Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[dad]

When you look at the most prominent christian apologist who is in the debate world; William Lane Craig, he never uses prophecies when he makes a case for christianity or God. You know why? Because he knows he would be destroyed by his opponent, because the creative interpretations some christians use to state prophecies have been fulfilled, have been debunked.

Never heard of the guy. If he doesn't think prophesy is worthwhile, he is far too bent over backwards in his attempts to please men.

 

[Freodin]

That only shows your ignorance of the prophecy. Can you name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power.

Can you? Can the Bible?

Please post the relevant verses.

 

[Ginger123]

Never heard of the guy. If he doesn't think prophesy is worthwhile, he is far too bent over backwards in his attempts to please men.

Where have you been? you call yourself a Christian? I should think that other Christians here are beginning to wonder.
I know I am.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Personal standards are not independant of human thought - the very fact that they are "personal" standards means, by definition, that they are subjective and not objective e.g. they take place in a person's mind rather than in reality.

Exactly. Thats why your assumption that people who say "good" necessarily and implicitly appeal to objectivity is unfounded. They may simply appeal to their personal standards.

I think I should clarify by what I mean when I say "Independant of human thought".

The idea behind objective morality is that some things are right or wrong regardless of what individuals or society thinks, even if everybody supported slavery, slavery would still be wrong, for example. Proving this however is extremely difficult, if not impossible. How does one measure "goodness"? This is partly the reason many atheists don't believe in objective morality - it can't be proven.

Nevertheless (and this is the reason I was criticising ThinkForYourself) many atheists still believe that if they are "good" they should be allowed into heaven, even if they don't believe in God. But by whose standards are they considered "good"? What makes their personal standards better than anyone else's? How can they prove it?

(Or - which was my other point - they may appeal to what´s believed to be God´s opinion. Just in the same way believers do).

Keep in mind that here "they" means atheists and other non-religious people. How can an atheist appeal to what they believe to be God's opinions when they don't believe in God?

Anyway, the funny thing about human ideas about morality are (if following your definition) never objective. Simply because your ideas are never independent of your thoughts.

Technically no ideas are independant of thoughts. Even objective facts had to begin as ideas.

Saying that something is " independant of human thought" doesn't mean nobody has ever thought of it. It means being true regardless of what people think.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Where have you been? you call yourself a Christian? I should think that other Christians here are beginning to wonder.
I know I am.

Sorry to sound snippy but could you knock of the "Call yourself a Christian" comments? They're getting very old and tiresome. Just because he hasn't heard of one particular philosopher doesn't mean he's a bad Christian.

If I said "Never heard of Lucilio Vanini? And you call yourself an atheist?", wouldn't you be a least a little bit annoyed?

 

[mathetes123]

Can you? Can the Bible?

Please post the relevant verses.

The bible already did.

Daniel 2
Daniel 7

 

[mathetes123]

Where have you been? you call yourself a Christian? I should think that other Christians here are beginning to wonder.
I know I am.

I never heard of the guy either. The foremost apologist I am aware of is Norman geisler.

 

[Freodin]

The bible already did.

Daniel 2
Daniel 7

Perhaps you are reading a different bible than I do, but neither Daniel 2 nor Daniel 7 does name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power.

So again, please post the relevant verses.

 

[Ginger123]

Sorry to sound snippy but could you knock of the "Call yourself a Christian" comments? They're getting very old and tiresome. Just because he hasn't heard of one particular philosopher doesn't mean he's a bad Christian.

If I said "Never heard of Lucilio Vanini? And you call yourself an atheist?", wouldn't you be a least a little bit annoyed?

Perhaps you're right I should not have said that, Dad, I apologise.

 

[AV1611VET]

So again, please post the relevant verses.

Here ... need something to trample?

Daniel 10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

 

[bhsmte]

Never heard of the guy. If he doesn't think prophesy is worthwhile, he is far too bent over backwards in his attempts to please men.

Nah, he just likes to limit the times he gets handed his lunch.

 

[bhsmte]

Where have you been? you call yourself a Christian? I should think that other Christians here are beginning to wonder.
I know I am.

Dad won't acknowledge the most well known christian apologist/debater, because Craig says that anyone who believes in a young earth, is foolish.

 

[bhsmte]

I never heard of the guy either. The foremost apologist I am aware of is Norman geisler.

Top Christian Apologist | The BitterSweet End

 

[Freodin]

Here ... need something to trample?

Daniel 10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

Sorry, but that does not name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power. It does, in fact, not say anything about succession or power at all.

Do you have other verses to offer?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but that does not name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power. It does, in fact, not say about succession or power at all.

Do you have other verses to offer?

This is one of the reasons I think the scientific method is Antizionist.

The Bible prophesies the rise and fall of four major empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), followed by the return of Israel to the Promised Land, before the return of Christ.

If these prophecies are fake, then Israel, who is now in the the Promised Land, must go back into captivity to await the fulfillment of the prophecy about her return.

This means that science predicts (or should predict) another diaspora coming for Israel.

I can't link science to Antisemitism yet, because I haven't seen anyone claim that the Jews didn't come from Shem; but I can certainly link scientific philosophy to Antizionism.

Including pointing out that science won't admit that Israel is the Promised Land.

(And yes, I expect this post to be denied.)

 

[dad]

Nah, he just likes to limit the times he gets handed his lunch.

He should come on over to the winnin side. Water is fine here. Far from the smell of compromise.

 

[Freodin]

This is one of the reasons I think the scientific method is Antizionist.

The Bible prophesies the rise and fall of four major empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), followed by the return of Israel to the Promised Land, before the return of Christ.

If these prophecies are fake, then Israel, who is now in the the Promised Land, must go back into captivity to await the fulfillment of the prophecy about her return.

Rest assured, this prophecy is fake, but it is completely fake. So your conclusion about "must go back into captivity" is just as bogus, because it relies on the prophecy NOT being fake, just not fulfilled.

This means that science predicts (or should predict) another diaspora coming for Israel.

No, that means YOU predicting another diaspora, from what you think "science" says.

I can't link science to Antisemitism yet, because I haven't seen anyone claim that the Jews didn't come from Shem; but I can certainly link scientific philosophy to Antizionism.

Including pointing out that science won't admit that Israel is the Promised Land.

(And yes, I expect this post to be denied.)

Denied? Acknowledged!

Here you are, claiming that "The Bible prophesies the rise and fall of four major empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome)"... that is what mathetes referred to with his " four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power" (if he didn't mean some other four empires - who knows?)

So if the Bible does indeed say that, why does it seem to be impossible for you (plural) to simply post the verses which say that?

 

[dad]

Dad won't acknowledge the most well known christian apologist/debater, because Craig says that anyone who believes in a young earth, is foolish.

Ha, figures. No wonder the poor sod is out to lunch on the basics.

 

[bhsmte]

He should come on over to the winnin side. Water is fine here. Far from the smell of compromise.

If it was a "winnin side" he would be all over it.

 

[AV1611VET]

He should come on over to the winnin side.

Would that be the Headbusters' side?

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.