Sauron

If you said that, then you're simply mistaken. It is not a restatement.

a. "It cannot be accurately dated"

is vastly different from

b. "I don't know if it can be dated, but I'm open to being persuaded either way. However, one thing is for sure: so far, you sure as hell haven't dated it yet."

(b) is Johnny's position.

Philadelphia Lawyer

Exactly wrong. In your analogy, Johnny is the prosecutor. He started the thread and made claims about the prophesy. Just as the prosecutor brings the case to trial and makes claims about the defendant's guilt. The persons reading the thread are like the judge and jury. We are waiting for Johnny to present his evidence. But all Johnny has done is make his opening argument. Johnny says the defendant is guilty and "challenges" the defense attorney to prove him wrong. It doesn't work that way in court, and it doesn't work that way here, either.

You have said so many times yourself, and the rules of debate, that you linked to, say so as well. I made this point before and you ignored it. Maybe it would be more productive to our discussion if you addressed it, instead of insulting me and then coyly indicating that you have deleted the insults out of "charity."

No one disputes this.

Johnny claims (even in his various revised statements) that the prophecy cannot be dated accurately. He must prove this. Amaleq13 and I discussed how he might go about doing that. He should review the arguments made for a pre-event dating of the prophecy and show why they are wrong. He should demonstrate why the evidence adduced by supporters of the prophecy does not support a pre-event date.

Philadelphia Lawyer

No, I'm not mistaken. To say that either a pre or a post event dating for the prophecy is "equally plausible" (which is what Johnny actually said), is not "vastly different" from saying that the prophecy cannot be accurately dated. All that anyone is concerned about is whether the prophesy was made before or after the fact. Moreover, saying that either date is "equally plausible" is still making a claim about the dating. A claim that must be proven.

bfniii

since this is a forum about biblical criticism, what i find attractive about the bible is that it offers hope. the God of the bible provides atonement for anyone, anywhere despite the fact that He doesn't owe it to us and we aren't deserving of it. in the NT, Jesus' ministry was non-discriminatory and eternal. earlier in this thread, there was an attempt to portray the OT God as unjust because of certain commands from God regarding the midianites or the amalekites. what no one bothered to address are verse like leviticus 19:10, 33, 34, 23:22 which portray a loving and forgiving God. those verses, coupled with the fact that criticisms were based on misunderstandings, the God of the bible is certainly laudable and worthy to be called God in the biblical sense.



i disagree



no, i mean just what i said. approval does not connote acquiescence. if there were such a law, i would move to a place where there wasn't such a law. but, whatever country i am in, i respect those laws. if there is a law i disagree with, i will use whatever mechanisms that are available to me to get it changed.



you may have answered this in another response but, who is God? we would need to define that before the question can be answered.



the bible claims it. how can we know if it is right or wrong? what would convince you?



personal experience



plenty



not to be repetitive but, the bible claims it. how can we know if it is right or wrong? what would convince you?



on the contrary, we aren't judging perfection. we can, however, know of it's existence as outlined by the argument.



i think what they are trying to say is that the two are one and the same.



you didn't provide a quote. i take that to mean you aren't able to. what you think is implied is irrelevant.



no, not really. as i have said before, that depends on the nature of the provider.



that's not from the bible. that's from God. since the God of the bible is portrayed as loving and compassion (despited what some mistaken skeptics here think), that would be a desirable outcome. but what if the situation were different? that outcome might not be desirable. i think the point we are driving towards is that you are proposing semantics. a comfortable eternal existence is provided by a compassionate, loving God. the only question would be if there were multiple loving Gods to choose from. are there?



i answered this question in the other thread. instead of repeating it, why don't you respond to my reply?



not that the bible makes such a connotation.



is he worthy of worship?



i don't think your response here addresses my point. we're talking about two different topics; supernatural existence and the nature of the supernatural being. as i said, the bible claims that Jesus was both supernatural and good. christians don't worship Jesus merely because He is supernatural, although that is an indirect factor.



we can list whatever you want to list. since we're in a forum of criticism, objections would be the most appropriate. if you want to be evangelized, go to church.



that depends on the nature of the outside sources. so which specific outside sources do you think should have mentioned that Jesus healed people?



it would not prove anything. however, i'm not saying it wouldn't be useful.



i have not refused to state anything. i have answered every question asked of me to the best of my ability.



i most certainly do not. if i did, i would have absolutely no interest in even participating in these forums.



which ones should i not reject?



tricky, but you didn't answer the question. i asked you how you, or the authors you mentioned, would know if it was first hand testimony?



i'm not saying it wouldn't make a difference to me. you asked for first hand eyewitness testimony. i asked you how would you know it was such? how do habermas, et al, know that there is such?



because it's helpful, that's why.



to some yes, to some no.



again, they are part of the big picture.



i will be glad to discuss them (i have already stated my position on miracles, specifically to you).



isn't that what one would expect in a forum based on biblical objections?



please quote any instance that you know of where i didn't answer a question asked of me by anyone.



why not? isn't this a website called internet infidels? i am here to learn why they believe what they believe. shouldn't they be happy to expound on their beliefs? otherwise, why create a public website?



christians claim that He is. why do you not believe them?



the point is irrelevant because miracle healings are not the cornerstone of christianity. Jesus is. you are discussing the issue of undecided people and how miralces appear to them. debating style of worship is splitting hairs.



the question was why do you want parlor tricks to convince you that God is actively compassionate? why stop at a missing limb? why not ask for someone to have all their missing limbs restored. heck, why stop there? why not ask for someone to never have to experience pain? why stop there? why not ask for this whole world to be pain-free? i am asking why that level of "magic" is convincing to you.



personal experience. why are they wrong?



no specific example is going to prove the point. no matter what example i provide, it's still going to be unfalsifiable. that's what i have been trying to point out. miracles are beyond the purview of science so there can be no proof of them.



i have no idea where you are going with this. so what if unusual healings can happen to anyone? that doesn't mean that christianity isn't true. if one person prayed even one time for God to heal people, God could answer that prayer anytime.



and why do you place hunger above emotional pain? you can't do so because they are apples and oranges. i have made this point before in the other thread; there is no "amount" of suffering or evil because it is relative to the individual. there either is suffering/evil, or there isn't. therefore, there are no people who are in "greatest need". everyone needs compassion and hope.



you can mention whatever you want to. trying to say one person is more in need than another is flawed. saying that a quadriplegic is more in need than someone else is insulting to them. you are saying they are incapable of finding happiness or usefulness outside of someone else providing it for them. you are saying they are less a person than someone else. there are other people who value quadriplegics and their unique abilities because they don't place shallow, superficial value on life. why is your value system superior to theirs?



oh yeah? first, you made the statement and now it seems that you are afraid to back it up. second, in order for you to prove your point, you will have to prove that nothing exists outside of methodological naturalism. that point is impossible to prove. third, since miracles are beyond the purview of science, you wouldn't even have a measuring tool to quantify or qualify this statement. heck, even your own position states that there is no ecumenical definition for a miracle.



if the God of the bible exists, then He is by definition perfectly consistent. what reasons do you have to believe otherwise?



if God showed up, it could be said that those who saw Him were hallucinating.



i've already answered both of these questions.



christians think they know God well by reading the bible and from personal experience.



how would anyone on earth know that it wasn't just some alien with advanced technology? that's not proof at all.



no you haven't. you merely told me what would be proof without telling me why that particular level of "magic" would be proof.



i have no scale of believability based on healing.



i don't recall failing to answer any questions. perhaps you could cite an example so that i could clear it up.



there is a difference between necessary and beneficial.



the answer is unequivocably yes.



personal experience.



nonsense? even hitler was capable of doing good deeds. why don't you worship him?



whoa, refuses and demands are two different things. you are implying compulsion. He gives us the choice. what He demands is that we abide by the consequences of our choice. that, in no way denotes compulsion.



the bible states it. is it wrong?



another request for unfalsifiable information



why would you want an unfair system such as that?



to your satisfaction? you don't want a god, you want a puppet.



you don't know that He is self-proclaimed. for all we know, He had to earn His stripes, no pun intended.



good grief. i have told you that christians believe that He is available.

and you say my arguments are nonsense. you want a puppet God who performs insignificant parlor tricks at your whims, has to explain everything to you despite your finite limitations and conforms to idiotic human standards of conduct that even humans can't agree on. what a joke.



why not? how do you know?



for the umpteenth time, he already has. that's why people can credibly speak for God on the issue.



let's start with ephesians 2:9. the pharisees are another good example.



well first, if He is truly the creator of the universe, He doesn't owe us one iota of anything. second, if the God of the bible does exist, then He divinely inspired the writers.



since i have already refuted it, why don't you refer to my refutation instead of repeating your original assertion and making it out like it is the end-all?

since i am pretty sure you are going to whine about how hard it is for you to keep up with my responses, i will be generous and point you to response #420. i do realize you responded to that, but i also provided a consequent response.



yup



i think prophecy is something that is recorded in the bible. it is not the cornerstone of christianity.

Johnny Skeptic

Based upon what evidence?

Other than “the Bible says so,� what evidence do you have that Jesus’ shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind, that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he was born of a virgin, and that he never sinned?

At best, the God who is depicted in the Bible is bi-polar, frequently inconsistent, and frequently dangerous to humans. He heals some people, but he allowed the late Vincent Humbert of France to become quadriplegic, blind, and mute. No one should have to live in such a state. God is usually quite willing to cure the common cold, but he created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans. You would never respect a human who acted like that, and especially if he did not state why he acted like that.

Let me restate my argument: What gives ANY being the right to decide what is right and what is wrong, and to decide how to punish people who reject him? In other words, what automatically makes everything that ANY particular being says and does right?

If you mean what would convince me that God is good, at the every least I would require that he show up an answer a lot of questions about his actions and allowances. Christians and skeptics frequently debate God’s existence and supernatural power, but his character is a much more important issue to me. Exodus 4:11 says “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord�? I would require that God explain this verse to my satisfaction.

Will you please state some examples of your personal experiences, both spiritual and physical, that you find to be good evidence that God loves you? How much validity do you put in your spiritual experiences? Followers of most or all religions have spiritual experiences. What makes your spiritual experiences any different from their spiritual experiences?

Let’s take you. Do you have a tape recording or a VCR tape of any of your discussions with God? Did you see God or audibly hear his voice? Do you know of anyone who can provide that those kinds of evidence?

A visual and audible conversation with a powerful being who claimed to be God would not be absolute proof that the Bible is right, but it would certainly be much better evidence than we have now.

Ok, let’s take the issues of the dating of the Tyre prophecy, the issue of whether or not the version that we have today is the same as the original version, and assuming that the prophecy was written before the events, what about it indicates divine inspiration? My current position is that both sides have equally plausible arguments. What is your position?

I would be willing to consider any outside sources. Do you have any?

Why don’t you ask the authors? In the case of the 500 eyewitnesses, I am not aware of any firsthand testimony. Are you?

I never claimed that is was such.

That is just the point. Other than by faith, I have no idea. Do you?

Is it your position that “the Bible says so� is sufficient evidence for any assertions that Christians make, or do we need corroboration from non-Biblical, non-Christian sources?

Where did I say that I did not believe them? I said “Because we need to know WHETHER OR NOT God is still compassionate in tangible ways, and if he isn't, why he has deserted us. My position is that the arguments of both sides are equally plausible. What is your position?

That is not true. The Bible depends lock, stock and barrel upon claims of the supernatural. How else can you attempt to credibly verify God’s existence, power, and nature? John 10:37-38 say “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.� The New International Version translates “works� as “miracles.� In the KJV, Acts 14:3 says “Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.� The NIV translates the verse as “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.�

The same miracles that Jesus supposedly performed in order to convince people that he had compassion and supernatural powers would be a good start. Today, just a few examples of powers beyond the abilities of humans would be sufficient to convince most people that they were not dealing with a human. Creating a building out of thin air would be a convincing example.

[quote=Personal experience. Why are they wrong?[/quote]

Before I answer your question, I need some specific examples. Do you have any?

Science is not necessary. If an entire city were created out of thin air by someone claiming to represent the God of the Bible, and if he instantly healed all of the sick people in the world, that would not be proof that he was representing the God of the Bible, but at least it would prove that someone in the universe had some of the powers that the Bible attributes to the God of the Bible. What is proof for you?

I didn’t mention emotional pain, but it is an important issue too. There are millions of mentally ill people who God could help if he wants to, but for some unexplained reason, he doesn’t want to.

My point is that before I would accept God, I would need to know why he does what he does and why he allows what he allows, and I would only accept him if I deemed his reasons to be acceptable.

You have misrepresented my position. My point is that each person is a unique individual. What some people can bear, other people cannot bear. Some quadriplegics want to live, but some want to die. Vincent Humbert was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. He wanted to die. Is it your position that he did not have a right to die?

What if God appeared to everyone in the world at the same time? Could such an event be a hallucination? If Jesus returned to earth, how could you be sure that you were not hallucinating?

Not with any disagree of credibility. You cannot speak for God. Only God can speak for himself, and it must be IN PERSON in order to satisfy me and billions of other people. Since you trust human proxies who presume to speak for God, please cite Scriptures that answer my questions.

I don’t know. Do you?

Let’s keep this simple. Do you believe that President Bush speaks for Republicans? If so, why? After you answer those questions, then we can discuss this issue further.

Why do you assume that it is unfair, and why do you presume to speak for God regarding this issue?

So children who ask their parents why they do and demand certain things want a puppet, right? So when presidents are questioned at press conferences, the questioners want a puppet, right?

Any you do not know otherwise, right?

Do you know of any way that we can be reasonably certain that Jesus’ shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind?

Why so?

[quote=bfniii] How do you know?

How do you know otherwise? Do we have a Mexican standoff here? If so, that is fine with me.

And Hindus have spoken for Hindu Gods, right?

So power grants God certain rights irrespective of his character, right?

Why would he want to do that? What good was an inspired Gospel message to the hundreds of millions of people who died without ever having heard it? How in the world were people supposed to live their lives prior to the Gospel message?

It is in fact quite important.

Ok, here is what you said in a subsequent post:

That does not have anything whatsoever to do with what I said. It is a fact that Christians perceive risks if they change their minds and they are wrong, and that skeptics do not perceive risks if they change their minds and they are wrong. Perceived rewards and punishments are coercive influences that affect religious peoples’ judgment. Skeptics do not perceive rewards and punishments. Therefore, they are perfectly free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I like people who are loving, helpful, and kind, so it would be quite natural for me to accept any being with similar character if I believed that I had sufficient evidence that he was loving, helpful, and kind. I most certainly would not object if I believed that miracles exist. I do not object to human oversight or divine oversight as long as I consider that oversight to be fair in accordance with my moral standards. We judge the moral standards of our politicians, so why should God’s moral standards not ever be questioned?

Why?

Johnny Skeptic

As I told you before, my arguments were made SUBSEQUENT to the intial, primary arguments that the Bible makes.

Oh but I am responding to a claim that the prophecy is valid. The claim is in the Bible. Read Ezekiel chapter 26 and see for yourself.

Since Ezekiel 26 implies that the prophecy can be accurately dated, your assertion is false. Just to satisfy you, I will restate my topic question as follows: Should people believe that God inspired the Tyre prophecy? Following is my revised opening post. Is there any credible evidence that the predictions in Ezekiel 26 predated the prophecy, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. In addition, even if the prophecy predated the events, what about it indicates divine inspiration?

Does that meet your satisfaction?

Will it be relevant is I start a new thread and ask you what your position is on the validity of the Tyre prophecy?

Johnny Skeptic

In order to satisfy Philadephia Lawyer, I restate my title and opening post as follows:

Title: Should people believe that God inspired the Tyre prophecy, and that it has never been revised?

Opening post: Since Ezekiel 26 claims that the predictions predated the events, I invite Christians to provide evidence that supports this assertion. I also invite Christians to provide evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. My current position is that both sides have equally plausible arguments.

Philadelphia Lawyer, may I ask what your purpose is in making posts at this forum? What issues are most important to you? If you claim that my questions are irrelevant, may I ask you the questions in a private message? If so, may I post your reply?

Philadelphia Lawyer

It isn't a question of meeting my "satisfaction." The issue is whether you intend to meet your burden of proof for your claims. I had no problem with your original OP; the problem I had was with your refusal to prove the claims you made therein. This most recent version, as far as I can tell, doesn't make any claims. You are only asking a series of questions. If a supporter of the prophecy chooses to answer your questions, then you may resume your role of skeptic, without any objection from me.

Philadelphia Lawyer

Since, for some reason, this is important to you (this is the third time you have asked this question in one way or another), I will answer it, even though it is irrelevant.

My purpose in making posts at IIDB is to contribute to the discussions. Because I am not a philosopher, Biblical scholar, or scientist, most of the posts I make are in the Political Discussions forum. Legal questions are often discussed there, and I have some knowledge about them.

I got interested in the Tyre prophecy by reading the other thread. It would never have occured to me that anyone would think the prophecy was "true," and I was fascinated that some posters fought so hard to prove that it was. Even more fascinating to me was the incredible amount of work that Sauron put into decisively disproving the claims of the prophecy supporters. I enjoyed his references to archeology, ancient history, linguistics, etc. I loved the pictures he posted of Tyre and Petra.

On the other hand, you come across to me as a bit of a bully. I am sorry if this impression is offensive to you, and I realize that expressing it may constitute a violation of the IIDB rules. But you wanted to know why I am making these posts.

For example, Hinduwoman started a thread in which she expressed curiosity about the reason that God chose Abraham to begin his "chosen people." For purposes of her thread, it was obvious that she was taking it as a given that the Torah is true. Her question was clearly placed in that context. Other posters tried to answer her question in that context, but you repeatedly posted that it wasn't proven that God had chosen Abraham, that Abraham even existed, that the Torah is accurate, and so forth.

In the previous Tyre prophecy thread, Sauron did all the work that I alluded to earlier. Your posts, on the other hand, struck me as being argumentative, goading, and lacking in substantive content. Since you were legitimately playing the role of the skeptic in that thread, and therefore had no burden of proof to satisfy, this was perhaps acceptable.

But then you started this thread. You made claims in your OP. When asked to prove those claims, you incorrectly argued that you had no burden of proof to satisfy. For whatever reason, Sauron decided to back you up. This has led to pages and pages of arguments about the burden of proof, instead of substantive discussion about the prophecy. I find this to be boring, and I also think it is clear that both you and Sauron were wrong about this issue.

To make a long story short, my reaons for posting about the burden of proof on this thread are threefold:

(1) I would like to see Sauron get back on track;

(2) It was clear to me that you and Sauron were wrong about the burden of proof question; and

(3) I don't like bullies.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity. Feel free to PM me at any time if you have any other questions.

PL

Johnny Skeptic

But it is perfectly acceptable to ask Christians for reasonably proof that God made a land promise to Abraham. If anyone was a bully, it was Abraham when he conquered the Canaanites. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he is definitely a bully, and a murdered to boot. Your accusation that I am a bully does not offend me as all, but it is patently absurd. Christians have been bullies for the better part of 2,000 years. The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of murder, persecution, and theft of property, not to mention slavery and the subjugation of women.

I beg your pardon? I never said that Abraham did not exist, and surely you do not believe that all of the Torah is accurate. Your viewer profile says that you are an atheist. That alone takes issue with all of the claims of the supernatural that are found in the Bible, and by implication including God's land promise to Abraham. If God sends to you hell, I guess you won't call him a bully, right?

It is the Bible that has set the stage for hostilities and accusations between Christians and skeptics. Christians believe that you deserve to go to hell, and yet for some reason you attack me instead of them.

Argumentative? Darned right, and aptly so considering the accusations that the Bible and Christians make against skeptics. The Bible and Christians cast the first stone, not skeptics. Regarding "lacking in substantive content," in the last two years I have had over 250,000 hits at my web site as www.johnnyskeptic.com, and I have a banner advertisement here at the Secular Web. Jim Lippard, the president of the Internet Infidels, and his wife, visited me at my home about a year ago. I have received a lot of public and private compliments from skeptics regarding my web site and my public debates, including here at the Secular Web. Noted skeptic scholar Dr. Robert Price is a big fan of some of my writings. I am not bragging. Whatever abilities that I might have, or that anyone has, are genetic. I just want you to know that I do not care in the least how you evalutate my writing and debating abilities. I find the threads that you started to be quite unimpressive, and I am quite certain than many other people feel the same way.

Well, I most certainly would not want to miss out on your saying that it was "perhaps acceptable."

These are not formal debates that take place in college classrooms or in public arenas with live audiences. My topic and my opening post could have been better stated, but my claim that the Tyre prophecy cannot be accuratley dated is credible if the modern historical methods of dating have anything to say about it. It is quite difficult to find a historian who will claim that the predictions predated the events. And, I as said in another post, the Bible asserted first, not me. Therefore, I only replied to PRIOR, uncorroborated assertions by Ezekiel regarding the Tyre prophecy.

Undoubtedly Sauron would like for you to get back on track.

It is clear to me that your debating abiltiies and your knowledge of Biblical criticism and history are conspicuous by their absence.

Good, then you don't like God, the Bible writers, Abraham, and a good percentage of fundamentalist Christians who try to legislate their religious beliefs.

I have already said what I want to say.