be part of the prophecy and I was unaware to what it was pointing to.
And even in this post you continue on with your tangent while failing to return to the math. Your tangent isn't the part of Daniel's prophecy that I brought up. What do you suppose the odds are of Daniel having pinned the years of 1948 and 1967, to the year, 2500 years in advance?
I chose to present the math, because discussion of the Bible as in the passage you pulled from thin air is pointless, with someone who stands outside the Spirit of God that insists on willful disobedience and puts their effort into
misunderstanding and faith in
disbelief.
This certainly isn't the only fulfilled prophecy. Some suggest about 1/4 of the Bible is prophecy, and most of it fulfilled.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on May 21, 2015, 06:53:04 AM
QuoteI left links for you.
I did look. It is frankly very hard to find ANY information on what you are describing regarding the Canaanites.
What is so hard for you to believe? Which of the sins attributed to the Canaanites that you wish to doubt they committed, are not practiced in the world today?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 21, 2015, 06:53:04 AMThere were a few stories regarding some of them that you were describing, but almost nothing specifically regarding Canaanites. But surely a mere story isn't proof yes? One could easily point to Biblical narratives that describe child sacrifice and incest among the Israelites too, but that hardly makes it a fact yes?
While a secular humanist might say that sacrifice of children to idols is the only sin of the Canaanites not practiced today, from my Christian perspective, I see 1/4 of mankind unwittingly sacrificing their children to the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca that they prostrate toward 5 times a day, since Muhammadanism turns its adherents into antichrists ............. like you.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
It will make things less confusing, and give us links to posts of the quoted content, if you learn how to multiquote:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=39.0
Quote from: PeteWaldo on May 23, 2015, 06:06:00 AM
It will make things less confusing, and give us links to posts of the quoted content, if you learn how to multiquote:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=39.0
Sorry, I will look into this and make things clear.
I have already explained quite clearly that your dates are either incorrect in the prophecy date, or the author of the book has got their facts wrong.
Either way the maths is incorrect.
QuoteExcusing away your inability to discern the difference between right and wrong because you are waiting for what you know is unanswerable, to be answered by others, before you can decide what is morally right and wrong
Just because I do not know does not mean I think it is OK, nor should be allowed. I have stated this multiple times, so please stop attributing positions to me that I do not actually hold.
QuoteAnd some claim that atheism isn't a religion!
It isn't. It simply describes a lack of a belief in deities. If you think that constitutes a religion, then that is OK, but then you could apply it to pretty much any statement that describes a person (occupation, political view, cultural etc.)
I have to head out now, so sorry about that, but again, if you get a chance.
1. Extra biblical accounts of what the Canaanites did
2. Clarification of those verses in the Daniel prophecy
Thanks! Have a good day
PS. Also, I suggest you have a good look into the characteristics of Archaeopteryx, as well as the myriad of other transitional forms. It really is quite a fascinating animal. It does not fit into any neat category we have today. Check out its teeth, lack of a beak and super long tail!
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AM
Quote from: PeteWaldo on May 23, 2015, 06:06:00 AM
It will make things less confusing, and give us links to posts of the quoted content, if you learn how to multiquote:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=39.0
Sorry, I will look into this and make things clear.
If you do it per the instruction at that link you quoted, as you can see in the following, it gives every quote a header with a clickable link back to the post that is being quoted. When I wanted to include part of the April 30th quote I went back, quoted it, then removed what I didn't need, then copied and pasted the whole thing - tags and all - into this post.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AMI have already explained quite clearly that your dates are either incorrect in the prophecy date, or the author of the book has got their facts wrong.
See how much effort you have to put into your
disbelief? Now you are pretending it is the author of one book, that dates the first year of Cyrus in Babylon to 537-536, even after I quoted just a few of many that date it the same way. Setting up a straw man messenger, you wish you could then shoot, in efforts to run and hide from the truth.
Quote from: PeteWaldo on April 30, 2015, 06:32:44 PM"The archeology record indicates that Cyrus enters Babylon the year following his victory, entering the city BC 537, and that after the following year (which would be 536 BC), in 535 BC, Cyrus is crowned king of Babylon in a large display."
http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/Myfiles/Chronology/cyrus.html
".....first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun till late in the year 538 B.C. to extend over into the following year of 537 B.C."
http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/babylon/babylon18.html
"The Bible shows that the Jews returned to their homeland in the first year of King Cyrus, which would have been 537-B.C.E."
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
"He died 536 b.c., and Cyrus succeeded him; and as the order to rebuild the temple was in the first year of Cyrus, the time referred to in this chapter....."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/9-1.htm
"The Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus in 536 BC., after they succeeded the Babylonian Empire. The first king of the Persian Empire was Cyrus, who issued the famous decree for the Jews to return to their homeland to rebuild their Temple."
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/04-persian-empire.html
"Therefore, the ascension year of Cyrus over the province of Babylon was 537/6 B.C., and his first calendar year was 536/5 B.C."
https://www.wake-up.org/Daniel/DanChap5.htm
Did your comment "...every source apart from yours seems to indicate it was 539 BC..." suggest you were putting effort into being honest enough with yourself to consider the evidence, or instead putting all of your effort into DISbelief, even at the expense of truth?
Would you at this point agree that 537-536 is supportable dating - at least in the opinion of many - for the first year of Cyrus (as likely hundreds or perhaps even thousands of sites attest)?
Can't even you see your demonstration of how automatically and naturally you lie to yourself?
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AM
Either way the maths is incorrect.
But you formed that opinion, through your continuing effort to further indoctrinate yourself into
DISbelief, by way of conspicuous self-deception.
Whereas a person with reasonable critical thinking skills and normal cognitive function unbroken by indoctrination into the faith of atheism, might otherwise observe that while there may be a little variation in dating from website to website, one of the oft-repeated perfectly acceptable years that is advanced, happens to be confirmed mathematically and textually through two parallel problems in prophecy that span 2500 years. To a reasonable person not running and hiding from truth, these two problems would demonstrate which dating is correct, while even cross confirming each other, since the odds against those two math problems spanning 2500 years and pinning the years of 1948 and 1967 being an accident, are astronomical.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm
Just as astronomical as the odds against the restoration of Jews to their land that 1200 years of Islam had rendered utterly desolate, that Daniel dated through those math problems, as well as so much other old covenant Bible prophecy of that restoration.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/history_of_modern_zionism.htm#desolation_of_israel
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/abomination_of_desolation.htm
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_prophecy.htm
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AM
QuoteExcusing away your inability to discern the difference between right and wrong because you are waiting for what you know is unanswerable, to be answered by others, before you can decide what is morally right and wrong
Just because I do not know does not mean I think it is OK, nor should be allowed. I have stated this multiple times, so please stop attributing positions to me that I do not actually hold.
Spoken as I'm sure no shortage of buck-passing Germans did in Nazi Germany.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AM
QuoteAnd some claim that atheism isn't a religion!
It isn't.
It is. Your accusing the God of the Bible and His people for obeying him, through your antichrist spirit led understanding of a historical event that happened thousands of years ago, is a classic doctrine within the religion of atheism. Continuing to carp away on it even after I explained that all innocents that were killed are with the Lord - saved before growing up to be indoctrinated into the sins and resulting suffering therefrom, of their community. In that doctrine you join antichrist Muslims, however their spin on that event is that it demonstrates the scriptures are "corrupt". You lie to yourself, just as Muhammadans must lie to themselves, because you and they follow the father of lies.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4479.0
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AMIt simply describes a lack of a belief in deities. If you think that constitutes a religion, then that is OK, but then you could apply it to pretty much any statement that describes a person (occupation, political view, cultural etc.)
I have to head out now, so sorry about that, but again, if you get a chance.
1. Extra biblical accounts of what the Canaanites did
You deem the record that YHWH gave us because you desire to disbelieve it, even though archaeological evidence increasingly confirms the Bible to be a reliable record of ancient history. Just recently it appears that the palace of king David was discovered, while liberal "Christian" "scholars" and atheists had previously wished to believe the Biblical accounts of king David's palace were fables.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2964.0
What impresses me is that you are so eager to wish that the Canaanites were innocent and Jews guilty, that you desire to disbelieve the sins of the Canaanites, even though the same sins are practiced in the world today. The reason for this unreasonableness and resulting accusation being your indoctrination into the faith of atheism.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AM
2. Clarification of those verses in the Daniel prophecy
I already explained the pointlessness of going off on a tangent, which you further confirmed through this additional demonstration of your willingness to lie to yourself, to advance your blind faith (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17832#msg17832) in disbelief.
You deny that atheism is a religion, and would likely suggest it does not require faith, even as you believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Quote from: Beatrice on May 23, 2015, 09:35:23 AMThanks! Have a good day
PS. Also, I suggest you have a good look into the characteristics of Archaeopteryx, as well as the myriad of other transitional forms. It really is quite a fascinating animal. It does not fit into any neat category we have today. Check out its teeth, lack of a beak and super long tail!
As above you will believe what furthers your self-indoctrination. I left a link to a Bing search of those with opinions that disagree that it is a transitional form.