The Bible - Why Trust It

[Subduction Zone]

Again, these are pictures of the historical temple and preserved ruins and not the city of Tyre as referenced.

Yes, but don't you love the modern buildings in the background.

EDIT: I see that you are raising the same points that I have been, such as the etymology of Tyre. But then old failed arguments tend to get the same rebuttals.

 

[nPeace]

Was the prophecy of Ezekiel 26 accurately fulfilled... according to the Bible, and not according to unbelievers wrong, and mistaken views about what the prophecy should look like?
What the Bible says.
(Ezekiel 26:3) . . .Here I am against you, O Tyre. . .
(Ezekiel 26:4) . . .They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down her towers. . .
(Ezekiel 26:13, 14) 13 “‘I will put an end to the noise of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more. 14 And I will make you a shining, bare rock, and you will become a drying yard for dragnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I myself, Jehovah, have spoken,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.

According to the Bible, the prophecy concerns Tyre... not any city.

What history tells us.
Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centres: Tyre itself, which was on an island just off shore, and the associated settlement of Ushu on the adjacent mainland, later called Palaetyrus, meaning "Old Tyre" in Ancient Greek.

Ushu (in the Amarna Letters Usu) was an ancient mainland city that supplied the city of Tyre with water, supplies and burial grounds.

Tyre, modern Arabic Ṣūr, French Tyr or Sour, Latin Tyrus, Hebrew Zor or Tsor, town on the Mediterranean coast of southern Lebanon, located 12 miles (19 km) north of the modern border with Israel and 25 miles (40 km) south of Sidon (modern Ṣaydā). It was [No longer is] a major Phoenician seaport from about 2000 BCE through the Roman period.

Main road through the ruins of ancient Tyre.

Sor in Phoenician, meaning the rock.
(Ezekiel 26:14) . . .I will make you a shining, bare rock, and you will become a drying yard for dragnets.. . .

Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia
The present city of Tyre covers a large [sorry small - See picture below] part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway built by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. This isthmus increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island not covered by the modern city of Tyre is mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times.

Spoiler: Massive Amount of Ruins

What we see here is new city, built on a piece of the land (which the sea is actually swallowing up) where the ancient city of Tyre lies in ruins. Tyre was not rebuilt. The prophecy focused on Tyre itself, not a new area, or new buildings of little significance.
That's what the evidence shows. Those are the facts.

People who want to ignore those facts, can feel free to continue to do so, just as they continue to hold to their mistaken view about the passage of scripture that mentions Nebuchadnezzar.
Prophecy does not depend on what unbeliever choose to believe.
They already deny all evidence against their beliefs... so nothing new.

They make the same mistake with the prophecy at Daniel 9:24-27, which is another detailed prophecy, that was fulfilled accurately.
Contrary to mistaken beliefs, it is quite evident that this prophecy clearly identifies the Messiah. and we can trace it's history accurately.
It is fulfilled prophecy.
Therefore, strong evidence of the Bible's authenticity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was the prophecy of Ezekiel 26 accurately fulfilled... according to the Bible, and not according to unbelievers wrong, and mistaken views about what the prophecy should look like?
What the Bible says.
(Ezekiel 26:3) . . .Here I am against you, O Tyre. . .
(Ezekiel 26:4) . . .They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down her towers. . .
(Ezekiel 26:13, 14) 13 “‘I will put an end to the noise of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more. 14 And I will make you a shining, bare rock, and you will become a drying yard for dragnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I myself, Jehovah, have spoken,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.

According to the Bible, the prophecy concerns Tyre... not any city.

What history tells us.
Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centres: Tyre itself, which was on an island just off shore, and the associated settlement of Ushu on the adjacent mainland, later called Palaetyrus, meaning "Old Tyre" in Ancient Greek.

Ushu (in the Amarna Letters Usu) was an ancient mainland city that supplied the city of Tyre with water, supplies and burial grounds.

Tyre, modern Arabic Ṣūr, French Tyr or Sour, Latin Tyrus, Hebrew Zor or Tsor, town on the Mediterranean coast of southern Lebanon, located 12 miles (19 km) north of the modern border with Israel and 25 miles (40 km) south of Sidon (modern Ṣaydā). It was [No longer is] a major Phoenician seaport from about 2000 BCE through the Roman period.

Main road through the ruins of ancient Tyre.

Sor in Phoenician, meaning the rock.
(Ezekiel 26:14) . . .I will make you a shining, bare rock, and you will become a drying yard for dragnets.. . .

Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia
The present city of Tyre covers a large [sorry small - See picture below] part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway built by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. This isthmus increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island not covered by the modern city of Tyre is mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times.

Spoiler: Massive Amount of Ruins

What we see here is new city, built on a piece of the land (which the sea is actually swallowing up) where the ancient city of Tyre lies in ruins. Tyre was not rebuilt. The prophecy focused on Tyre itself, not a new area, or new buildings of little significance.
That's what the evidence shows. Those are the facts.

People who want to ignore those facts, can feel free to continue to do so, just as they continue to hold to their mistaken view about the passage of scripture that mentions Nebuchadnezzar.
Prophecy does not depend on what unbeliever choose to believe.
They already deny all evidence against their beliefs... so nothing new.

They make the same mistake with the prophecy at Daniel 9:24-27, which is another detailed prophecy, that was fulfilled accurately.
Contrary to mistaken beliefs, it is quite evident that this prophecy is a clearly identifies the Messiah. and we can trace it's history accurately.
It is fulfilled prophecy.
Therefore, strong evidence of the Bible's authenticity.

One has to love how his own sources refute each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@nPeace , one question:

Why do you always rely on massive amounts of "green ink" when you have lost? It is almost as if you think that yelling helps your argument.

 

[nPeace]

Since you did not read the post, we have nothing to talk about. Are you color blind, by chance?

 

[Nimos]

If it's an unguided process, then please help me understand the connection between "it was not meant to be" and "it's an unguided process"

If we are talking love between two people, we don't choose that we love that person over another person. But love is not written in stone, it can change as well, as we as humans changes our personality throughout the years, get to know each other better and so forth. But just as with us not choosing who we love, we don't choose what causes us to no longer love someone. Which makes it an unguided process.

You can't question God's morals, or anyone else's for that matter. You believe right and wrong is decided by individuals, remember.

Sure, I can. Especially when it is subjective, as I can look at what I find to be morally right or wrong and compare that with other peoples moral standards. I can use my own criteria to decide whether I find my own better or worse than someone else.

What it does not mean, is that just because I think they are better that they also are. That is why we change our moral standards over time.

So if I think it is morally right to hit babies that cry, because I believe it will be good for them in the long run or something. Surely anyone else, could question and argue against such statement and why it would be morally wrong.

And if I were reasonable and listen to their argument, I would agree with them. It doesn't however mean that it is morally wrong objectively. But when we are living in societies as we do, we tend to work out moral standards as a group rather than individually. Which is why people shares these ideas and might disagree with how certain things are done in other societies.

So basically, you have closed your mind to any notion of the supernatural. Is that what we know to be close-mindedness? That's not a good thing, is it.
I pointed that out earlier, where the detective, admitted that was what prevented him from investigating.

It have nothing to do with being close minded, rather it makes a lot of sense.

Look back in time before science really exploded, where lots of things that couldn't be explained by a natural cause, were done so by the means of the supernatural. If people were to accept such explanations there would be no progress at all.

Imagine going to the doctor and you telling him that you have a headache. As a reply he say that it could be due to high blood pressure, but on the other side, you might be possessed by a demon and therefore have better chances seeking out an exorcist instead, he is not really sure.

By approaching things from a natural perspective and within its limitation and demanding that these requires evidence, we can remove or limit the amount of wrong ideas and guesses. Which is why it makes perfect sense to do so.

And I bet, that the detective you are referring to, only hold this belief when it comes to investigating the bible and Jesus and not his professional career, as he would be fired almost instantly, were he to start investigating crime scenes with the supernatural being equal explanations as to that of natural explanations.

That does not mean that supernatural things does not exists, but to not accept it as reasonable explanation, does not make one close minded, but sceptical, which is a good thing.

 

[nPeace]

If we are talking love between two people, we don't choose that we love that person over another person. But love is not written in stone, it can change as well, as we as humans changes our personality throughout the years, get to know each other better and so forth. But just as with us not choosing who we love, we don't choose what causes us to no longer love someone. Which makes it an unguided process.

Of course, when you say love, I don't know what you mean, other than it's subjective to you, and the person next to you, and so on.
I don't believe in that view of love. Love, according to the Bible, is a perfect bond of union. It doesn't look for its own interest... among other things. It is an aspect of the fruit (what is produced) of God's spirit.
That's the love I know about, and understand.
So if a person really has love, for another, they never grow out of love. What happens, is that selfishness - which is in opposition to love, move one or both persons to act contrary to what bonds friendships, or relationships. For example, in a marriage, there may be unfaithfulness, and so on.
These are not random processes, but based on a person's ability to make choices.
A choice, is a mental process - not a random process.

Sure, I can. Especially when it is subjective, as I can look at what I find to be morally right or wrong and compare that with other peoples moral standards. I can use my own criteria to decide whether I find my own better or worse than someone else.

Sure you can, but its irrelevant. In other words, "Who cares." Not meaning that in a bad way, but really, people would view that as your viewpoint... nothing more.
For Christians, there is objective morality. We believe that's why many people have similar views on right and wrong, when it comes to deliberate, willful, murder, for example.
Animals don't care about that.
So, it is not subjective, or a random process of nature.

What it does not mean, is that just because I think they are better that they also are. That is why we change our moral standards over time.

So if I think it is morally right to hit babies that cry, because I believe it will be good for them in the long run or something. Surely anyone else, could question and argue against such statement and why it would be morally wrong.

And if I were reasonable and listen to their argument, I would agree with them. It doesn't however mean that it is morally wrong objectively. But when we are living in societies as we do, we tend to work out moral standards as a group rather than individually. Which is why people shares these ideas and might disagree with how certain things are done in other societies.

I agree, that it can be difficult working out what is right, or wrong... very difficult, in fact.
That is why I like the illustration some use, to show how that problem is solved.
A person who designs a complex object, reasonably concludes that not everyone would know how to use it properly, and take care of it well, so as to benefit from it's maximum "lifetime". So he creates a booklet of instructions - a manual - that the youngest user, can follow, and apply.
Likewise, the creator of life, knows that humans are complex. Our brain is referred to as, "the most complex organ in the universe". However, our designer knows that life itself is complex. Hence, having vast superior wisdom, he created a manual of instructions, to guide us to live long, meaningful, and peaceful lives.

Some may object, and say the manual is confusing, yet why don't millions think it is? If it were, everyone would agree.
We have to appreciate that with any booklet of instructions, there exist people who think they know better, and would prefer to follow their own knowledge and understanding, rather than read "some book"
Some people don't even like reading.

It have nothing to do with being close minded, rather it makes a lot of sense.

Look back in time before science really exploded, where lots of things that couldn't be explained by a natural cause, were done so by the means of the supernatural. If people were to accept such explanations there would be no progress at all.

I don't think it is fair to use superstitious people, or superstition, as an example, to contrast science with belief. Much of science is still belief, and despite science, there is still a lot - I mean A LOT (not shouting ) of superstitious people, and beliefs.
So, I don't see how that is a good example.

There are people who believe in the supernatural to this day, and they don't find it conflicts with modern science.
For example...
Over three thousand yeas before modern science, believers in the supernatural, knew of medicine, hygiene, and other scientific knowledge, only now being discovered.
There are many. You probably heard this one, many times. While many though the earth must have been supported on something, those who believe in the God of Abraham, knew that the earth was suspended on nothing.
Precipitation was a known fact... over thirty centuries.

Imagine going to the doctor and you telling him that you have a headache. As a reply he say that it could be due to high blood pressure, but on the other side, you might be possessed by a demon and therefore have better chances seeking out an exorcist instead, he is not really sure.

Imaging hearing a scientist tell you, "We don't see it happen, but it could happen. There is no reason to think it couldn't happen."
Both are making assumptions, without having facts.
However, we could test the supernatural hypothesis.
Say, someone complains about demonic possession. They described these events (there are many, which I won't get into).
Say...
1) there are witnesses, who confirm that these events are true.
2) a person recommends studying the Bible, and removing, and destroying anything associated with divination (witchcraft, voodoo, etc.)
See Acts 19:11-20
3) time and time again, these persons, after a period of time, no longer experience these events, and this too is witnessed.

Have we done a fair test, would you say? How do you explain this with naturalism?
Along with that, what do you consider to be a natural explanation for this...


free image hosting

free image hosting

free image hosting
I can get my images to show now.
Each one of these pieces (sorry I didn't put all the pieces. I didn't realize they were so large, before uploading)) is held be eleven people, in eleven different countries around the world.
These persons, have never met, but they are all craftsmen, and they made each crafted piece, without an image (template), but from the mind, from scratch.

Collecting these pieces, and combining them, produces this result.

free image hosting
What natural explanation do you suggest?

By approaching things from a natural perspective and within its limitation and demanding that these requires evidence, we can remove or limit the amount of wrong ideas and guesses. Which is why it makes perfect sense to do so.

And I bet, that the detective you are referring to, only hold this belief when it comes to investigating the bible and Jesus and not his professional career, as he would be fired almost instantly, were he to start investigating crime scenes with the supernatural being equal explanations as to that of natural explanations.

That does not mean that supernatural things does not exists, but to not accept it as reasonable explanation, does not make one close minded, but sceptical, which is a good thing.

So the detectives that have investigated paranormal activity, and the psychics have all been fired, and are now working at Hollywood? No Nimos.

Anything can be investigated without taking a closed minded approach, by starting with a presumption, that what we don't understand is supernatural.
That has changed in the minds of many scientists.

 

[halbhh]

Part 1 - Historically Accurate

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Skeptics have attacked the Biblical record using the argument from silence. The fact that for many Biblical characters, there is no mention of them outside of the Biblical record in the findings of archeology or ancient inscriptions or manuscripts, calls their historicity into question.

The argument goes that if such people really lived, one would expect to find some trace of them outside of sacred writings.

Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible


Add one more to the list.
Tattenai, also called Sisinnes, (flourished c. 6th–5th century BCE), Persian governor of the province west of the Euphrates River (eber nāri, “beyond the river”) during the reign of Darius I (522–486 BCE).
According to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) Book of Ezra, Tattenai led an investigation into the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem about 519 BCE. He sent a report to Darius, who responded with instructions to allow the work to proceed. Tattenai is one of the few Persian officials mentioned in the Hebrew Bible for whom there is independent attestation; he is mentioned in a cuneiform tablet dated 502 BCE.

Tattenai
Tattenai (or Tatnai or Sisinnes) was a Biblical character and a Persian governor of the province west of the Euphrates River during the time of Zerubbabel and the reign of Darius I.

He is best known for questioning King Darius in regard to the rebuilding of a temple for the Lord, God of Israel. He was generally friendly to the Jews.The rebuilding was being led by Jeshua, son of Jozadak, and Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, and had been issued by King Cyrus I. Tattenai wrote a letter to King Darius to ask of these statements were true, and then King Darius wrote a letter confirming that the statements were true. In the letter, Darius asked that the people do everything they can to support this rebuilding financially, and that they do nothing to impede it lest they suffer harsh punishment.

Babylonian Cuneiform inscriptions
A number of cuneiform tablets bearing the name Tattenai have survived as part of what may have been a family archive. The tablet that links one member of this family to the Bible character is a promissory note dated to the 20th year of Darius I, 502 BC. It identifies a witness to the transaction as a servant of “Tattannu, governor of Across-the-River”. The clay tablet can be dated to June 5, 502 B.C. exactly.

Name
The Name Tattenai (ושתני), probably derived from the Persian name Ustanu, a word found in Zoroastrian scriptures to mean "teaching" though to the Hebrews it was indistinguishable from an expression of the verb נתן natan, meaning "to give". In 1 Esdras he is called Sisinnes.

Biblical texts
Ezra 1:1-4; 4:4-16; 5:3-7.

Tattenai meaning

Argument from silence DEBUNKED
CONFIRMED : The Bible - Historically Accurate

Well, that a book is historically accurate would not necessarily be that big a deal to many.

Suppose one figures out better what is historical and what is parable....

Ok, would that even matter, really?

For those that don't believe, actually those question are red herrings.

Distractions from what matters.

For a believer, the ultimate aid to us from scripture is to help you find what is the most important thing -- to reconcile you with God, so that you can have Life here and later.

But for a non-believer, the at-first potential value in scripture would be IF the instructions on how to life life it says to put into practice actually work well!

In real life.

And that, my friends (on both sides), is testable.

You can try and then find out what happens, putting the ideas into actual testing situations.

Here are 2 prominent ones from Christ, the Teacher:

1) Love your neighbor as yourself
(meaning not only a select couple of friends, but, radically, the people nearby, around you, day to day, even next door(!)....)
This is testable -- you can try it and find out what happens. (it does have to be actual love though, not merely politeness!)

2) Forgive not just a few times, not only minor things, but instead forgive more than a few times, and forgive totally, from the heart, and even when they haven't earned it(!)....
Again, radical in some ways....and totally testable.
You can with effort, actually forgive someone for which you hold a long time grudge or anger, and even in an full way (it could take some techniques at times!), and...

then find out what happens.

 

[Nimos]

Sure you can, but its irrelevant. In other words, "Who cares." Not meaning that in a bad way, but really, people would view that as your viewpoint... nothing more.
For Christians, there is objective morality. We believe that's why many people have similar views on right and wrong, when it comes to deliberate, willful, murder, for example.
Animals don't care about that.
So, it is not subjective, or a random process of nature.

So when Christians thought that burning people for being witches were a good idea. If we're talking about objective morality, clearly they and us today must see that it was the moral right thing to do. How come the earlier Christians did not perceive that as morally wrong when we do? Why did that change if we are talking about objective morality?

A person who designs a complex object, reasonably concludes that not everyone would know how to use it properly, and take care of it well, so as to benefit from it's maximum "lifetime". So he creates a booklet of instructions - a manual - that the youngest user, can follow, and apply.

But that makes little sense, if the manual contains immoral teachings.

Like a rape victim having to marry the person that raped her. Which one can only assume is because a girl at that time, that was not considered "pure" before married were useless in their eyes, so forcing the rapist to marry her solved that issue. Clearly you don't find that to be morally right do you?

And again as above, when these instructions that even the youngest user can follow as you claim, obviously get misunderstood and end up killing innocent people. Like the burning of witches. Clearly the instructions are not well written if they are so easily misunderstood.

Some may object, and say the manual is confusing, yet why don't millions think it is? If it were, everyone would agree.
We have to appreciate that with any booklet of instructions, there exist people who think they know better, and would prefer to follow their own knowledge and understanding, rather than read "some book"
Some people don't even like reading.

But that is the whole issue.

Clearly it is not easily understood as people disagree about what it is saying.

Im fairly sure that the above example from the law about the rape victim, instructed by God to be good. Is ignored by most believers, because it doesn't fit into their view of what God ought to be.

So either they make an excuse that it is no longer relevant, that this were only for the jews, that it was required or whatever they can come up with to not having to deal with the fact, that regardless of which excuse they use, that in the end, it was said by God and he thought that it was good.

Clearly anyone ought to be able to come up with a better solution for something like that, especially if they consider themself to be at the very top when it comes to moral standards.

So if one were to follow what you are saying, that "there exist people who think they know better, and would prefer to follow their own knowledge and understanding" that clearly all Christians should stop making excuses for what God claim to be good in the OT and work towards having these laws added again, if they truly believe that they are good.

Or as a bare minimum explain how a law like that, is morally good?

Imaging hearing a scientist tell you, "We don't see it happen, but it could happen. There is no reason to think it couldn't happen."
Both are making assumptions, without having facts.

Yes and that would be considered nothing but an idea. Which means that no one is going to take it especially serious as there is nothing to go on.

However, we could test the supernatural hypothesis.
Say, someone complains about demonic possession. They described these events (there are many, which I won't get into).
Say...
1) there are witnesses, who confirm that these events are true.
2) a person recommends studying the Bible, and removing, and destroying anything associated with divination (witchcraft, voodoo, etc.)
See Acts 19:11-20
3) time and time again, these persons, after a period of time, no longer experience these events, and this too is witnessed.

Have we done a fair test, would you say?

No, it would be a terrible test.

First of all we are dealing with a person's claim that they are possessed. What does that even mean? We don't even know what this person is supposed to be possessed by, are you talking about a demon, a spirit or what? In either case, we have no clue what either of these are suppose to be or look like. And have absolutely no way of testing for them.

1) there are witnesses, who confirm that these events are true.
What would make you think that these witnesses know what they are looking at? Again how would they know what a demon or spirit is? That is why in science, things are tested from an as neutral point of view as possible and you rarely see, if ever. Any scientific papers solely based on witness accounts, because they are not considered good evidence.

2) a person recommends studying the Bible, and removing, and destroying anything associated with divination (witchcraft, voodoo, etc.)
See Acts 19:11-20
3) time and time again, these persons, after a period of time, no longer experience these events, and this too is witnessed.
So how would you exclude that this is not just a psychological reaction in the brain? There are countless of examples of people believing they can do things, because they have convinced themselves that it is true. Sort of like the placebo effect? How would you show that it was truly the removal of a demon or spirit, rather an psychological issue?

How do you explain this with naturalism?

Again based on our knowledge of people believing all kinds of things, and that the brain is easily tricked and confused. The most natural explanation is that our brain is capable of convincing itself of these things.

If you look at this image, it is very easy to confuse the brain into seeing slightly tilted lines, even though we know that they are straight. Which illustrate how easy it is confuse the brain, when we are talking about visual inputs. So how would it not be more likely that the brain could get confused by other things, compared to having to jump to ideas of demons and spirits. The reason being that we know that the brain is easily confused, which is why when we talk about science, we prefer to rely on data rather than what people think. In cases of historical sciences, also one of the reasons multiple and independent sources are prefer, rather than people just guessing what they think might be right or not.

 

[Muffled]

If you had the "true facts" you could support your claims. An inability to do so confirms my claim. What evidence do you have for your claims and beliefs? That is not an unreasonable question.

Fulfilled prophecy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fulfilled prophecy.

The problem is that there are no proper "fulfilled prophecies" in the Bible. There are endless failed prophecies. Before you start first you need some standards of what you count as a prophecy and its fulfillment. Also if you cannot admit that there are failed prophecies then you lose right from the start since no one can honestly make that claim. There are failed prophecies in the Bible. We just got done with that where @nPeace failed in his quest to support the Tyre prophecy.

 

[Muffled]

You do know there are many first hand accounts of
mermaids, alien abduction, Bigfoot etc.
Fiction? Delusion? There are lots of possibilities.
Fundys usually go for binary thinking, black n white,
good n evil, true or false, lies or delusion.

The world ain’t that simple!

In today’’s world some people have learned that its
a credulous naïf to just believe sailors yarns.

It helps if the story makes sense, involves no magic
or cryptozoology etc. If it does, though, we like to
see more than an old story in a book riddled with
obvious fiction.

It is not the fault of “critics” that what you
consider to be so I’s just too outlandish and
unevidenced for others to be convinced.

Sorry ah, you gotta do better than say “I believe”
and blame others when they don’t buy fairy tales.

I believe I find it outlandish that I can flick a switch and a light comes on. It appears to be miraculous if it were not for the fact that I am familiar with the science behind it. So for a person who did not know the science it would not be believable according to your yardstick.

 

[Muffled]

The problem is that there are no proper "fulfilled prophecies" in the Bible. There are endless failed prophecies. Before you start first you need some standards of what you count as a prophecy and its fulfillment. Also if you cannot admit that there are failed prophecies then you lose right from the start since no one can honestly make that claim. There are failed prophecies in the Bible. We just got done with that where @nPeace failed in his quest to support the Tyre prophecy.

It was a personal prophecy in my life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you did not read the post, we have nothing to talk about. Are you color blind, by chance?

You make your posts unreadable. And do you not know what Green Ink is? I know that I have linked articles on this for you in the past. Once again with rational Wiki:

Green ink - RationalWiki

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

I tired to get that in the original green. (EDIT: Rats the system did not change the color of the quote) It went with the theme. For the next you have to go to the article for the full effect:

The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age, even though the pages are likely to include every colour rejected from the rainbow,[7] in a tasteful variety of fonts. Though the truly exquisite green ink often appears in carefully-formatted black and white PDFs.

Excessive use of editing tools makes posts less legible, not more. Remember the KISS system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a personal prophecy in my life.

That is merely confirmation bias and not a rational reason to believe.

Just think what your reaction would be if a Muslim claimed "person prophecy" or any other religion for that matter. The religious often mistake what they read or hear or see due to their belief. And often what they are convinced by are events that are perfectly normal. "I got better from a debilitating illness". Guess what? It happens quite often. Even more so now with modern medicine than in the past. "Something good happened to me". Again, good things happen to people every day. Also another factor is that memory is not reliable. I know of a person event that I was off by about ten years in my memory. How does that happen? We often edit our memories after the fact without meaning to. In other words we can tell falsehoods about the past without lying. I would not trust personal miracles for a host of reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I find it outlandish that I can flick a switch and a light comes on. It appears to be miraculous if it were not for the fact that I am familiar with the science behind it. So for a person who did not know the science it would not be believable according to your yardstick.

And there you go. Many things that appear to be "miracles" are not when investigated. In fact the number of claimed miracles goes down as we learn more and more and as reporting gets more reliable. There may be no miracles at all.

 

[sojourner]

It was a personal prophecy in my life.

Problem is, a true prophecy requires 3rd party confirmation. Biblical prophecies aren't made to individuals, but to the nation of Israel. And prophecies aren't properly "future prediction." Prophecy is an official statement by a designated spokesperson speaking God, telling Israel "the way it is in God's truth."

 

[Audie]

I believe I find it outlandish that I can flick a switch and a light comes on. It appears to be miraculous if it were not for the fact that I am familiar with the science behind it. So for a person who did not know the science it would not be believable according to your yardstick.

That is an awfully shallow reading of what I said.

 

[nPeace]

So when Christians thought that burning people for being witches were a good idea. If we're talking about objective morality, clearly they and us today must see that it was the moral right thing to do. How come the earlier Christians did not perceive that as morally wrong when we do? Why did that change if we are talking about objective morality?

There are Christians, and there are "Christians". Apparently you are talking about the latter.
I made a thread on that. Christianity Today.

But that makes little sense, if the manual contains immoral teachings.

Perhaps it makes little sense because you are failing to see that you are not being consistent. I wish you would be. So to be clear, help me keep in step with you please.

You said you don't believe in right or wrong - objective morality. In other words, morality is subjective. People decide their own. Correct me if I misunderstood you.
Therefore, if you turn around now, and say, "that makes little sense, if the manual contains immoral teachings", you are claiming that there is objective morality - yours. In other words, whatever you think, believe, decide, is morally right, or wrong, is... because you say so.
That's not being consistent.

The person who wrote the manual decides for himself what is morally right and wrong... and if he is in a position to determine what is morally right, or wrong, it is objective morality. Recall you agreed with that?

Like a rape victim having to marry the person that raped her. Which one can only assume is because a girl at that time, that was not considered "pure" before married were useless in their eyes, so forcing the rapist to marry her solved that issue. Clearly you don't find that to be morally right do you?

First of all, it is important to note that rape is considered by the same author, to be immoral... punishable by death (to the rapist). It is considered a serious offense, so serious, the rapist didn't get a chance to sit in a cell and think about what he did. However, notice what was involved (bold font).
(Deuteronomy 22:23-29)
23 “If a virgin is engaged to a man, and another man happens to meet her in the city and lies down with her, 24 you should bring them both out to the gate of that city and stone them to death, the girl because she did not scream in the city and the man because he humiliated the wife of his fellow man. So you must remove what is evil from your midst. 25 “If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, 26 and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. 27 For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.

Notice that the man willfully, forced the girl, against her will, when she did not consent, but resisted, and made an effort to make that known publicly.

Now do you see a difference in the next verse?

28 “If a man happens to meet a virgin girl who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies down with her and they are discovered, 29 the man who lay down with her must give the girl’s father 50 silver shekels, and she will become his wife. Because he humiliated her, he will not be allowed to divorce her as long as he lives.

There is a video, on the jw.org website, that brings out what happened, in this case.
In case you haven't seen the difference, you can have a look at it. It's a modern day drama, based on Genesis 34.
We can talk about your thoughts on the text after... either way.

And again as above, when these instructions that even the youngest user can follow as you claim, obviously get misunderstood and end up killing innocent people. Like the burning of witches. Clearly the instructions are not well written if they are so easily misunderstood.

You say obviously misunderstood. What facts can you provide to show that, as you asserted, there was an obvious misunderstanding of the text? Please provide those facts.

But that is the whole issue.

Clearly it is not easily understood as people disagree about what it is saying.

Im fairly sure that the above example from the law about the rape victim, instructed by God to be good. Is ignored by most believers, because it doesn't fit into their view of what God ought to be.

So either they make an excuse that it is no longer relevant, that this were only for the jews, that it was required or whatever they can come up with to not having to deal with the fact, that regardless of which excuse they use, that in the end, it was said by God and he thought that it was good.

Clearly anyone ought to be able to come up with a better solution for something like that, especially if they consider themself to be at the very top when it comes to moral standards.

So if one were to follow what you are saying, that "there exist people who think they know better, and would prefer to follow their own knowledge and understanding" that clearly all Christians should stop making excuses for what God claim to be good in the OT and work towards having these laws added again, if they truly believe that they are good.

Or as a bare minimum explain how a law like that, is morally good?

Uh. I lost you. not sure what you are trying to say, sorry.

Yes and that would be considered nothing but an idea. Which means that no one is going to take it especially serious as there is nothing to go on.


No, it would be a terrible test.

First of all we are dealing with a person's claim that they are possessed. What does that even mean? We don't even know what this person is supposed to be possessed by, are you talking about a demon, a spirit or what? In either case, we have no clue what either of these are suppose to be or look like. And have absolutely no way of testing for them.

Uh. Excuse me. You Nimos. You have no clue. Please don't include me in that denial group.

1) there are witnesses, who confirm that these events are true.
What would make you think that these witnesses know what they are looking at? Again how would they know what a demon or spirit is? That is why in science, things are tested from an as neutral point of view as possible and you rarely see, if ever. Any scientific papers solely based on witness accounts, because they are not considered good evidence.

Sorry. You appear not to have understood what I just put before you.
It's not seeing an entity. It is seeing the events surrounding the demonic activity. For example (his is Hollywood, but just an example - from 0:34 - 1:32)

2) a person recommends studying the Bible, and removing, and destroying anything associated with divination (witchcraft, voodoo, etc.)
See Acts 19:11-20
3) time and time again, these persons, after a period of time, no longer experience these events, and this too is witnessed.
So how would you exclude that this is not just a psychological reaction in the brain? There are countless of examples of people believing they can do things, because they have convinced themselves that it is true. Sort of like the placebo effect? How would you show that it was truly the removal of a demon or spirit, rather an psychological issue?

Please give an example, so that I can be on the same page as you.
How I know it's not psychological, is because ...
1) various people of various associations, background, ideas, etc., witnessed the events (see above).
2) Time and again - repeatedly, thousands of times, the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.
3) The results were seen and felt by a) the person who experienced them, and b) the persons associated with the individual, as well as other witnesses, and c) the persons who aided the individual, who recommends the procedure, because they know it works, having seen it before.

Again based on our knowledge of people believing all kinds of things, and that the brain is easily tricked and confused. The most natural explanation is that our brain is capable of convincing itself of these things.

View attachment 36260

If you look at this image, it is very easy to confuse the brain into seeing slightly tilted lines, even though we know that they are straight. Which illustrate how easy it is confuse the brain, when we are talking about visual inputs. So how would it not be more likely that the brain could get confused by other things, compared to having to jump to ideas of demons and spirits. The reason being that we know that the brain is easily confused, which is why when we talk about science, we prefer to rely on data rather than what people think. In cases of historical sciences, also one of the reasons multiple and independent sources are prefer, rather than people just guessing what they think might be right or not.

What came to mind when I saw this, was a situation where person A gives person B a key, and says, go to the street named Bent, and go to 5th Ave. There is a blue hose with a red door with the number 53. Inside, you will find a painting of the Mono Lisa. Behind it, is a safe. Open it with this combination, and take one million dollars.
Person B replies, "But I can find more than one blue house with a red door."

What is wrong with person B's reasoning?
Person A gave specifics. Person B is doesn't seem to care about those specifics. Person B just seems interested in anything that they can think of that they can compare to what person A said... and they are far off.

Can you please explain how your image, is in any way similar to what I presented, and how your reasoning addresses anything I said.

 

[Nimos]

There are Christians, and there are "Christians". Apparently you are talking about the latter.
I made a thread on that. Christianity Today.

I don't speak of any particular group of Christians, as it seem to depend on who you ask, whether they think other groups calling themselves Christians are "true" Christians or not in their eyes.

The things that were done, was done in the name of Jesus and God, by interpreting the scriptures as they believed they were meant to be understood.

You said you don't believe in right or wrong - objective morality. In other words, morality is subjective. People decide their own. Correct me if I misunderstood you.
Therefore, if you turn around now, and say, "that makes little sense, if the manual contains immoral teachings", you are claiming that there is objective morality - yours. In other words, whatever you think, believe, decide, is morally right, or wrong, is... because you say so.
That's not being consistent.

Sure it is, if objective morality were handed down to us from God, clearly these should never change. Otherwise one would have to argue why humans decided to change them.

It not only because I say so, it because millions if not billions of people around the world agree that slavery is wrong, that someone having been raped should not marry their rapist. Morality is not something one just decide, like one day I think slavery is wrong and the next day im on the street with a banner encouraging it, because I suddenly thought it would be good.

The reason our morality is the way it is, is because of the society we have been brought up in, we have been taught by our parents what is right and what is wrong, however as we grow we are also capable of acquiring our own knowledge and no longer simply follow what we have been raised to believe, we question our parents authority and might even figure out that some of the things, they believe to be morally good we don't agree with. We get influenced by other things as well, our friends, our feelings towards something, what we ourself have experience in our lives and how we view things that is going on around us and not least the combined knowledge in our current time.

So we as a whole, based on our passed experience as society and individuals, can look at things that have been done in the past and judge whether we think what they did were morally right or wrong. Not a lot different than we can look at witch burnings and say that is wrong, because we know that witches doesn't exist and burning people without evidence is not a good thing. They didn't know that, they were convinced that these were real and by burning them they did good.

The person who wrote the manual decides for himself what is morally right and wrong... and if he is in a position to determine what is morally right, or wrong, it is objective morality. Recall you agreed with that?

Yes, that would be correct.

However since humans clearly doesn't share his view on what is morally right or wrong, then I think one would have a hard time arguing that he is in fact the creator of morality and therefore subjective morality seem more likely to be correct in my opinion.
I want to stress that my view is not a "common" view among all atheists and some do believe there is objective morality, just that it doesn't come from God obviously, which as I see it, causes some issues, because if God or a creator did not make them, who did?
So without putting words in his mouth, I do think that Sam Harris argue this as far as I know (Might be wrong) , but I would disagree with this.

However I think William Lane Craig put it rather well here responding to him. My only problem with William Lane Craig is that he makes it sound as if Sam Harris view, is the "Atheistic" view on morality. But besides that I think he is correct.

There is a video, on the jw.org website, that brings out what happened, in this case.
In case you haven't seen the difference, you can have a look at it. It's a modern day drama, based on Genesis 34.
We can talk about your thoughts on the text after... either way.

I stopped watching the movie very fast, as it is highly manipulative in how it present the story. 1.10 minute in it is said, that "she put herself in a comprising situation".... what? where did that come from?

Genesis 34:2
2 When Hamor the Hivite's son Shechem, the regional leader, saw her, he grabbed her and raped her, humiliating her.

I don't really see how that changes anything, so her brothers get upset and make a plan to get all the males circumcised in the village to then take justice into their own hand:

Genesis 34:25-29
25 Three days later, while they were still in pain, Jacob's sons Simeon and Levi, two of Dinah's brothers, each grabbed a sword and entered the city unannounced, intending to kill all the males.
26 They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with their swords, took back Dinah from Shechem's house, and left.
27 Jacob's other sons came along afterward and plundered the city where their sister had been defiled,
28 seizing all of their flocks, herds, donkeys, and whatever else was in the city or had been left out in the field.
29 They carried off all their wealth, their children, and their wives as captives, plundering everything that remained in the houses.

That is excellent morality being shown here, so one gets raped, which is really bad. But as justice for this, they intend or kill all the males in the city, and enclave their children and wives. Because Shechem raped her? Why not just kill him, what they hell did all the others do?

You say obviously misunderstood. What facts can you provide to show that, as you asserted, there was an obvious misunderstanding of the text? Please provide those facts.

Well looking at how witches are no longer killed as God wanted them to be. That either we in modern days or those back then have misunderstood the bible and whether we are in fact to kill them or not?

Sorry. You appear not to have understood what I just put before you.
It's not seeing an entity. It is seeing the events surrounding the demonic activity. For example (his is Hollywood, but just an example - from 0:34 - 1:32)

Ok, so what events suggest that a demon or evil spirit is presence?

And how do one know that it is one of those and not something else?

If one is going to present a case for the super natural these things are important to be able to test and clarify, otherwise it makes no sense. Im really not being unfair here.

1) various people of various associations, background, ideas, etc., witnessed the events (see above).

Ok so when pilots, policeman, farmers, military personal etc. say that they have seen a UFO, then that is also good enough for you? Just from a logical point of view, shouldn't we be a lot more concerned about intergalactic aliens and how to defend our self, with them flying around and mutilating cows and abducting people?
To me that would be far more concerning than potentially demons and spirits, which really doesn't seem to be that huge of a threat. At least I haven't heard a lot of complaining about them in general. So why are you not concerned about aliens, I bet you can find a lot more witnesses to them than that of demons and evil spirits?

2) Time and again - repeatedly, thousands of times, the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.

What procedure I think you lost me?

3) The results were seen and felt by a) the person who experienced them, and b) the persons associated with the individual, as well as other witnesses, and c) the persons who aided the individual, who recommends the procedure, because they know it works, having seen it before.

What was felt by the person? and what did they witness? I really don't know what you are talking about? Do you have an example... because are we talking about events like in the movie you posted with things flying around or what?

Can you please explain how your image, is in any way similar to what I presented, and how your reasoning addresses anything I said.

What I was trying to show with the image and the above with the UFO witnesses were, that these are not considered very good evidence. Because people make mistakes, may lie etc. Our brain as well is easily fooled, which is what the image were suppose to illustrate. Take 50 people that have never seen a visual illusion before and ask them whether the lines are straight or tilted in the image based on what they think and I bet you, you would get close to, if not more than 50% wrong answers. That is why we rely on data rather than what people think or feel is correct, because it is often wrong.

So it have nothing to do with the example you gave, which is basically just about someone unable to follow instructions, as I see it.