Chili

. . . it just 'is' the eternal city because God is there and chose us to be his favorite NT people.

Rome itself will not burn but will be the antichrist in the final end just as Peter was called satan by Jesus. Remember? . . .and will be called antichrist time and time again and in fact every time when 'another one' goes to heaven . . . wherefore heaven is for Catholics only who will be ex-Catholic when they get there.

Our God is great indeed and actually wants your heart unless you prefer to gnaw at it yourself. :thumbs:

Oh, and please note that Jusaism is still around even if Peter was called satan by the one they crucified.

Johnny Skeptic

Based upon what evidence?

Based upon what evidence?

Oh, and please note that even though humans have been around for many thousands of years, the Devil is still alive and well, as are sickness, wars, natural disasters etc. In addition, please note that since the founding of Christianity, the vast majority of Jews have always rejected Christianity. Further, there is not any evidence at all that God chose Abraham. Even if God did choose Abraham and promised him all of the land of Canaan, he lied. Canaan is all of the land that is west of the Jordan River. The modern nation of Israel does not occupy all of the land that is west of the Jordan River, there is not any evidence at all that Abraham and his people occupied all of the land that is west of the Jordan river, and there is not any evidence at all that Jews have ever occupied all of the land that is west of the Jordan river.

This thread has been around for months. What you quoted from one of my posts is not an important part of the many arguments that I have posted for months. I suggest that discuss the major aspects of the Babylon prophecy, not the minor aspect that you discussed.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Then we must conclude that if an argument comes with no corroboration, it is therefore incorrect to point that out?

Well, it does seem you object to this! I agree, and therefore to quote a source that has no corroboration is not a very weighty argument, so let's not just quote web pages at random.

Yes indeed, let's do that, and not fuss about what will happen if the skeptics win, or if the theists win. That is not a major aspect of the prophecy...

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

You seem to do it all the time.

Are you planning on kicking that bad habit, lee?

Johnny Skeptic

[quote=LeeMerrill] And that these other web pages didn't seem to know of this. It seems this claim is overstated, I think it may be wrong.

Johnny: This is quite amusing. It is an argument from silence.[/quote[

What about your uncorroborated claim that Arabs have never pitched their tents in Babylon? My Christian source said that Arabs have pitched their tents in Babylon for many centuries, but since you are the claimant, I do not actually need that source.

What about your uncorroborated claim that skeptics and Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon or having Arabs pitch their tents there? The only way that your assertion could be true would be that if either or both attempts were successful, the Christian Church would become much smaller, and ever more importantly to Muslims, that the U.S. would adopt a favorable foreign policy towards Muslims. Can you provide such corroboration? Of course you can't. You can't even produce SEVERAL Christians who would give up Christianity if either or both attempts were successful, but I could easily produce 100 FUNDAMENTALIST Christians who WOULD NOT give up Christianity if either or both attempts were successful. And of course, it is a given that you will refuse to contact the U.S. State Department regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Muslims. As I said, making uncorroborated assertions is your modus operandi. It is quite amusing that you continue to embarrass yourself with arguments that do not appeal even to the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, most likely 99.9999999% of them, of course, not including you and Josh McDowell. You are indeed a specialist in adopting minority, completely uncorrobated positions that are minority positions even within the Christian Church.

Fine. Then stop claiming that Arabs have never pitched their tents in Babylon.

Yes indeed, we skeptics are still waiting for you to produce corroboration for ANY of your assertions. How about it, Lee?

Chili

Because Rome is the womb of God here upon earth just as Nazareth was the womb of God in Galilee. It just means that we have a theotokos on board who bears God's own people that will be crucified by the pharisees at no charge. In Christendom these pharisees are the purgatorians (read Galileans)who have been reborn from below from where they nourish God's favorite to life in the desert with wild honey and locust -- which are the very bible passages they flaunt, albeit, unknowingly, towards their own perdition.

I could add here that that is how the wolf nourishes the lamb [of God] and you must have seen some artistic expressions of that.
Because the very religion that give birth to the son of man must eat its own placenta to keep the place tidy and clean.He's is us as the first Adam, fallen angels that we are, but redeemable nonetheless or we could not become Christian at heart.

This was my first glance at this tread wherein I learned that you also hate Catholics and I just wanted to say hello to you.

gtg thanks.

Johnny Skeptic

I predict that Lee Merrill will soon vacate this thread, if he hasn't done so already.

noah

Chili,

You said I'm not sure I understand why (some) Christians say we are fallen angels. Who says we have fallen? Who says we are angels? On what basis do you make this claim? Was Adam an angel? He was human was he not? I thought we were descended from him.

Best,

Noah

Johnny Skeptic

[quote=Noah] Chili, you said

Quote:

"Fallen angels that we are,

I'm not sure I understand why (some) Christians say we are fallen angels. Who says we have fallen? Who says we are angels? On what basis do you make this claim? Was Adam an angel? He was human was he not? I thought we were descended from him."

Hi Noah,

I noticed that you are a new user. Welcome to this forum. You need to be aware that Chili is a quite strange person. His viewer profile says "Catholics are God's favorite people," but yet he said in a recent post that he is not a Christian. After I asked him lots of questions, he finally admitted that he makes posts solely for entertainment purposes and is not trying to convince anyone of anything, and believe it or not he said that that includes his family, friends and acquaintances. It often appears that he is defending the Bible, but he isn't really doing that. He claims that all religions, including Christianity, are myths. So, you are wasting your time replying to Chili's posts. If you are not yet convinced of this, just keep replying to his posts and see for yourself. All that he wants is someone to talk to.

You will also find that Lee Merrill is a quite strange person. He is a fundamentalist Christian, but his views on the Babylon prophecy are not even endorsed by 1% of fundamentalist Christians. In fact, even though I have asked him on a number of occasions to produce the names and e-mail addresses of just a few Christians who agree with him, he has continued to refuse to do so, although I have offered to produces the names and e-mail address of lot of skeptics who agree with me. Lee's modus operandi is the less corroboration from expert sources, even from expert Christian sources, the better. After all, too many expert sources spoil the broth of deception.

noah

Hi Johnny,

Nice to make your aquaintance. Thank you for your welcome. Thank you also for the heads up about Chili.
I am quite familiar with Lee. He and I had many exchanges over in the Tyre prophecy thread.
I stopped posting in that thread when I started building my website. By the way I link to you there. I am an admirer of yours. I haven't read your essay lately, but last time I did it was worth the read.
I believe there's two ways to go when debating theological issues with Christians. One is verse for verse holding them accountable for various inconsistencies and hypocrisies. The other is the way you do it. That is through a powerful marshalling of the facts both historical and archaeological.
Conceptual arguments about the existence of God , evil (and the purpose of) suffering and related ontological/existential issues are fruitless in my estimation.
If there is a God, we cannot comprehend his, her or their will. Any entity (ies)capable of creating the universe is (or are), in my opinion, far beyond our limited references to comprehend. Suffering, the presence of evil, I believe are understood only by God (if there is one) and are commensurate with God in purpose and complexity .

Best,

Noah