- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
Where have you been? you call yourself a Christian? I should think that other Christians here are beginning to wonder.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.
I think I should clarify by what I mean when I say "Independant of human thought".quatona said: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.notedstrangeperson said: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.
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?quatona said:(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).
Technically no ideas are independant of thoughts. Even objective facts had to begin as ideas.quatona said: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.
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.Ginger123 said:Where have you been? you call yourself a Christian? I should think that other Christians here are beginning to wonder.
I know I am.
Can you? Can the Bible?
Please post the relevant verses.
Where have you been? you call yourself a Christian? I should think that other Christians here are beginning to wonder.
I know I am.
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.The bible already did.
Daniel 2
Daniel 7
Perhaps you're right I should not have said that, Dad, I apologise.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?
So again, please post the relevant verses.
I never heard of the guy either. The foremost apologist I am aware of is Norman geisler.
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 about succession or power at all.
Do you have other verses to offer?
He should come on over to the winnin side. Water is fine here. Far from the smell of compromise.Nah, he just likes to limit the times he gets handed his lunch.
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 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.
No, that means YOU predicting another diaspora, from what you think "science" says.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.)
Ha, figures. No wonder the poor sod is out to lunch on the basics.Dad won't acknowledge the most well known christian apologist/debater, because Craig says that anyone who believes in a young earth, is foolish.
He should come on over to the winnin side.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?