Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: One thing is for certain: If a God inspired the Bible, there are not any doubts whatsover that he would be able to convince more people to love him and to accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will. It would certainly would not have been unfair for Jesus to accurately predict what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, which would surely have caused more people to become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

arnoldo

Most Jews and Muslims are peace loving people, please avoid stereotyping. Israel exists at this very moment and will continue to exist in it's homeland despite any human effort to uproot it from it's land. I've already submitted ample archaelogical evidence that Israel has resided in it's homeland for thousands of years. I submit for your consideration the Cave of Abraham.
The Cave of Machpelah Tomb of the Patriarchs

Sheshonq

1. You're trying to change the subject. It will not work. You made a claim for a "covenant", and your lame attempt at proof consisted of quoting a sura from the Koran that mentions Abraham. But no covenant was mentioned. The Koran does not support that. Even if it did, that would not constitute independent evidence - which is what I asked for.

2. I am not stereotyping. I said nothing about any group of people being peaceful or violent or anything else. I merely said that you were wrong when you assumed they would agree that they were your brethren. You are attempting to paint me out as the bad guy by implying motives that you cannot demonstrate and which are not found in my post.

3. I'm far more aware of how Muslims view Christians than you are, since you know next to nothing about Islam.

A mildly interesting opinion -- but nobody cares what you think. Only what you can demonstrate.

1. No, you have not done anything even close to that; sorry.

2. Not that it matters, since even Christians admit that Palestinians and Canaanites were in the land before Hebrews - so going off your earlier argument, that proves that the Palestinians have the superior claim to the land. Your own argument backfires in your face. How sad, yet how typical.

1. Submit whatever you want. I'm still waiting on proof of a covenant.

2. While you're at it, some proof of this cave's authenticity - beyond mere legends - would be good as well.

Flagg

This is blatant racism. Fuck your God.

angelo

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;5176037]On the contrary, you have never reasonably proven that the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy. If the Koran said that a temple would be rebuilt in Mecca by Muslims, and Muslims rebuilt a temple in Mecca, would you call that a legitimate fulfillment of prophecy?

If God did not make a land promise to Abraham and his descendants, and Abraham falsely believed that God made a land promise to him and his descendants, since all that it takes in order to self-fulfill a prophecy is the belief that it is true, and enough military power to make it come true, that explains why Palestine was partitioned in 1948.

There are not any indisputable prophecies in the Bible. The same is true regarding all prophecies in all religous books. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have failed to convince the majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be far less disputable than any Bible prophecy. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies since that would mean that God unnecessarily creates doubt and confusion.

I don't mean to butt in. But I can predict or prosephy just as well as ''God'' can. Try me out. For example, I predict that there will be a change of President in the USA later this year. I also predict draught, floods, earthquake, shortage of food in Africa, strikes, social unrest in various parts of the world. The Editor of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer posed as a medium for an experiment not long ago. With practicably no training he got 85% accuracy in his cold readings. That says it all. The future can not be predicted, even by a god. All prophesy, in all the ages has only been judged accurate after the fact, or event. Never before the event.

Jack the Bodiless

Every single "prophet" who has ever made such a claim in the past (before the Diaspora) has been proved wrong.

And, if THIS version of "Israel" IS now destined to survive indefinitely: THIS time it was NOT prophesied.
Now, we both know that this claim is entirely false.

We both know that Israel did not exist for 2000 years.

And so does everyone else here.

...So why do you bother to post this nonsense?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: All Bible prophecies are disputable. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have failed to convince the majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be far less disputable than any Bible prophecy. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies because that would mean that God needlessly creates doubt and confusion.

One thing is for certain: If a God inspired the Bible, there are not any doubts whatsover that he would be able to convince more people to love him and to accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will. It would certainly not have been unfair for Jesus to accurately predict what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, which would surely have caused more people to become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Since Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot get away with claiming that he did not want to use prophecy to try influence people in future generations.

arnoldo

How is it racism?

Johnny Skeptic

It isn't really racism since the God of the Bible does not exist.

Why did God choose the Jews to be his chosen people?

All Bible prophecies are disputable. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have failed to convince the majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be far less disputable than any Bible prophecy. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies because that would mean that God needlessly creates doubt and confusion.

One thing is for certain: If a God inspired the Bible, there are not any doubts whatsover that he would be able to convince more people to love him and to accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will. It would certainly not have been unfair for Jesus to accurately predict what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, which would surely have caused more people to become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Since Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot get away with claiming that he did not want to use prophecy to try influence people in future generations.

arnoldo

Thanks for stating it's not racism. As far as your question read Genesis, Abram lived in the land of Ur and God chose him to be the father of many nations.