Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: I said:

You replied:

If you don’t mind, I much prefer to let Muslims speak for themselves. When I contact some Muslims, I do not want to misrepresent your position. Are you actually saying that Muslims are duty bound by the Koran to attempt to rebuild Babylon, have some Arabs pitch their tents in Babylon, or have some shepherds graze their flocks there?

I suggest that you contact Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell about your challenge, or some other well-known Christians with a media presence. If your challenge is valid, what better way to present it than through Christians who have a lot of worldwide media access? If some well-known Christians present your challenge to Muslims, I assure you that Muslims will immediately accept the challenge and have some Arabs pitch their tents in Babylon, and some shepherds graze their flocks in Babylon. Only a mentally incompentent person would rebuild a city at considerable time and financial expense when all that was necessary is having some Arabs pitch their tents, and some shepherds to graze their flocks. I know about the little game that you are playing by claiming that rebuilding Babylon would be more convincing to some people than Arabs pitching their tents or shepherds grazing their flocks, but your game won't work. The world media, and lots of U.S. servicemen, could easily prove in the opinions of the vast majority of people that Arabs had pitched their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds had grazed their flocks in Babylon. Will you agree with me that logically, the first step for Muslims should be to attempt to discredit the prophecy by having some Arabs pitch their tents, and some shepherds graze their flocks? The time and financial expense would be minimal. Of course, you should be well aware that if the prophecy is discredited, the size of the Christian church will not decrease noticeably, and U.S. foreign policy will be the same as it is now. You should also be well aware that if you contact Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell, they will not be impressed with your challenge.

That is true, but what if I find a lot of fundamentalist Christian scholars from Christian colleges OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING who disagree with your arguments, and you can only produce a few scholars from those colleges, or none at all? You have said that you like Wheaton College, so I will contact Wheaton College. Please give me the names of three other Christian colleges of your own choosing. I want to give you every advantage. How about Dallas Theological Seminary?

I do not expect to convince you of anything, and you most certainly should not expect to convince me of anything. Just like in presidential elections, both sides here at the Secular Web are primarily trying to influence the undecided crowd. I am quite certain that at the end of these debates about the Babylon prophecy, you will have lost what little reputation that you have left among the undecided crowd.

It will be quite interesting to see what you will do when I produce Christian scholars from colleges of your own choosing who disagree with you, and Muslims who disagree with you as well. I plan to contact Muslim laymen and Muslim scholars. I assume that not even 1% of fundamentalist Christian scholars agree with your arguments, and 0% of Muslims. Would it matter to you if such is the case?

Do you actually believe that God will prevent Arabs from pitching their tents in Babylon? Do you know of one single Christian scholar who believes that? Proverbs 16:18 says “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Will you be so bold and prideful that you will disagree with scholars from Christian colleges of your own choosing, or do you mind admitting that you are wrong?

This will be fun for me. As I have told you on a number of occasions, I enjoy conducting research.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Consider the following from a Muslim web
site:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/fall_to_islam.htm

Throughout the entire Old Testament we see prophecy upon prophecy about the fall of Babylon and all of its gods and idols. In the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament, we read about how Babylon fell and the Persians took over it:

2 Chronicles 36

19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.

20 And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia:

21 To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

(From the King James Version Bible, 2 Chronicles 36:19-21)

Even in the book of Isaiah, the very last book in the Bible's Old Testament, God Almighty prophesied about the fall of pagan babylon and its gods:

Isaiah 47

1 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.

2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.

(From the King James Version Bible, Isaiah 47:1-2)

So technically, as we can see, all of the Bible's Old Testament's prophecies about the destruction of Babylon were yet to come, because even the book of Isaiah; the last book in the Bible's Old Testament, still prophesied about the destruction of babylon and its gods.

Since we saw the fall of Babylon in 2 Chronicles 36:20 above, then basically the prophecy about Babylon's destruction in the book of Isaiah (which came long centuries after all of the books of Chronicles) refers to Persia, since Persia included both Iran and Iraq, while Babylon consisted only of Iraq.

Johnny: Now Lee, did the Muslim have any trouble quoting Old Testament prophets, including Isaiah?

Since it is Muslims who you have challenged to discredit the Babylon prophecy, not skeptics, some people wonder why you normally avoid contacting Muslims. I will tell them why. Last year, you contacted a Muslim on the Internet. He quickly demolished you and you left town. Would you like to debate the Muslim that I previously quoted? No?, I didn't think so. It was Sauron who posted your embarrassment, not you.

If you visit the web site that I quoted, you will see that the Muslim is no beginner.

lee_merrill

Actually, he agreed with me that the Bible is very probably correct, and valid in what it says, possibly in all it says. A rather unusual Muslim. This would not, I think, be called a demolition of my arguments...

I don't mind, however it seems this page is taking liberties with Biblical texts, and concluding the Bible predicts Islam, which is not especially a topic I would want to debate now, nor does it indicate that there would an especially productive debate on the topic of Isaiah.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

That is absolutely not true. He scolded you, and I remember that his last words to you were "Kapiche? Siemplemente!" Those are most certainly NOT words of agreement. You did not contact the Muslim after that, and quite conveniently, I might add. As I recall, you and the Muslim had two exchanges, and you left town without replying to him. The evidence is in the old thread on the Babylon prophecy.

Oh I think you do. I will try to contact him and we shall see.

But you just said that you do not mind. A better explanation is that you know next to nothing about how Muslims interpret the Koran and you don't want anyone to know it. This will become much more obvious to readers as I gather more evidence.

Certainly not productive for you. The Muslim would demolish you. He has an extensive web site, and he is more than a match for you. Will you please tell us which Muslims you WOULD have a productive debate with? None that you can think of? I didn't think so. How about a Muslim college professor? I will be happy to contact one for you, more if you wish.

Your obvious tactic is to discredit any person who I quote, whether Christian or Muslim, who disagrees with your arguments, while at the same time not offering ANY corroboration for your own arguments from experts. This is simply dishonest. What makes your opinion on ANYTHING authoritative? Do you really expect to convince people of ANYTHING about the Babylon prophecy based solely upon your say so? Have you ever heard of the word "consensus"? Have you ever heard of the word "expert"? Your tactics won't work much longer. I will soon begin my research, and I plan to contact a good number of fundamentalist Christian college professors, and a good number of Muslims, including some Muslim college professors. Now what are you going to do when I produce a good number of fundamentalist Christian scholars and Muslims who disagree with your arguments? Try to discredit all of them, or possibly go on a mythical extended vacation?

I told you that I am going to contact Wheaton College because you have said that you like Wheaton College. I asked you for the names of three other Christian colleges of your own choosing, but you did not provide the names. Why not? As I told you, I want to give you every advantage. What better way to discredit you than to discredit you with your own recommended sources?

You cannot possibly get away with trying to discredit a host of fundamentalist Christian scholars and Muslims, while at the same time offering only your own say so as evidence. Please be advised that after your withdrawal from this debate I plan to post my evidence at a number of Christian debate web sites, including the Theology Web. One wonders to what extent you will continue to embarrass yourself.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: It is quite amusing how you presume to speak for Muslims when you know next to nothing about them. Continuing your education about Muslims and the Koran, consider the following from a Muslim web site:

http://www.iad.org/books/WAMY7.html

Muslims are required to believe in and to respect all of the messengers of Allah without exception. Since all the prophets come from the same God and for the same purpose - to lead humanity to Allah - belief in them all is essential and logical. If some are accepted and others are rejected, it is due to the individual's misunderstanding of the prophet's role or of racial (or other) bias. The Muslims are unique in considering belief in all of the prophets of God to be an article of faith.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: It is quite amusing how you presume to speak for Muslims when you know next to nothing about them. Continuing your education about Muslims and the Koran, consider the following from a Muslim web site:

http://www.iad.org/books/WAMY7.html

Muslims are required to believe in and to respect all of the messengers of Allah without exception. Since all the prophets come from the same God and for the same purpose - to lead humanity to Allah - belief in them all is essential and logical. If some are accepted and others are rejected, it is due to the individual's misunderstanding of the prophet's role or of racial (or other) bias. The Muslims are unique in considering belief in all of the prophets of God to be an article of faith.

Johnny: And here is another Muslim web site:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

Isaiah 42 clearly talks about the Prophet of Arabia, Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Johnny: If you go to that web site, at the bottom of the home page you can send an e-mail to Osama Abdallah if you wish, but of course we all know that you won't lest you embarrass yourself.

And of course, we have the following from another Muslim web site that I posted previously:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/fall_to_islam.htm

Throughout the entire Old Testament we see prophecy upon prophecy about the fall of Babylon and all of its gods and idols. In the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament, we read about how Babylon fell and the Persians took over it:

2 Chronicles 36

19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.

20 And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia:

21 To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

(From the King James Version Bible, 2 Chronicles 36:19-21)

Even in the book of Isaiah, the very last book in the Bible's Old Testament, God Almighty prophesied about the fall of pagan babylon and its gods:

Isaiah 47

1 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.

2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.

(From the King James Version Bible, Isaiah 47:1-2)

So technically, as we can see, all of the Bible's Old Testament's prophecies about the destruction of Babylon were yet to come, because even the book of Isaiah; the last book in the Bible's Old Testament, still prophesied about the destruction of babylon and its gods.

Since we saw the fall of Babylon in 2 Chronicles 36:20 above, then basically the prophecy about Babylon's destruction in the book of Isaiah (which came long centuries after all of the books of Chronicles) refers to Persia, since Persia included both Iran and Iraq, while Babylon consisted only of Iraq.

Johnny: Now Lee, how many Muslims would it take to convince you that you have misrepresented their positions regarding Old Testament prophets, and specifically the Babylon prophecy? In typical fashion, you will probably demand that I provide you with a sizeable consensus among Christian scholars and Muslims, which I will be happy to do, while at the same time on your side demanding that I accept a consensus of one, namely you. If you come up with some Christian experts who agree with you, which I doubt will happen, I will use one of your own arguments against you. I said:

You replied:

So, if you come up with some Christian experts who agree with your arguments, I will tell you “Perhaps all Christians do not agree on their conclusions either?” As a matter of fact, you are well aware that even the vast majority of FUNDAMENTALIST Christians disagree with your arguments about the Babylon prophecy, let alone over 99.99% of other Christians. Perhaps you should consider joining the Flat Earth Society. I assume that they have more members than you can find who support your arguments about the Babylon prophecy. When you are asked to support your arguments with corroboration from experts, your obvious policy is “the smaller the consensus the better”. Thanks for the entertainment, Lee. Who needs television?

Johnny Skeptic

Since Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, it is not an issue of who can predict the future, but what his character is. You are not in the least bit interested in who can predict the future unless you also approve of his character, so your argument is quite ridiculous. Without an accompanying defense of the nature of God, the issue of whether or not God can predict the future is completely irrelevant, as well as all other issues, including the Resurrection. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, that does not even come close to providing sufficient evidence that people should accept God.

Popular television newswoman Katie Couric is on the cover of today's Parade Magazine. She said "I have a big job to do. The biggest job isn't telling people what happened. It's getting them to understand why they should care". In other words, Lee, your job is not to tell people what happened regarding supposedly fulfilled prophecies, but why they should care whether or not God can predict the future. In one of the Harry Potter movies, the wise old wizzard basically told Harry "What is most important in life is not the abilities that you have, but the chioces that you make". Whatever abilities God might have, his choices are suspect. He never plans to offer skeptics a parole in the next life. Nothing could possibly be more unmerciful.

Romans 9:18 says “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” One of the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives for the word “mercy” is “Mercy implies compassion that forbears punishing even when justice demands it”. Using that apt definition as a basis, my revision reads “Mercy implies that God will not punish skeptics for all of eternity without offering them parole even though his justice demands it.” My position is that the most unmerciful act possible would be for a being to send people to hell for all of eternity without parole.

Since God endorses favoritism, and refuses to mercifully offer skeptics a parole in the next life, that is reason enough for people who have principles and morals to reject him, and in fact it is impossible for such people to will themselves to accept such a God.

Do Christians have a choice whether or not to endorse murder, theft, and lying based upon promised rewards and punishments, and to love a being who demands that people endorse those practices or they will go to hell? How are murder, theft, and lying any worse than favoritism and eternal punishment without parole?

The more unforgiving and unmerciful God is, the more impossible it is for people with principles and morals to accept him.

If a Christian man had four children, and they were drowning, he would do everything that he could to save all of them. Should a loving God do any less?

At http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...g-taylor0.html there is transcript of a debate between well-known Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig and noted skeptic philosopher Dr. Richard Taylor.

Dr. Craig said “The fundamental worth of human beings, to repeat, lies in the unconditional love of God for ALL [emphasis mine] persons and in the fact that Christ died for ALL [emphasis mine] persons. Therefore each person is regarded by God as having infinite worth in His sight, regardless of his skills or accomplishments or talents.” 2 Peter 3:9 says “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY [emphasis mine] should perish, but that ALL [emphasis mine] should come to repentance.” How can Christians possibly reconcile Romans 9:18 with Dr. Craig’s comments and 2 Peter 3:9?

Sven

What I don't buy is that you extend this fraction you have observed to everyone, especially the people here. Without having a shred of evidence that the atheists here also belong to this group, your argument remains a desperate attempt to dodge the possibility that you maybe wrong.

I see that you've nothing to counter the fact that your words are just the same we get from other theists who differ from you and are just as convinced that they are right and you are wrong. Of course we can agree to disagree - onyl that I know that you have to disagree - otherwise your faith might got a crack. You can't this let happen, I understand.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: Please reply to my post #97.

lee_merrill

Well, Johnny, we are going off on a thousand tangents here, and I think I will bow out now...

Blessings,
Lee