Johnny Skeptic

You only told part of the truth, which is the same as lying. All of my post #96 was on topic, you are afraid to reply to it, and hence you have left town just like I expected you to. Due to your bad arguments regarding the Babylon prophecy, which even most FUNDAMENTALIST Christians reject, I was quite surprised when you were willing to discuss it again. Quite frankly, I have felt like a fox in a chicken coop. I am willing to limit our discussions to my post #96.

I have debated you for years at the Theology Web, the Secular Web, and in private e-mail debates. It has been my experience that just when my arguments get the best, you leave town. You did quite poorly in your debates on the Tyre prophecy, and that is why you refuse to debate that issue anymore. You have been beaten again regarding the Babylon prophecy. I will next attack your arguments on the survival of the Jewish people. Since you will be leaving town again, I suggest that you pack your bags in advance in order to save you some time when you are ready to leave.

I caught you in another lie in one of my previous posts. I said:

You replied:

I replied:

lee_merrill

Well, he is a Muslim, and you might expect we would not agree on every point! And he did actually agree that the Bible may well be valid as it stands, so then you might be the one shading the truth here.

But you did promise to contact Wheaton College, and a Muslim who put up a web site, now what has become of that?

Let me know by PM if need be if one of them responds...

Blessings,
Lee <- Still bowed out

Johnny Skeptic

If he believed that the Bible may well be valid as it stands, then he would not want to overturn the Babylon prophecy, and that is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get you to understand. Muslims DO NOT want to discredit Old Testament prophets, but you have been claiming for many months that they do.

There is no need for a PM. When I get replies from Christians and Muslims, I will post them in this thread. I sent an e-mail to a Muslim web site two days ago. He has not replied to me yet. I plan to contact Wheaton College on Monday. I plan the get a number of testimonies from fundamentalist Christian scholars and Muslims. As I said in one of my posts, "What makes you an expert on anything? Do you know what the word 'consensus' means? Do you know what the word 'expert' means?" So far, all that we have it your word, and that does not count for very much. You need corroboration, but you never try to get any because you know that even the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians disagree with your absurd arguments. In my post #96, which you conveniently DID NOT reply to, and which WAS on topic, I quoted three Muslim web sites that clearly show that it IS NOT the intention of Muslims to try to discredit Old Testament prophets. You have not quoted one single Muslim who agrees with your arguments, and I have already quoted three Muslims who agree with my arguments. In addition, I quoted a Christian web site that disagrees with you. In your dishonesty, you immediately try to discredit any source that I quote, whether Christian or Muslim, while implying that people should accept your arguments based solely upon your say so. That is quite ridiculous. Who do you think you are? Your arguments are by no means authoritative. You have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. No competent debater would use such as approach. You are an amateur. No skeptic at this forum takes you seriously. The only reason that any skeptic bothers to debate you is to help prevent you from influencing gullible people. You know next to nothing about the Koran and Muslims, and yet you presume to speak for Muslims. How utterly absurd.

There is no way that professors at Wheaton College will agree with you. I have not found one single Bible commentary that comes anywhere close to what your arguments are, including one that is edited by noted fundamentalist Christian scholar F.F. Bruce. I post corroborative evidence. You post none. You lose.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Following is another Christian web site that disagrees with you:

http://www.zionministry.com/babylon.html

For hundreds of years church leaders have believed that Babylon would never arise again. In practical terms, there would seem to be no purpose in rebuilding it. It was a safe bet to conclude that it would never arise again - even though the Bible says otherwise. They felt that compromise was an option, and so they devised the own ‘symbolic’ Babylon.

An Anglican bishop, Alexander Hislop, went ever further in his book ‘The Two Babylons’, which was published in 1916. He proposed there were two Babylons, one of which, he claimed, was Rome and/or the Vatican. In support of his contentious opinions, he offered reams of symbolic ‘proof’. The problem was, his ‘proof’ included symbolism from many former civilizations, including Egypt. Yet he was unable to explain why Egypt didn’t also fulfill the symbolism of the Babylon, which he proposed as the alternative to the Babylon spoken of in the Bible.

Many teachers have come and gone who made the same claims. Herbert Armstrong believed Alexander Hislop and taught the same things. And contrary to all that the Bible says, Armstrong said one of the proofs of the Bible is that the City of Babylon would never be re-built. For thousands of years, the Bible has adamantly stated that Babylon would be rebuilt, and would be the seat of power for the despot of the world. For two millennia, the ruins have lain there as a testimony of things to come. It seemed beyond belief that anyone would spent the billions of dollars needed to restore this city. In practical terms, it would make sense to re-build it in a different location, but God’s instructions are specific! This city had to be re-built on its former site and the rulers of the heavenly realm had no option to vary God’s instructions.

Johnny: I have now quoted two Christian web sites and three Muslim web sites that disagree with you. How many more would you like, or will you attempt to discredit all of my sources and encourage readers to consider you own uncorroborated arguments to be authoritative? You have not quoted any sources at all. Why is that?

I correspond from time to time with noted skeptic Bible scholar Dr. Robert Price. I sent him my nature of God argument and your claim that I was off-topic. Following is Dr. Price's reply:

Great to hear from you!

I fear your too-conventional dialogue partner does not get it. You are not retreating to tangential issues. You are trying to show him how the prediction issue is the side issue. Suppose there were an infallible God of clairvoyancy? So what? What does this have to do with character? And if the rest of the Bible or of one's theology makes God a monster, then who cares if he lets his favorites in on the future, as the Babylonians said Marduk did their king?

The Buddha was right: even if there are gods who grant blessings, answer prayers, and work miracles, it does not follow that they have a thing to do with liberation--or even know what it is!

Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamazov was right, too: one cannot merely swallow one's moral objections to God's apparent behavior (abandoning innocent children to suffering) in order to worship him and gain passage to heaven. For then one will be his accomplice.

Keep up the good work!

Bob

lee_merrill

This Muslim didn't! But if the Bible is true as it stands, then Islam is false.

But I am going to move on to other threads, so let me know if I don't see your post.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

But the Muslim is still a Muslim, and I do not trust your comments regarding what his beliefs about Old Testament prophets are. If you contact him again, we can clear up this matter, but readers can rest assured that you will come up with some excuse why you can't. Regardless, one Muslim does not make an argument, and in your case, one Christian, meaning you, does not make an argument. I quoted three Muslim web sites that disagree with you, and I will find a lot more. In addition, I quoted two Christian web sites that disagree with you. Further, I have not found one single Bible commentary that agrees with you. Oh, I forgot, corroboration and consensus mean nothing at all to you, only your own non-authoritative personal opinions.

All right.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: I just realized that it is up to you to conduct the necessary research about what Muslims believe, not me. You are the original claimant. Your position from the start in the old thread on the Babylon prophecy, and your position now, is that 1) Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible, and that 2) Muslims are duty bound by the Koran to discredit the Babylon prophecy. You have not provided any credible corroborative evidence that your claims are true. I will not conduct your research for you. I have already quoted three Muslim web sites that disagree with you, and two Christian web sites that disagree with you. I have not found one single Bible commentary that agrees with you. You criticize my sources, whether Christian or Muslim, but you offer no sources of your own. I post corroborative research from Christian and Muslim web sites. You post none, obviously because you can't find any. You lose.

Helpmabob

Hi Johnny Skeptic - This is what man would do, and no more, having satisfied the requirement that lawbreakers should be punished. But God sent Jesus in an act of love beyond measure.Unless it turns out He exists?Who are you asking? Man-to-man that is a very fair question, no argument. But man-to-God it might be meaningless.Generally, it seems to me that you have plenty of questions unanswered, but then so have we all. Maybe you decide that this implies some sort of dishonesty, evasion or inadequacy on the part of God. I attribute it to the majesty, mystery and might of God.

Johnny, I know you have many, but see if you can choose: what is your single most convincing reason for not believing in God?

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn’t matter. I am not able to will myself to to endorse eternal punishment without parole. In your opinion, what would be the most unmerciful act possible?

That would not make any difference. As I just said, “I will not and cannot accept a God who refuses to eventually offer skeptics a parole”.

Same as before.

Same as before.
What do you mean by “believing in God”. If you mean believing that the exists, my arguments would be the same even if I believed that the exists. If you mean the single most convincing reason that I reject the God of Bible assuming that he exists, my reason is that he endorses eternal punishment without parole.

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.”

I will not, and cannot, accept any being who endorses eternal punishment without parole. In other words, it is impossible for me will myself to accept any being who endorses eternal punishment without parole. In order for me to endorse eternal punishment without parole, I would have to abandon my principles and morals. This I will not do, and cannot do.

To what extent will you abandon your principles and morals based upon promised rewards and threats?

lee_merrill

So now you will do no more searching, apparently, which is fine! It is also fine if you conclude Muslims believe the Bible is all valid and true (but they don't, with this one exceptional Muslim I came across) or if you believe they don't try and disprove the beliefs of Christians, including the belief that the Bible is infallible (they do).

Nor am I actually refuted, nor will I will not be very convinced if you abandon addressing the actual points made in my argument.

Regards,
Lee