sugarhitman

Critics makes claims against the bible with empty theories...when christians defend it prove it they say. How about you prove your claims say I, "no you first" or "we dont have to" say they.

Wikipedia is often qouted by them (when they believe they actually have something) but Wikipedia and the Internet are not good sources of information when used by christians...wow.

When they feel confident in their arguements qoutes are often cited, when not the games begin. "We dont have to prove anything" oh really? Was it not your claim that the bible is fictions prophecy frauds....prove it. When feeling strong, Google maps appears in abundance, "Look!!" they say "here it is!" ancient writings are displayed "Read this....see I told you!" Get them in the corner, "ahhh I dont have to show you nothing" "Find it your self" then on the next thread, "Here my source proves you wrong!" back to this one, "Your wrong!" "Mistaken!" prove it say i "I dont have tooo!" Wheres your source now? "Find it yourself!"



Empty theories, empty arguements.....,vain folks.

ChairmanMeow

The burden of proof rests on theists, not on atheists.

The claim that a supernatural diety exists must be supported. Belief in any supernatural being(s) is not necessary to explain our world. Because of this, simply applying a logical school of thought, such as Occam's Razor, rules out existence of god(s) -- unless solid (non-scripture) evidence is provided for us to conclude otherwise. This is the burden of proof. I'm sorry if you don't like it.


Wikipedia is a good way to get a quick overview or general information about a topic. For more detail, a more reputable source is needed (note: some of these can often be found at the bottom of the Wiki page, as references)

Burden of proof/Occam's razor. See above. It's up to YOU to prove that there is a magical sky-daddy who sends out prophets which can only be considered accurate if one uses extensive shoehorning and confirmation bias.

Note: please improve your english or typing skills (not sure what the exact problem is). It's difficult to take you seriously.


I'm not sure what google maps has to do with anything. I didn't give anyone driving directions .

Burden of Proof. Just because we dont have to provide a source for you to quote-mine doesn't mean some people wont be so generous.

Yeah, those fundies sure are, aren't they?


The reason that you get so many different responses from different people is that some people just can't stand your illogical arguments. Your arguments are filled with circular logic, special pleading, ad hoc rationalizations, and shoehorning. When you are finally to the point where a normal person would concede something you instead shift the goalpost, throw out a red herring, or ask plurium interrogationum.

Some people don't want to deal with this and therefore just ask for you to prove your outrageous claims, which is a perfectly valid thing to do -- you have the burden of proof. Others are more active and will use sources to try and refute your constantly-shifting and poorly defined arguments.

Your frustration is your own fault. Increase the clarity of your posts and use logic and reason -- instead of constantly changing your argument, mangling your posts with fallacies, or using double standards. I bet you'll recieve alot more respect and consistency among your debate opponents.

funinspace

You got many detailed responses beyond mine, providing evidence that the Germanic influence was much less than you posit. You just don’t like data that doesn’t fit your theology. It’s not that Romans/Germanics didn’t affect greater Europe and the US over the ages. It’s that by your very own definition of empires, Rome is also just an extension of the Greek empire. This is what you continually fail to address. You fail to show how the Romans affect the modern US, than the Greeks affected the Romans. Which makes your 4 empire prophetic dream just a wet one, since you now only have 3.

Here’s the data that I have referenced before:
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...&postcount=124
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...4&postcount=99

Here’s another minor tidbit on how Greece still flows thru our society:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House
The White House is the official home and principal workplace of the President of the United States of America. Built between 1792 and 1800 of white-painted Aquia sandstone in the late Georgian style,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_architecture
The styles that resulted fall within several categories. In the mainstream of Georgian style were both Palladian architecture— and its whimsical alternatives, Gothic and Chinoiserie,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladian_architecture
But please rant on, it certainly helps our POV to the visitors… :wave:

Sheshonq

No, with raw history and facts. That seems to bother you.

How incredibly dishonest of you. The original claim was yours. Therefore burden of proof is also yours. The audience bears no burden of proof; it never does, regardless of the topic. We could be discussing baseball scores; it wouldn't matter, the rule is the same.

He who asserts must prove. And he who asserts first, must prove first.

Burn that into your brain, because you're going to be seeing it again and again around here.

As a general rule, Wikipedia is a mediocre source. It's a group blog that is open to agenda because there isn't enough quality control. But since some fundibots think the world of it, skeptics will often use it to make a point. It's rather like using the Easter Bunny to make a point to a small child, if the small child believes in the Easter Bunny. It doesn't mean that the parent believes in the Easter Bunny; the parent is just bringing the argument down to the level of the child's understanding.

However, since the quality of skeptic arguments is almost universaly higher than christian arguments, you'll find that skeptics actually use books and research websites, vs. any old random website that comes up in a google search.

So your complaint that skeptics don't want christian information from the internet is really baseless, as usual. Everyone knows that the internet is a mixed bag when it comes to reliability. You *ought* to know that by now as well, Mr. White Power Website. :rolling: :rolling: So if you expect us to just sign off on anything you catch on your google search as being acceptable quality source, you're sadly confused. What you should be doing is actual research - like the rest of us have had to do.

If the theories were empty, you'd do a much better job refuting them instead of being an Olympic-quality backpedaler.

Sitamun

What is Germanization??

You mean this?

His mother must have been quite a Roman to be allowed to marry into the Imperial Family.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Doesn't prove anything about Germanic tribes being the "successor" of Rome.

No comment. Several people have given you sources. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth.

What about the Italians and the other Europeans who were part of the Greek World? (prior to the Roman Empire)
http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/...nician_550.jpg

http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-citizenship

This is the most straight forward example I could find which somewhat easily explains the complicated notion of citizenship in ancient Rome. If you don't get it, I can't help you with it anymore.

Man, have the google links from googling Cyrus, Cyrus the great, rule of cyrus the great came up for Miley and her mullet dad.
I just find Cyrus the Great, ruler of PERSIA.
I can't copy from the site, so I'll just link to it:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php
Incorporating Median nobles into the civilian government is a far cry from "dual empire"


Is this lacking proof?


P.S. just so you know, it's she not he :Cheeky:

Sheshonq

And the point that sugarhitman seems to be missing - consistently, I might add - is that the situation changed by the time Babylon was invaded.

Media was always the junior partner in the military and political relationship; Persia was the clear senior. Describing a partnership by its junior member would be confusing and inaccurate. It was always Persia who ultimately held the reins of power – recall that Cyrus had conquered the Medes in 550 BCE and made them subject to Persia. The most accurate description of the invasion of Babylon would be “Invasion of the Persians”.

The brief Median equality ended several years later, when Darius I usurped the throne. The Medes rose unsuccessfully in revolt (522-521 BCE), were crushed, and then lost such privileged status as they had enjoyed.

And regardless of who was in charge of the invasion of Babylon, we saw earlier that the invasion was a historical non-event, at least in terms of doing any damage to the city or sending apocalyptic judgment upon its inhabitants. So even if bible literalists want to argue that the Persian invasion is the self-same destruction of the Medes that Isaiah and Jeremiah spoke of, the literalists still have a big problem. Where, exactly, is the evidence of destruction? Where do we see that “bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb”?

No matter how you slice it, the Medes were never involved in any devastating invasion of Babylon - and a devastating invasion would specifically be required, in order to fulfill the prophecy. Not while they were independent kingdom, nor during the brief decades while they were co-regents with the Persians over the Achamaenid Empire. And if we assume that the Old Testament authors meant “Persians” when they wrote “Medes”, that still doesn’t help. The Persians treated Babylon with the utmost care and courtesy - there was no devastation.

So sugarhitman can try to hide behind semantics, but the 800 pound elephant in the room is the problem of a lack of destruction of Babylon, where the prophecy calls for massive devastation by the Persians.

Sitamun

Yes, the one thing I've noticed overall in looking all this up has been that every single site has mentioned how well Cyrus treated the people of the lands he conquered. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

sugarhitman

Ha! So ignorant of Jeremiah. The raising of the SPIRIT of the Medes to destroy Babylon is not Media nor Persia...but the kings of the north.

"For out of the North there cometh up a nation against her which shall make her land desolate ..."

"For lo I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country..... "

"Behold a people shall come from the north, and a great nation, and many kings shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth. They are cruel and will not show mercy: their voice shall roar like the sea, and they shall ride upon horses, everyone put in array, like a man to the battle against thee, O DAUGHTER OF BABYLON."

In Revelation the indentity of the kings of the north are given and they will burn Babylon (Mystery Babylon, the Babylon of Jeremiah is also Mystery Babylon).

"And the ten horns which you saw upon the beast, these shall hate the whore (Mystery Babylon) and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." Rev. 17


The ten horns are the ten horns of Daniel (Revelation is the Unsealed Book of Daniel) who come out of the 4th kingdom...The European kings....kings of the North country....the Nordic kings.




Read the hints before making these blunders. The Medes are not even north of Babylon.

ChairmanMeow

I think you should look at a map. Ectabana (and the region of Media) is quite clearly northeast of Babylon.

spin

See sugarhitman make a fool of himself once again!



I guess in the harangue against Babylon in Isaiah 13:17 they forgot to use the word "spirit" so that sugarhitman could continue his self-abuse.

"See I am stirring up the Medes against them [Babylon]" -- Isa 13:17

But worse even in Jeremiah 51:28:

"Prepare the nations for war against her [Babylon],
the kings of the Medes, with their governors and deputies...
and every land under their dominion.
The land trembles and writhes,
for the Lord's purposes against Babylon stand."

Oops, sugarhitman, caught with your pants down yet again. And that's an ugly butt. You should really cover it up.

Most christians have a certain respect for the text. You, sugarhitman, unfortunately have none, in that you are prepared to rape any text to feed your tomfoolery.

And I'm still waiting for you to stop shirking your responsibilities and deal with Dan ch.11 and my analysis of it. If you cannot deal with it you'll have no way of understanding all the visions as a whole. There are so many other issues you have shirked on the subject of Daniel though, I guess you have given up being serious and are now off the map.


spin