John A. Broussard

I'm a poor excuse for a prophet, since I'm merely predicting on the basis of your past behavior. Whenever one of your points is refuted, you shift to something else...or just ignore the post.

cajela

And yet somehow you do. I'm boggled. You said a building would be undeniable. There is a building. You deny it.

In what way that building is not "physical evidence you could point to", or even not "well, very concrete!" I cannot see. :huh:

Johnny Skeptic

You have asserted on a number of occasions that skeptics and Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon, but convinicing you without also convincing a sizeable percentage of other Christians is not a golden opportunity for skeptics and Muslims. The person who Muslims want to convince the most is not you. It is whoever is the president of the U.S. at any given time. So, convincing you is completely irrelevant to these debates.

It was you who first made assertions about the Babylon prophecy, so you must have had convincing someone in mind, and most certainly not just me. From cover to cover, the Bible is trying to convince people of many things, is it not? Is it not your task to convince people of many things by conducting research? Have you not cited research in some of your posts? Of course you have. For instance, you mentioned flooding, an animal park, and Alexander. Regarding your assertion that skeptics and Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon, upon what evidence did you base your assertion? Do you hope to convince people that your assertion is true simply because you say that it is true? Regarding the word "convince," the undecided crowd is not trying to convince anyone of anything. They are wondering why you refuse to back up your assertion that skeptics and Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon.

I have accepted your challenge to have Arabs pitch their tents in Babylon, but you have not accepted my challenge that you provide credible evidence that if the attempt is successful it will provide substantial benefits to skeptics and Muslims. Is it your position that if Babylon were to be rebuilt, and/or if Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, that the U.S. would adopt a more favorable foreign policy towards Muslims? The answer to this question is very easy to obtain, and you know it. That is why you refuse to contact the U.S. State Department. If you did, you are well aware that the answer would be no. Isn't that right? If I contact the U.S. State Department, and if their answer is no, will you concede defeat?

As I have told you on a number of occasions, even if I believed that God can predict the future, I would still not worship him. Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to predict the future and goodness. What evidence do you have that God is good today in tangible ways? What evidence do you have that Jesus ever healed anyone? Do you really know the God of the Bible, or do you only know the God who is depicted by the Bible writers, none of whom ever claimed that they ever met God? Do you believe that God determined where hurricane Katrina went? Why do you accept behavior from God that you would not accept from any human? If any human had the power to prevent natural disasters but refused to do so, he would be ostracized from society, and possibly sent to prison.

Sauron

No it is not a refutation, since Johnny's willingness to do this is conditional. It is based upon you agreeing to accept Johnny's challenge:

my challenge that you provide credible evidence that if the attempt is successful it will provide substantial benefits to skeptics and Muslims.

You have not yet accepted Johnny's challenge.
You have failed to provide any credible evidence. Or any evidence at all, for that matter.
And untily you *do* accept Johnny's challenge, my position is not refuted.

I can point to the building in the large photo.

(Sauron points and jabs finger at building). :thumbs:

Why isn't that good enough?

Is that your excuse for stalling on doing this research? You should be motivated to conduct this research merely because you made the claim behind it.

Apparently lee_merrill doesn't work that way; claims come first, and evidence may or may not follow; it depends upon what kind of mood he happens to be in. Ergo, you offered this "challenge" before you even knew if it would convince anyone besides your own pitiful self.

That's a handwave. No one is trying to convince you anymore; we haven't been trying to do that for months. I mean, back around page three it was obvious that evidence wasn't going to slow you down.

Everything since then has been an exercise in showing the lurkers how dishonest christian apologists have to be, in order to support their beliefs. You're doing a smashing job of showing them that.

Sauron

Everyone join hands and all together now, repeat after me:

"There is no such thing as undeniable proof with fundamentalist christians, because they will always find a way to deny it."

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I have concluded that he has healed me several times, you may ask for healing as well, in any given instance, being healed yourself is, in my opinion, good evidence.

And if he bears pain, as in the cross? People are sent to prison for injuring others, but if a person is one who bears the pain that comes about, that makes the situation different.

As far as Cajela's question, "I would refer here to my previous response to Badger when he made this same point. I don't mean that one building would be rebuilding Babylon, I meant "a building" in the sense of some physical evidence you could point to, rather than having to make a case that shepherds had pitched their tents here for the last umpteen weeks." You have not dealt with my reply here...

And similarly, Johnny, your response was to repeat what I responded to. So the only reply is to again repeat my response, "when you give up trying to convince me, I shall be motivated to conduct this research. As long as you pursue this issue of the Babylon prophecy with me, I will conclude that you think it is profitable to try and convince just only this one person." So you now need to respond to this statement...

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

I've been meaning to ask this, and now seems as good a time as any.

If you were so unfortunate as to lose a limb, would you pray to your god to have it grow back?

I'm looking forward to your answer.

Johnny Skeptic

Your opinion is completely irrelevant. What you need to do is to provide testimonies from doctors, the very same thing that you would require from a Muslim who made similar claims.

Wild animals have unusual healings too, and so do non-Christians, so what is your point? Why is it that God always heals the easiest kinds of physical problems? Why doesn't he ever give quadriplegics new arms and legs, or heal people who have multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy? Doesn't he care about those people too, or is it his intention to indicate that he does not care, or that he does not exist, by never healing people with the most serious physical problems? The late Vincent Humbert lived in France. He was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. He wanted to die, and he asked French president Chirac for an exemption to the French laws that prohibited physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Chirac refused, and an unknown relative or friend compassionately killed Humbert. No one should ever have to become like Vincent Humbert. No loving God would allow such a thing, and no loving God would refuse to give an explanation for allowing it. Explanations by human proxies presuming to speak for God thousands of years ago will simply not do.

In your opinion, does God determine when natural disasters will occur, and where there will occur?

You attribute unusual good things to God, but to what source do you attribute unusual bad things?

It does not make the situation any different at all. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, there is not any evidence at all that his suffering, shed blood, and death, remitted the sins of mankind. Logically, there is no correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. The God of the Bible should not be worshipped by anyone because he is not consistent. If a human father provided food, shelter, and clothing for his son, but allowed his son to be killed by a burglar without trying to prevent it, what would you think of that father? If God provides food, shelter, and clothing for you, but allows you to become quadriplegic, blind, and mute like Vincent Humbert was, that would not be consistent with love and compassion. It is also not consistent with love and compassion for God to rule "in abstentia" for millennia, which has resulted in wars, hatred and doubt. Can you think of anything that God has to gain by such behavior? Can you think of anything that humans have to gain by such behavior?

"Arabs pitching their tents," not shepherds. You have said that Arabs pitching their tents in Babylon would invalidate the prophecy, but you have refused to provide evidence that if the attempt is successful, it would substantially benefit skeptics and Muslims.

I already did. I told you that convincing just you is not sufficient reason for skeptics and Muslims to attempt to have Arabs pitch their tents in Babylon, and/or to attempt to rebuild Babylon. You conveniently avoided replying to my point that undecided people are not trying to convince you of anything. Some of those people want to know why you have asserted on a number of occasions that Muslims and skeptics are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible by invalidating the Babylon prophecy, but have consistently refused to back up your assertion with any evidence at all. If you make challenges, you must give good reasons why people should accept them.

Muslims are interested in convincing the U.S. State Department, not you, and Muslims are well aware that if Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, and/or if Babylon were to be rebuilt, U.S. foreign policy towards Muslims would be exactly the same as it is today. This is easy to check out. Shall I conduct the research for you? If I contact the U.S. State Department, I will be sure to give them your name and how to find you here at the Secular Web in case they want to contact you. If I contact the U.S. State Department, and if they tell me that if Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, and/or if Babylon were to be rebuilt, U.S. foreign policy towards Muslims would still be exactly the same as it is today, will you concede defeat? In addition, if I contact the pastors of a number of fundamentalist Christians churches of your choosing, and if most or all of them (I believe the case would be all of them) would not give up Christianity if Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, and/or if Babylon were to be rebuilt, will you concede defeat?

The vast majority of Muslims, skeptics, and Christians, even the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, are well aware that if Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, and/or if Babylon were to be rebuilt, for all practical purposes, the Christian Church would still be just as large as it is today. Do you dispute this?

Johnny Skeptic

Lee, I replied to this is my previous post, but I will reply to it again here in a different way. The people who need convincing are the people to whom your challenge has been made, namely Muslims and skeptics. If you do not think that it is profitable to try to convince Muslims and skeptics that if the Babylon prophecy is invalidated, they will enjoy substantial benefits, they will conclude that your challenge is bogus and dishonest and reject it because you have refused on a number of occasions to conduct the simple research (polling Christians and contacting the U.S. State Department) that would make you challenge attractive to them if your challenge is actually valid. It is quite amusing that you can't even find a few fundamentalist Christians who agree with your preposterous and outlandish arguments.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I believe God can do this, and it is even certain that he will do this, for all who trust him, eventually, see again, Isaiah 35:6. I will lose all my limbs! At the time of death, and then I trust that God will restore them all, in resurrection. So yes, I would pray for healing, after praying to know God's will, if there was no indication that this was not his will at that time.

If I am trying to convince you! If I am seeking a conclusion by convincing myself, a prayer and an answer is (as I mentioned) good evidence, and I recommend this way of proceeding.

But wasn't your challenge that there is no evidence for Jesus healing people? And now you are giving me evidence that there is lots of such healing, from all quarters?!

Then suffering must always and only be regrettable? Has no one ever had an experience of suffering bringing benefit? You must require that all such suffering is never worth the cost, here, and also know what happens after dying.

I attribute them to God, too, he attributes them to himself as well...

Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.

Exodus 4:11 The Lord said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

I was speaking of the connection between the cross, and God's goodness, though.

2 Corinthians 12:9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Romans 8:35-36 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

And the next verse here in Romans 8, is an important one...

But I am not a deist...

"Whatever my distresses are in number or degree, they are all known, even to the least circumstance, by Christ my head: he looks down from heaven upon all my afflictions, and understands them more fully than I that feel them. 'Lord, all my desire is before thee; and my groaning is not hid from thee' (Psalm 38:9). He not only knows them, but feels them: 'We have not a high-priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities' (Hebrews 4:15). In all your afflictions he is afflicted; tender sympathy cannot but flow from such intimate union; therefore, in Matthew 25:35, he saith, I was a hungered, I was athirst, I was naked." (John Flavel)

Apparently it would benefit Johnny Skeptic! Or else he is trying to convince me, while believing that there would be no benefit if he succeeded.

Regards,
Lee