Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

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! 

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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!

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

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