Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

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.

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

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.

And 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! 

Pete, I know this is an emotional issue for us, but seriously, how do you go from me saying this:

Do you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?

No

to this response

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

That way you can pretend to yourself that you don't need to decide for yourself.

while 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:

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?

what 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.

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?

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

My apologies, I did answer that up but stuffed up my formatting, I will edit it after this post.

Which 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.

You 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.

Whether 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.

or 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?

Daniel 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?

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

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.

I have literally no idea where this came from.  Why would I have such compulsions to do such a thing?

The 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?

Do you believe a woman has, or should have, a right to kill her child?

No

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

It'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.)

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?

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

So murdering a kid is wrong unless God says it is ok?  That IS moral relativism.

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.

Completely false.  I have already stated my views on this, do not continue to misrepresent my views.

Even as you continue to insist on sanctioning such behavior through your continuing criticism of YHWH.

Criticising one group does not mean sanctioning their opponent.

The 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 was reading your website and found this

It'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

However 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?

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"?

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?

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)?

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?

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.

I think you misunderstand me Pete.   

The passage states

In 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?

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 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 

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.

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.

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.

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?

Perhaps 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.

That 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