Ruy Lopez

St. Robert:
Religious historians are on target when they say fundamentalists are anti-historical.

Ezekiel was with the first batch of educated Jews exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE, 10 years before the destruction of the city in 587. He started writing in Babylon predicting ultimate leveling of the city which is not too difficult to guess since Jerusalem was already taken but still making trouble.

So-called prophecies of restoration including the dry dones scene REFER TO POST-EXILIC Israel, around 530 BCE and not 1948, 2002 CE. The book of Ezekiel was not written in one sitting. Parts of it were written when talk of restoration was in the air and certainly was edited after the exile to appear "prophetic". The Jewish canon was fixed and finally edited around 90BCE.

An earlier post is correct; there is not a single valid prophecy in the OT or NT. Events were either apparent to an astute observer or were written after the fact "to fit the foot".
but if you can find one valid prophecy, please post and we will consider.

Radcliffe Emerson

And why was Israel re-established in '48? Because everyone buys into this supernatural nonsense, causing them to hate the Jews for their religious beliefs.
It's man that is pushing these so called prophecies, not a supernatural deity. And if the world does ever end, it's going to be man causing it.
We know the sun will burn out in several billion years. I suppose the "end-times" prophecy will be fulfilled then....

Methodissed

I suspect that we'll successfully extinguish ourselves long before then . (Another self-fulfiling prophesy.) Of course as that day approaches, the religious folks will start singing "I told you so." If humanity does survive long enough to witness the enlarging of the sun to become a red giant, the religious nuts of the day would simply believe that revelations is finally coming true.

The bible is blantantly wrong with respect to the timing of armageddon, and as discussed in recent posts, offers no specific insight into the future. It amazes me how people can be so certain about these "truths."

jenn

Hello all,
I have to step in and tell my opinion! Every generation(since the Bible)has thought the end is near.I think we will kill each other before Christ has time to come back.I have called myself a Christian since I was a little girl. Now that I am an adult, I have no idea "what" I am . I wish I could hook up with some of you and IM for a while and get into some serious STUFF... <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Godless Dave

My email address is in my profile. Go ahead!

And you might want to check out <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=55&t=000020" target="_blank">this thread</a> or the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">Welcome Forum</a>.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

St. Robert

How about this for a prediction?

Someday, the skeptic and I will both die.

If biblical prophecy is nonsense, then I was a fool for believing it. However, if biblical prophecy is perfectly accurate, then the skeptic was a fool for not believing it.

The laws of logic don't allow us to both be right. I'm willing to risk being wrong. Is the skeptic?

Mageth

I predict that rehashing Pascal's Wager won't score you any points around here, St. Robert.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

CX

I use MSN Messenger and am online all day. Feel free to add me to your contact list if you use it. Jimi_Fosdick@hotmail.com

Skeptical

If there were much clearer evidence that even _some_ of the biblical "prophecies" were accurate, there would be a lot fewer "skeptics". You seem to think that someone can simply choose to believe something even though there is significant contrary evidence and/or complete lack of evidence for the position in question. (ala Pascal's wager)

In my personal experience, I find I cannot pervert my critical faculties in this fashion. Perhaps many people can, I believe many people cannot and to say that these people are fools who are "damned" for eternity is the height of archaic superstition. We might as well go back to bleeding people with leeches and reading sheep entrails.

Someone who doesn't believe something for which there is no evidence can hardly be called a fool, the most that could be said would be that despite a careful examination of the evidence, they were wrong. I would also not go so far as to say believers are "fools", although many of them certainly are ignorant. Most believers have simply not given the evidence a critical examination because it is simply easier and more comforting to believe its true and not question things. Instead of "fool" I would say "credulous" and "uncritical".

Methodissed

Nothing like a little fire and brimstone motivation to convert the masses, eh?

By being wrong, you risk nothing. Some day your life will end - that's it, end of story. You'll never know that your religious fantasies were false.

If Skeptic is wrong, let's see, the option would be eternal torture by your all-loving merciful diety. Assuming that you are a merciful person and had a pet that did not live up to your expectations, could you even consider condemning it to eternal suffering? As a merciful person (god), what would you do? Brief punishment, maybe. Put it to sleep, possibly. Eternal torture! Come on.

Skeptic is simply demonstating rational thought in the face of a bizarre and contradictory belief system without supporting evidence.