Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[Freodin]

Then you need to do some catching up in the area of basic doctrine, chief.

You've been away too long.

(You've seriously never heard this before?)

Oh, I have heard of that before. Mostly connected with all kind of mental gymnastics that tries to show that the Roman Empire has not yet fallen - for in some interpretations of this, it needs to stand until "the end".

The only problem is: the verses that are most often connected with this "prophecy" do simply not say anything of that kind. It is all (later, Christian) interpretation.

Or else it would be easy for you to show it!

 

[AV1611VET]

I really wonder why.

Because it's a lot of work, just to be handwaved away.

I sent you a tidbit to see how you would react, and you reacted just as I thought you would.

Use Google.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I have heard of that before. Mostly connected with all kind of mental gymnastics that tries to show that the Roman Empire has not yet fallen - for in some interpretations of this, it needs to stand until "the end".

The only problem is: the verses that are most often connected with this "prophecy" do simply not say anything of that kind. It is all (later, Christian) interpretation.

Or else it would be easy for you to show it!

The Roman Empire dissolved away, and will return as a 10-nation confederacy in the Tribulation.

This though has nothing to do with the RISE -- not FALL -- of four world empires: Babylon, Greece, Medo-Persia, and Rome.

I don't understand why you're wanting Biblical confirmation from us, if Google can supply it faster.

 

[Freodin]

The Roman Empire dissolved away, and will return as a 10-nation confederacy in the Tribulation.

This though has nothing to do with the RISE -- not FALL -- of four world empires: Babylon, Greece, Medo-Persia, and Rome.

I don't understand why you're wanting Biblical confirmation from us, if Google can supply it faster.

I want "confirmation" from the people who make this claim - YOU!

All you can do it point to interpretations. Long, complicated essays that try to show how "this" is a fitting symbol for "that", and because of this-and-that the verse refers to empire X.

All that are very lose interpretations. They are "shoehorned" into this "basic doctrine" of yours.

These verses do simply not do what Mathetes claimed: "name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power." They don't.

All of your handwaving and pointing to "google" does not change it. All that Google provides is references to other people making this claim. But because some people say that does not mean that the Bible says it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But because some people say that does not mean that the Bible says it.

So much for gravity.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of your handwaving and pointing to "google" does not change it. All that Google provides is references to other people making this claim. But because some people say that does not mean that the Bible says it.

QV please:

Roman Empire schema

The following interpretation is a traditional view of Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews, who typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

1. the Babylonian Empire.
2. the Medo-Persian Empire.
3. the Greek Empire of Alexander.
4. the Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

This was the scheme described by Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel. Within this framework there are numerous variations.

SOURCE

 

[dad]

And no wonder you haven't heard of arguably the most prominent christian apologist. You don't like what he has to say, so you put your fingers in your ears.

To not hear something, that something needs to be something that one knows about, and maybe is familiar with, but one changes the channel. I never saw the guy on any channel. If it is true that prophesy is something he avoids, and that he badmouths yecs, why, that doesn't kindle an interest in searching his stuff out for me.

 

[dad]

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.

I am not familiar with the individual, so can't say he is demon seed. I can say that if he dares, he is welcome to bring it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But you accept that God gets really angry and sends storms and earthquakes and fires... all of which hurt people regardless of being "washed clean". But never directly those who are (said to be) responsible for Gods anger.

God was, according to AV, so extremely unhappy about the negotiations between Assad and Clinton that he had an earthquake "pulverize[...] South California". 57 dead, 8700 injured... regardless of their faith.

But was Geneva hit with an earthquake? A hurricane? A flood? Cloudy skies and a light drizzle?

It was the pressure from the US.

Yet you have this - blind - faith that this rather arbitrary deity will not do anything really bad to you.

When did I say that?

Then why is there so much disagreement... between Christians? And why can't you even explain the things that you know?

I guess that would have to be more specific before I can answer it.

That makes no sense. In that, it fits in quite perfectly with the rest of your worldview... it does not make sense. Like this...


The conclusions you made here are simply not following. They make no sense.

Why doesn't it make sense?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course I'm ready. As I said, I've led a moral life.

No one truly knows God's nature. If they truly knew, truly believed, and heaven is what is claimed, they would be trying to get to heaven asap.

Moral according to whom?

 

[Freodin]

QV please:

So? You even had that page before you. Did you read it, or just, in your usual way, took the things that you needed and ignored the rest.

For example, just above the excerpt you posted, is:

Two main schools of thought on the four kingdoms of Daniel, is:

The traditionalist view, supports the unison of Medo-Persia and identifies the last kingdom as the Roman Empire.
The Maccabean thesis, a view that supports the separation of the Medes from the Persians and identifies the last kingdom as the Seleucid Empire.

The views and thesis "supports" and "identify". The readers do.

But the verses, the Bible itself, does not name any empires, nor anything else that Mathetes claimed.

And these "views" are only the traditional ones. The old ones. The ones that people wrote about and continued to write about. They identified what they knew.
But if these are really prophecies, these verses could refer to a lot of other "empires"... even some yet to come. You couldn't know... they are not named.

And finally, the thesis that you ignore and will continue to ignore because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas: these verses are not prophecy at all, but "history".

Most secular historians and higher critics, and some contemporary Jewish and Christian scholars, hold that the Book of Daniel was written approximately 165 BCE as a vaticinium ex eventu of the events leading up to that era. [22] The conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great, the wars between his successors; the Seleucids and the Ptolemys (the King(s) of the North and the King(s) of the South), and the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes are described in detail in chapters 8 and 11. The four kingdoms are viewed as four empires that the author believed had ruled from the time of the mythic Daniel until the time of Antiochus:

the Neo-Babylonian Empire
the Median Empire, anachronistically implied in the Book of Daniel to be the successor to the Neo-Babylonian Empire rather than contemporaneous.
the Achaemenid Persian Empire
the Macedonian (Greek) Empire of Alexander, and continuing through the Diadochi, the successors to Alexander's empire, in particular the Seleucid Empire, up until the time of Antiochus, who is the "little horn" king of chapters 7 and 8.

"Four kingdoms" are mentioned again in chapter 8, now referring to the kingdoms of the four main successors to Alexander's empire, (the Diadochi, also mentioned in 11:4): Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander.

That "interpretation" is equally valid and fits the text a lot better, as well as the extra-textual evidence.


The initial claim I was contesting was that of a clear-cut prophecy, "name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power."

And such a prophecy does not exist. Daniel does not do that.

 

[Freodin]

It was the pressure from the US.

What was? The reason why God send an earthquake? Or did the pressure from the US cause the earthquake directly. Did California exert more pressure than, say, Oregon or Alabama? Did the people killed and injured exert more pressure than those who were not? Were they more "guilty" than Clinton and Assad themselves?

So what do you think was the reason for that earthquake?

When did I say that?

Here: "We do not have to fear God's punishment or hell. We are washed clean and can stand before God without blemish. " Post #220.

Or perhaps you just mean that you simply do not "fear" the things that God might do to you in order to "warn" or "punish" America?

I guess that would have to be more specific before I can answer it.

From the same post: "... I don't have the answer to that." And many other posts to that regard.

Why doesn't it make sense?

"If He is all moral then immorality is real." That does not follow.
" If immortality exists then justice and mercy must as well." That doesn't either.

 

[driewerf]

OK.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, my family is/was Christian (Baptist), but I became an atheist when I was about 11 or 12. That didn't work out well, and I was no longer part of the family. I was kicked out of the house when I turned 17. I still saw my mother sometimes in more recent times, although that was when she was visiting her grandchildren (my kids), I don't recall her ever coming to see me. I virtually never see my father or brother, last time was at my mother's funeral. Real Christian values eh, making a 12 year old no longer part of the family?
[...]
My family's behaviour reinforced this belief.

After my mother's death, I was curious if there were answers to those contradictions and some sort of proof that god exists.

I am sorry that your mother is no longer living on earth. I know how hard it is to lose a parent. I don't know how long ago but I do know the pain that one has when they lose someone they love.

Its telling a lot about christian morality that you don't feel sorry for the actions Thinkforyouself's family (including his mother while living).

 

[AV1611VET]

The initial claim I was contesting was that of a clear-cut prophecy, "name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power."

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.

Want me to let you in on another little secret?

When Alexander the Great died, his empire went to his four generals; as Daniel prophesied it would.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

OK.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, my family is/was Christian (Baptist), but I became an atheist when I was about 11 or 12. That didn't work out well, and I was no longer part of the family. I was kicked out of the house when I turned 17. I still saw my mother sometimes in more recent times, although that was when she was visiting her grandchildren (my kids), I don't recall her ever coming to see me. I virtually never see my father or brother, last time was at my mother's funeral. Real Christian values eh, making a 12 year old no longer part of the family?
[...]
My family's behaviour reinforced this belief.

After my mother's death, I was curious if there were answers to those contradictions and some sort of proof that god exists.

I am sorry that your mother is no longer living on earth. I know how hard it is to lose a parent. I don't know how long ago but I do know the pain that one has when they lose someone they love.

Its telling a lot about christian morality that you don't feel sorry for the actions Thinkforyouself's family (including his mother while living).

I've already had a go at one user (Ginger123, who to be fair was decent enough to apologise) but I find this holier-than-thou attitude coming from some of the atheist users is very irritating.

OnceDeceived could have said something really unpleasant: she could have said that ThinkForYourself deserved to be kicked out, for example. But she didn't - instead she offered her condolences, because apparently she knows what it's like to lose a parent too.

But somehow you've managed to twist that into making it seem like she's a bad Christian: she shouldn't be try to be sympathetic to ThinkForYourself, she should be condemning a dead woman she doesn't even know. However, I suspect if she did actually do that, we would complain about her being "judgemental".

She's just trying to be nice to a stranger. You really have to search to try and find a problem with that.

(I know it's somewhat silly to complain about this holider-than-thou attitude from atheists while donning a holider-than-thou attitude myself, but this post probably makes me sound angrier than I really am.)

 

[Strathos]

This has obviously drifted far off-topic (which is probably a good thing, considering the thread's subject matter). What's currently going on?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's currently going on?

Nothing much.

De Nile is still flowing ... in Egypt.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Want me to let you in on another little secret?

When Alexander the Great died, his empire went to his four generals; as Daniel prophesied it would.

Nope.

 

[AV1611VET]

When Alexander the Great died, his empire went to his four generals; as Daniel prophesied it would.

Nope.

Five generals?

 

[mathetes123]

I want "confirmation" from the people who make this claim - YOU!

All you can do it point to interpretations. Long, complicated essays that try to show how "this" is a fitting symbol for "that", and because of this-and-that the verse refers to empire X.

All that are very lose interpretations. They are "shoehorned" into this "basic doctrine" of yours.

These verses do simply not do what Mathetes claimed: "name four successive empires each of which succeeds one of the others in power." They don't.

All of your handwaving and pointing to "google" does not change it. All that Google provides is references to other people making this claim. But because some people say that does not mean that the Bible says it.

Daniel 8:20-21 (ESV)
As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king.