Why I Could Conceivably Become a Theist

[Twiler]

Various theists here have indicate that evidence, logic, morals and so forth are irrelevant when assessing a faith, because cosmic deities are unconcerned with such foibles. They speak of opening our eyes..

Now, I don't see why I should spend any time searching for signs from any specific deity, that would seem unfair. If they are in fact unconcerned with evidence, logic and morals, then I see no way to tell where to start the search. Thus, I will continue to hold the default position of atheism.

If, however, a deity delivers an unmistakable demonstration of his/her/its existence, then I would become a theist. I don't know what this could be, as I can't imagine any demonstartion that couldn't be put down to a hallucination. I assume that this wouldn't be a problem to any actual deity that exists.

I would not, however, support that deity until I could be assured of its good intentions.

[Complexity]

If you personally experienced something that persuaded you that there is some form of supernatural creature, you are having a stroke, hallucinating, or suffering some form of mental illness.

[SOdhner]

If you personally experienced something that persuaded you that there is some form of supernatural creature, you are having a stroke, hallucinating, or suffering some form of mental illness.

As a card-carrying deist, I heartily endorse this statement.

I'll add one more possibility, though, which is that one of the beasties I bred in my lab could get loose and cause a stir. People aren't used to hairless winged cheetas that have been engineered to be bioluminescent. I would understand some confusion.

[Complexity]

I thought you said 'cheetos'.

Changes a lot.

[SOdhner]

I thought you said 'cheetos'.

Changes a lot.

Less than you would think.

[Brian-M]

As a card-carrying deist, I heartily endorse this statement.

May I see this card?

[Darth Rotor]

If, however, a deity delivers an unmistakable demonstration of his/her/its existence, then I would become a theist. I don't know what this could be, as I can't imagine any demonstartion that couldn't be put down to a hallucination. I assume that this wouldn't be a problem to any actual deity that exists.
A reasonable position to take.
I would not, however, support that deity until I could be assured of its good intentions.
You may or may not retain that position if part A comes to fruition.

DR

[SOdhner]

May I see this card?

No. The card is so ill-defined and vague that it's impossible to see. Still, even though I have absolutely no reason to do so I believe it's in my wallet.

[Brian-M]

Ah, a God-metaphor card. Carry on.

[quixotecoyote]

I've got a pope card, does that count?

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/pope_card160.jpg

[Trent Wray]

Various theists here have indicate that evidence, logic, morals and so forth are irrelevant when assessing a faith, because cosmic deities are unconcerned with such foibles. They speak of opening our eyes..

Now, I don't see why I should spend any time searching for signs from any specific deity, that would seem unfair. If they are in fact unconcerned with evidence, logic and morals, then I see no way to tell where to start the search. Thus, I will continue to hold the default position of atheism.

If, however, a deity delivers an unmistakable demonstration of his/her/its existence, then I would become a theist. I don't know what this could be, as I can't imagine any demonstartion that couldn't be put down to a hallucination. I assume that this wouldn't be a problem to any actual deity that exists.

I would not, however, support that deity until I could be assured of its good intentions. I think this is a good point (the highlighted portion). Let's say that the god of the bible appears and proves his existence, for example. Why should we trust that God? And what I wonder, is what that says about those who would bow down out of fear or those who would stand up and demand answers before following (assuming we were given a choice). But I'm not sure what it would say about a person is anything ... ?

[Meadmaker]

A reasonable position to take.

You may or may not retain that position if part A comes to fruition.

DR

If I see some long haired dude appearing in the clouds, with a whole lot of winged friends, one of whom blows a big trumpet blast as they start descending Earthward, I think I would decide to instantly repent of all my sins, chief amonst which, at that point, would be unbelief and blasphemy.

Of course, my logical mind would tell me that it was an hallucination, and my cynical self would question the good intentions of what appears to be the Lord of Hosts making a second, more spectacular, incarnation. However, my practical side would note that I couldn't go too far wrong with an instant change in my atheist ways.

If I saw something that convinced me I had miscalculated the odds on Pascal's wager, I think I would switch my bet.

[Complexity]

If I see some long haired dude appearing in the clouds, with a whole lot of winged friends, one of whom blows a big trumpet blast as they start descending Earthward, I think I would decide to instantly repent of all my sins, chief amonst which, at that point, would be unbelief and blasphemy.

Of course, my logical mind would tell me that it was an hallucination, and my cynical self would question the good intentions of what appears to be the Lord of Hosts making a second, more spectacular, incarnation. However, my practical side would note that I couldn't go too far wrong with an instant change in my atheist ways.

If I saw something that convinced me I had miscalculated the odds on Pascal's wager, I think I would switch my bet.


I'm afraid that this is exactly the position that I would expect you to take.

It is not a rational, moral, or ethical position.

[154]

If, however, a deity delivers an unmistakable demonstration of his/her/its existence, then I would become a theist. I don't know what this could be, as I can't imagine any demonstartion that couldn't be put down to a hallucination. I assume that this wouldn't be a problem to any actual deity that exists.

I would not, however, support that deity until I could be assured of its good intentions.

If I see some long haired dude appearing in the clouds, with a whole lot of winged friends, one of whom blows a big trumpet blast as they start descending Earthward, I think I would decide to instantly repent of all my sins, chief amonst which, at that point, would be unbelief and blasphemy.

Of course, my logical mind would tell me that it was an hallucination, and my cynical self would question the good intentions of what appears to be the Lord of Hosts making a second, more spectacular, incarnation. However, my practical side would note that I couldn't go too far wrong with an instant change in my atheist ways.

If you are, or get, familiar with the prophetic scenarios,
you will probably have some cause and opportunities for reflection and reconsideration,
and maybe soon.

[Complexity]

If you are, or get, familiar with the prophetic scenarios,
you will probably have some cause and opportunities for reflection and reconsideration,
and maybe soon.


What utter nonsense.

[advancedatheist]

If, however, a deity delivers an unmistakable demonstration of his/her/its existence, then I would become a theist.

However, the existence of a creator god doesn't imply that life has to have any meaning or purpose. A god could, without logical contradiction, have created human life without those qualities.

[Aepervius]

If you personally experienced something that persuaded you that there is some form of supernatural creature, you are having a stroke, hallucinating, or suffering some form of mental illness.

Or some mega powerful alien creature is playing god for his own interrest , to have for example easy sklave.

Granted this has a, shall we say, extremly low probability of hapenning, but if I experienced something as described by the OP, I would think "alien playing me trick" would have a higher probability than "god is giving me evidence" (although admitely many order of magnitude lower than the other reason you cited).

[Mirrorglass]

I would not, however, support that deity until I could be assured of its good intentions.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I think you forgot something important. At least the Christian God seems to have some very bad intentions for nonbelievers. I would consider this good enough reason to serve Him, if He existed - even if He was just as big jerk as fundamentalist Christians say.

[Cavemonster]

I would believe in a god if provided with a model of the universe including a god that had better explanatory and predictive power than the models we now use.

I would ascribe to that god only the qualities essential to or discoverable through that model.

The same thing we do with subatomic particles, distant planets, and new insect species.

It's not impossible, but current observations hold no hints of such a model being useful, and our whole history of observation makes it vanishingly unlikely that such a god would be much like the one described by any major religion.

[Twiler]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I think you forgot something important. At least the Christian God seems to have some very bad intentions for nonbelievers. I would consider this good enough reason to serve Him, if He existed - even if He was just as big jerk as fundamentalist Christians say.

People - including deities - won't learn to be different unless you tell them they're wrong,

[Mirrorglass]

People - including deities - won't learn to be different unless you tell them they're wrong,

Sure, but in this case it's like playing prisoner's dilemma with every person in the world. It's just not a very good bet others won't serve Him anyway, so it'd be silly to think my choice would matter one way or the other. Thus, I would make the selfish choice that at least granted me eternal happiness.

[Complexity]

If there were a 'god', I would oppose the bastard and gladly go down in flames. Evil and injustice should be fought wherever they are encountered.

Some of the arguments to just go along with it and try to profit as a result smacks of the reasoning of the enablers of despots throughout history.

[Mirrorglass]

Sure, but a human despot can be assasinated or replaced with political maneuvers. I can't think of a method to go against a god, and I don't believe in fighting a battle I have no chance of winning just to fuel my pride.

[John Jones]

If you are, or get, familiar with the prophetic scenarios,
you will probably have some cause and opportunities for reflection and reconsideration,
and maybe soon.



Which ones?

[Meadmaker]

If you are, or get, familiar with the prophetic scenarios,
you will probably have some cause and opportunities for reflection and reconsideration,
and maybe soon.

Perhaps.

However, my suspicion is that I am even more familiar with prophetic scenarios than you are, and I doubt I will be changing my bets in the near future. However, that is just speculation. I'll retain an open mind.

[Meadmaker]

I'm afraid that this is exactly the position that I would expect you to take.

It is not a rational, moral, or ethical position.

Charming.

[Complexity]

Charming.


I found it to be a disgusting and reprehensible position to take - Pascal's Wager is inherently so.

[154]

However, my suspicion is that I am even more familiar with prophetic scenarios than you are, and I doubt I will be changing my bets in the near future. However, that is just speculation. I'll retain an open mind.And the basis for your suspicion is?

[Meadmaker]

I found it to be a disgusting and reprehensible position to take - Pascal's Wager is inherently so.

Thank you for sharing.

[Robin]

If I see some long haired dude appearing in the clouds, with a whole lot of winged friends, one of whom blows a big trumpet blast as they start descending Earthward, I think I would decide to instantly repent of all my sins, chief amonst which, at that point, would be unbelief and blasphemy.
Could you, in genuine sincerity, really feel that unbelief was a sin?

[Complexity]

Thank you for sharing.


Any time.

[Meadmaker]

And the basis for your suspicion is?

From your comment, it seemed that you might believe that prophecy predicts that the second coming of the Lord of Hosts was in fact, nigh, and that I might actually hear Gabriel's trumpet very soon, thus having cause to question my current beliefs.

I'm familiar with that idea, not just in its current form, but as it has existed for many years.

My favorite experience with prophecy was while doing some research in the library at the University of Illinois. It's a huge library, one of the biggest in the country, with lots of old and new books. You can find amazing things wandering the stacks. One day, I can't remember what I was looking for, but I turned around and found that behind me was the section of Biblical prophecy. There was "The Late Great Planet Earth" that I had once read and taken seriously before my conversion to atheism (which at that time was only a year or so in my past, though now it is many years in the past.) However, surrounding that book were many books with the same theme, but some were over 100 years old. It was fascinating to see such a collection, all equally convinced that in their lifetimes, the End of Days would be seen unfolding.

One was certain that the American Civil War, during which the book was written, was the beginning of the end. In 1910, a book was written that successfully predicted a huge war in Europe, but unsuccessfully predicted that it would result in the beginning of the Great Tribulation. An awful lot of books written in the late 19th century through the end of World War I had Turkey playing the role of Gog (or was it Magog?) After World War I, the League of Nations stepped into its proper place as the Seven Headed Dragon, but by the time of my childhood in the '70s that role was taken by the European Economic Community.

666 took on various significant meanings. My favorite was Ronald Wilson Reagan, with six letters in each of his names.

So, the end of the world has a great deal of history behind it. It is coming soon, and has been for some time.

[154]

From your comment, it seemed that you might believe that prophecy predicts that the second coming of the Lord of Hosts was in fact, nigh, and that I might actually hear Gabriel's trumpet very soon, thus having cause to question my current beliefs.

I'm familiar with that idea, not just in its current form, but as it has existed for many years.

My favorite experience with prophecy was while doing some research in the library at the University of Illinois. It's a huge library, one of the biggest in the country, with lots of old and new books. You can find amazing things wandering the stacks. One day, I can't remember what I was looking for, but I turned around and found that behind me was the section of Biblical prophecy. There was "The Late Great Planet Earth" that I had once read and taken seriously before my conversion to atheism (which at that time was only a year or so in my past, though now it is many years in the past.) However, surrounding that book were many books with the same theme, but some were over 100 years old. It was fascinating to see such a collection, all equally convinced that in their lifetimes, the End of Days would be seen unfolding.

One was certain that the American Civil War, during which the book was written, was the beginning of the end. In 1910, a book was written that successfully predicted a huge war in Europe, but unsuccessfully predicted that it would result in the beginning of the Great Tribulation. An awful lot of books written in the late 19th century through the end of World War I had Turkey playing the role of Gog (or was it Magog?) After World War I, the League of Nations stepped into its proper place as the Seven Headed Dragon, but by the time of my childhood in the '70s that role was taken by the European Economic Community.

666 took on various significant meanings. My favorite was Ronald Wilson Reagan, with six letters in each of his names.

So, the end of the world has a great deal of history behind it. It is coming soon, and has been for some time.Well then, as you know, there are more than a few verses and phrases which describe circumstances and events that were just not physically or technologically possible during previous generations. So they were clearly wrong and there was nothing preventing them from recognizing that at the time, but they didn't, for a variety of reasons. That has no bearing on the feasibility of those things, which you know, taking place and being fulfilled in our world today.

If there is one thing I have learned, it is that no matter what I know, what I think, what I think I know, what I hope, what I want and what I don't want, that in the end, I do not know with any absolute certainty what will or will not happen when.

So I watch, and try to continue learning, and whatever happens happens. I'm good with that.

But yes, I do believe that it may be possible that we are that terminal generation that sees the Script enacted and that we were born for a time such as this.

[Meadmaker]

Well then, as you know, there are more than a few verses and phrases which describe circumstances and events that were just not physically or technologically possible during previous generations.

Curiously, I missed that part. A detailed discussion of that would be for another thread, but let me relate it to this thread's topic.

There are lots of extremely vague predictions which could be interepreted this way or that. I don't think many of us would be convinced by any sort of prophecy that had to be explained in too much detail. If a major world leader demanded that we all get tattoos of "666" on our foreheads, and no one was allowed to purchase goods unless he had a tattoo, we would probably take notice. However, if VISA started using 18 digit account numbers arranged in three groups of six, we probably wouldn't really think the prophecy had been fulfilled.

Likewise, if a humanoid, winged, figure, blowing a real, honest to goodness, trumpet flew overhead, and the trumpet blast that sounded very trumpet-like was heard all over the world, I would probably take notice and question my non-belief. However, if a simultaneous worldwide test of the next generation of emergency broadcast sytem were conducted, I wouldn't say that was close enough to the biblical description to say that the prophecy was fulfilled, although certain scholars of Bible prophecy have said that Gabriel's trumpet would be "blown" in just such a manner, and that the availability of worldwide broadcasting was a fulfillment of prophecy. No, I'm just not seeing it. It's not enough to make me give up my atheism.

Heck, I would even seriously question my beliefs if a million Americans suddenly disappeared without a trace, especially if fundamentalist Christians were disproportionately represented among the missing, but somehow, I don't expect that to happen. However, if it did, I wouldn't expect it to happen as depicted in pop Christian culture, in which a million or more people vanish without a trace, including from moving vehicles, leaving behind piles of clothes, but those remaining behind made up some weird explanation and didn't notice the similarity to the predictions of the prophetic interpretations.

(Curiously, in pop culture depictions, piles of clothes are sometimes left behind after the rapture. Examination of the video representations of the aftereffects of the rapture might lead one to conclude that fundamentalist Christian women rarely if ever wear underwear. I've never seen a pair of panties in the clothing piles. Do fundie mothers warn their daughters to always wear clean underwear, because you never know if someone might see them if they are left behind after the rapture?)

No, I think in the face of such overwhelming evidence, even the most hardened atheists would actually change their views, if not to Christianity, at least away from our hard core materialist philosophies, and quite a few, recognizing not only the supernatural element of the events, but its similarity to Christian prophecy, would conclude that Christians were right and they ought to get on board the train while they still had the chance. It's a purely evidence based position, as opposed to the thread to which the OP referred, which was a statement by someone who said he couldn't accept atheism because he just didn't like some aspect of it. I think most of us don't like some aspect of Christianity, but given evidence of its correctness, might reconsider.

[Complexity]

No, I think in the face of such overwhelming evidence, even the most hardened atheists would actually change their views, if not to Christianity, at least away from our hard core materialist philosophies, and quite a few, recognizing not only the supernatural element of the events, but its similarity to Christian prophecy, would conclude that Christians were right and they ought to get on board the train while they still had the chance. It's a purely evidence based position, as opposed to the thread to which the OP referred, which was a statement by someone who said he couldn't accept atheism because he just didn't like some aspect of it. I think most of us don't like some aspect of Christianity, but given evidence of its correctness, might reconsider.


Nonsense.

[SOdhner]

That has no bearing on the feasibility of those things, which you know, taking place and being fulfilled in our world today.

But that's what they always say. "Oh, right, well clearly those people were completely wrong - not like us!" They've been saying that forever.

Nonsense.

I believe that you would never change your position, and I wouldn't dream of trying to suggest that you should. I would, however, like to take a moment picturing a world where YOU are the one that's thought of as the crazy one who ignores blatant physical evidence because they don't match up with your beliefs. That's trippy.

For myself, the appearance of what looks like a god wouldn't magically remove my doubt or my questions. I would probably continue to believe that it was all a trick, an illusion, whatever. Beyond that it would depend on the actions of this 'god'. If it went around fixing things and I agreed with whatever philosophy it was spouting, I might very well fall in line even though I would continue to suspect it was just a hallucination.

[Robin]

If a major world leader demanded that we all get tattoos of "666" on our foreheads, and no one was allowed to purchase goods unless he had a tattoo, we would probably take notice.
I might take notice of a major world leader demanding I get 666 tattooed on my forehead, but I would not take it as evidence of the truth of Christianity.

It would be odd if this world leader had never heard of Revelations or the number of the beast.

[Mark6]

I believe that you would never change your position, and I wouldn't dream of trying to suggest that you should. I would, however, like to take a moment picturing a world where YOU are the one that's thought of as the crazy one who ignores blatant physical evidence because they don't match up with your beliefs. That's trippy.

For myself, the appearance of what looks like a god wouldn't magically remove my doubt or my questions. I would probably continue to believe that it was all a trick, an illusion, whatever. Beyond that it would depend on the actions of this 'god'. If it went around fixing things and I agreed with whatever philosophy it was spouting, I might very well fall in line even though I would continue to suspect it was just a hallucination.
If a giant invincible man with a spear appeared in the sky and claimed to be Odin, I would accept him as Odin and get on with sacrifices. He would be functionally equivalent to Odin vikings used to worship. Problem with Judeo-Christian god is that he is contradictory. Nothing can be "functionally equivalent" to Yahweh because different functions mutually exclude each other.

Generally, pagan gods (not just Odin) tended to be much more consistent. They did not claim to be all-loving while at the same time condem people to eternal torture for doubting them. It was either one or the other.

[SOdhner]

Generally, pagan gods (not just Odin) tended to be much more consistent. They did not claim to be all-loving while at the same time condem people to eternal torture for doubting them. It was either one or the other.

I once heard the Norse gods compared to superheroes, and really liked it. They can be tricked, hurt, or killed. They have exciting adventures. They've got super-powers. Some are good, some are bad, and they all have flaws. That's true of others to some extent too but the Norse guys really seem to be the most fun.

[Cainkane1]

Various theists here have indicate that evidence, logic, morals and so forth are irrelevant when assessing a faith, because cosmic deities are unconcerned with such foibles. They speak of opening our eyes..

Now, I don't see why I should spend any time searching for signs from any specific deity, that would seem unfair. If they are in fact unconcerned with evidence, logic and morals, then I see no way to tell where to start the search. Thus, I will continue to hold the default position of atheism.

If, however, a deity delivers an unmistakable demonstration of his/her/its existence, then I would become a theist. I don't know what this could be, as I can't imagine any demonstartion that couldn't be put down to a hallucination. I assume that this wouldn't be a problem to any actual deity that exists.

I would not, however, support that deity until I could be assured of its good intentions.
If a Diety existed and put in a personal appearance from time to time I'd be forced to believe in a God or Gods but if the Diety in question was the Diety caled jehovah I'd have to skip the worship part. I might kill a cow or sheep and burn it up for him but it wouldn't be because I worshipped him it would be to keeep him off my back.

[Trent Wray]

If a Diety existed and put in a personal appearance from time to time I'd be forced to believe in a God or Gods but if the Diety in question was the Diety caled jehovah I'd have to skip the worship part. I might kill a cow or sheep and burn it up for him but it wouldn't be because I worshipped him it would be to keeep him off my back. Good point.

And I now understand even more that Xtianity is the Mafia and the churches are the bosses to whom tribute is paid, and that Jehovah is the Godfather. I'm going to start calling him the Holy Don. :)

[Mister Agenda]

I think someone who claims they will cheerfully burn for eternity rather than submit to God if he turned out to be real should see how long they can hold their hand in a fire to prove a point. I know what burning feels like. I have reason to know that I do not care much for even simulated torture (I was in the military for a bit, in a position for which they thought I should be prepared to deal with it). Hell is not Mister Agenda's natural habitat. He would not do well there.

I believe you could measure the time it would take just about anyone to start wishing they had shown less integrity in seconds should they find themselves in a fiery hell.

Christianity created the worst fate they could imagine for disbelievers. If it was real, there's nothing you wouldn't do to escape it, and they didn't write in an escape clause.

The best thing about hell is that it isn't real. Given the hypothetical that it is real, I don't want to go there if all it takes is holy ass-kissing to avoid it. I believe I could go to hell voluntarily to save someone else, I just know that I would regret having done so after a relatively short time of shrieking in agony from the torture.

It's easy to talk big about something you don't believe in. I used to believe in hell, gave it some thought, it doesn't impress me when someone expresses how happy they would be to go there rather than make nice with the Big Guy. People drown their rescuers, they'd trade places with their mothers in heaven if they were in enough pain long enough and it was an option.

Frankly, the moral hideousness of this kind of hell has gotten a lot of Christians to start downplaying it as 'separation from God' or somesuch. It's evil, it's designed to make you afraid, but it's so bad that hardly anyone really thinks about it, even believers. You just can't dwell on it too much without going bonkers, I think. It winds up being so bad it's ineffective at getting even Christians to behave according to their own standards.

[Twiler]

I think someone who claims they will cheerfully burn for eternity rather than submit to God if he turned out to be real should see how long they can hold their hand in a fire to prove a point. I know what burning feels like. I have reason to know that I do not care much for even simulated torture (I was in the military for a bit, in a position for which they thought I should be prepared to deal with it). Hell is not Mister Agenda's natural habitat. He would not do well there.

I believe you could measure the time it would take just about anyone to start wishing they had shown less integrity in seconds should they find themselves in a fiery hell.

Christianity created the worst fate they could imagine for disbelievers. If it was real, there's nothing you wouldn't do to escape it, and they didn't write in an escape clause.

The best thing about hell is that it isn't real. Given the hypothetical that it is real, I don't want to go there if all it takes is holy ass-kissing to avoid it. I believe I could go to hell voluntarily to save someone else, I just know that I would regret having done so after a relatively short time of shrieking in agony from the torture.

It's easy to talk big about something you don't believe in. I used to believe in hell, gave it some thought, it doesn't impress me when someone expresses how happy they would be to go there rather than make nice with the Big Guy. People drown their rescuers, they'd trade places with their mothers in heaven if they were in enough pain long enough and it was an option.

Frankly, the moral hideousness of this kind of hell has gotten a lot of Christians to start downplaying it as 'separation from God' or somesuch. It's evil, it's designed to make you afraid, but it's so bad that hardly anyone really thinks about it, even believers. You just can't dwell on it too much without going bonkers, I think. It winds up being so bad it's ineffective at getting even Christians to behave according to their own standards.

You're probably right. I can't imagine the terror of those who truly belive in hell.

[Trent Wray]

I think someone who claims they will cheerfully burn for eternity rather than submit to God if he turned out to be real should see how long they can hold their hand in a fire to prove a point. I know what burning feels like. I have reason to know that I do not care much for even simulated torture (I was in the military for a bit, in a position for which they thought I should be prepared to deal with it). Hell is not Mister Agenda's natural habitat. He would not do well there.

I believe you could measure the time it would take just about anyone to start wishing they had shown less integrity in seconds should they find themselves in a fiery hell.

Christianity created the worst fate they could imagine for disbelievers. If it was real, there's nothing you wouldn't do to escape it, and they didn't write in an escape clause.

The best thing about hell is that it isn't real. Given the hypothetical that it is real, I don't want to go there if all it takes is holy ass-kissing to avoid it. I believe I could go to hell voluntarily to save someone else, I just know that I would regret having done so after a relatively short time of shrieking in agony from the torture.

It's easy to talk big about something you don't believe in. I used to believe in hell, gave it some thought, it doesn't impress me when someone expresses how happy they would be to go there rather than make nice with the Big Guy. People drown their rescuers, they'd trade places with their mothers in heaven if they were in enough pain long enough and it was an option.

Frankly, the moral hideousness of this kind of hell has gotten a lot of Christians to start downplaying it as 'separation from God' or somesuch. It's evil, it's designed to make you afraid, but it's so bad that hardly anyone really thinks about it, even believers. You just can't dwell on it too much without going bonkers, I think. It winds up being so bad it's ineffective at getting even Christians to behave according to their own standards. You know I was just thinking about this exact thing late last night before going to sleep. This is all hypothetical of course, but for a long time now, I've said that I would burn in hell alongside loved ones if I had to choose. I don't think I would defy god when facing hell for just myself, but I used to think I would defy god "eternally" if it involved others.

But I'm not sure I could do that facing an eternity. I would, and have, suffered for the sake of others for years at a time. But I knew that "nothing would last forever," and there was always that slim chance of a way out around the corner (which did eventually come). With an eternal hell facing me, I'm not sure how long I would last LOL. If I actually had a choice to suffer alongside another in an eternal hell, I think that might be the point where I call it quits. But I'm not sure anymore.

ETA: And on that note, again hypothetically, considering the concept of Jesus sacrificing himself for my sin, going to hell for 3 days, etc and so forth .... most Xtians I think always claim how "beautiful what he did was," or how much he loved us, and that shows how much he loved us .... and so the martyr complex can be praised and cherished.

But what if Jesus was really saying, "kids, don't try this at home," since the idea of a person being willing to suffer eternally in defiance or for someone else is basically cowpoo? Perhaps Jesus was trying to give an example of what NOT to do :)

Sorry if I was incoherent in this post :(

[Mark6]

You're probably right. I can't imagine the terror of those who truly belive in hell.
Disagree. I spoke to some Christian who were utterly certain about literal reality of hell, and could go quite at length about specifics of torture. They were not the least bit terrified because they were just as utterly certain THEY were going to heaven.

BTW, the only place I met such people was in US military, and frankly this scares me. Of course, they were a small minority even there.

[Cainkane1]

I think someone who claims they will cheerfully burn for eternity rather than submit to God if he turned out to be real should see how long they can hold their hand in a fire to prove a point. I know what burning feels like. I have reason to know that I do not care much for even simulated torture (I was in the military for a bit, in a position for which they thought I should be prepared to deal with it). Hell is not Mister Agenda's natural habitat. He would not do well there.

I believe you could measure the time it would take just about anyone to start wishing they had shown less integrity in seconds should they find themselves in a fiery hell.

Christianity created the worst fate they could imagine for disbelievers. If it was real, there's nothing you wouldn't do to escape it, and they didn't write in an escape clause.

The best thing about hell is that it isn't real. Given the hypothetical that it is real, I don't want to go there if all it takes is holy ass-kissing to avoid it. I believe I could go to hell voluntarily to save someone else, I just know that I would regret having done so after a relatively short time of shrieking in agony from the torture.

It's easy to talk big about something you don't believe in. I used to believe in hell, gave it some thought, it doesn't impress me when someone expresses how happy they would be to go there rather than make nice with the Big Guy. People drown their rescuers, they'd trade places with their mothers in heaven if they were in enough pain long enough and it was an option.

Frankly, the moral hideousness of this kind of hell has gotten a lot of Christians to start downplaying it as 'separation from God' or somesuch. It's evil, it's designed to make you afraid, but it's so bad that hardly anyone really thinks about it, even believers. You just can't dwell on it too much without going bonkers, I think. It winds up being so bad it's ineffective at getting even Christians to behave according to their own standards.
Its my guess that Christianirty stole Hell from the Zoroastrians. In that religion everybody goes to Hell but they only stay as long as it takes for their sins to burn away. The less sin the shorter stay and vice versa. Christians made it worse by making it virtually impossible to stay out of and once your there your there to stay.

[Cainkane1]

Disagree. I spoke to some Christian who were utterly certain about literal reality of hell, and could go quite at length about specifics of torture. They were not the least bit terrified because they were just as utterly certain THEY were going to heaven.

BTW, the only place I met such people was in US military, and frankly this scares me. Of course, they were a small minority even there.
The specifics of torture in Hell are simple. You are covered with fire and like Moses burning bush you aren't completely consumed. You burn, you grow new skin and you burn some more. Meanwhile God in his infinite mercy has worms chewing on your bubbling frying flesh. One billion years later its the same situation. Glory glory.

[Mister Agenda]

Its my guess that Christianirty stole Hell from the Zoroastrians. In that religion everybody goes to Hell but they only stay as long as it takes for their sins to burn away. The less sin the shorter stay and vice versa. Christians made it worse by making it virtually impossible to stay out of and once your there your there to stay.

I guess that hell just wasn't bad enough.

[Twiler]

Disagree. I spoke to some Christian who were utterly certain about literal reality of hell, and could go quite at length about specifics of torture. They were not the least bit terrified because they were just as utterly certain THEY were going to heaven.

BTW, the only place I met such people was in US military, and frankly this scares me. Of course, they were a small minority even there.

Oh yeah, I forgot about people who have no self-doubt.

[Mister Agenda]

See, that's one way of dealing with the concept that hell is real, by convincing yourself only other people will go there.

[DOC]

If, however, a deity delivers an unmistakable demonstration of his/her/its existence, then I would become a theist. I don't know what this could be, as I can't imagine any demonstartion that couldn't be put down to a hallucination. I assume that this wouldn't be a problem to any actual deity that exists.

Here is what Christ says about this issue:

http://bible.cc/matthew/16-4.htm

[Twiler]

Here is what Christ says about this issue:

http://bible.cc/matthew/16-4.htm

Words on a page. Anyone can write things down.

[Complexity]

Look what the cat dragged in.

Naughty kitty!

[Meadmaker]

Here is what Christ says about this issue:

http://bible.cc/matthew/16-4.htm

Or, at least, what he may have said, unless of course somebody else just made it up long after he died. And, it isn't exactly clear and convincing evidence, is it?

[Robin]

So Jesus said that only the wicked and faithless ask for signs and there won't be any, so don't bother asking.

And Revelations is full of the signs that will precede the last days.

[154]

And Revelations is full of the signs that will precede the last days.It's "Revelation." One. Singular. If you don't even know that, what chance is there that you really know much of anything about the Book, other than your prejudice?

[Robin]

It's "Revelation." One. Singular. If you don't even know that, what chance is there that you really know much of anything about the Book, other than your prejudice?
Focussing on the typo rather than addressing the post?

That is very bright I must say.

[MetalSeagull]

Frankly, the moral hideousness of this kind of hell has gotten a lot of Christians to start downplaying it as 'separation from God' or somesuch. It's evil, it's designed to make you afraid, but it's so bad that hardly anyone really thinks about it, even believers. You just can't dwell on it too much without going bonkers, I think. It winds up being so bad it's ineffective at getting even Christians to behave according to their own standards.

It took me nearly twenty years to get from christianity to atheism, but rejecting the concept of hell only took a couple of nights thinking about it. Eternal torture for finite crime? Otherwise good people burning for wrong belief? It is evil.

It reminds me of Matt Dillahunty's question: how do you know God is the good one and the devil is the bad one?

I work with a lot of biblical literalists, and I wonder how firm their grasp on the concept of infinity is. The Earth will be a barren rock and the sun have long burned out, and their god will still not have managed to forgive someone who failed to be convinced by a book.

[154]

Focussing on the typo rather than addressing the post?

That is very bright I must say.
I don't believe you.
So now you were faced with two possibilities; admit it or lie.
Not surprisingly, you lied.
Since you claim you know and it was merely a "typo," shall I search for other such "typos"?

[154]

It would be odd if this world leader had never heard of Revelations or the number of the beast.Oopsy. Look at that. Another "typo."

Liar.

I won't post the other "typos" going back to 2005.

[Complexity]

I don't believe you.
So now you were faced with two possibilities; admit it or lie.
Not surprisingly, you lied.
Since you claim you know and it was merely a "typo," shall I search for other such "typos"?


Listen, silly man - I don't give a damn whether it is 'Revelation' or 'Revelations' - it is a bunch of hooey and anyone who remembers exactly what you people believe in and whether it is singular or plural deserves the wasted life that they are squandering.

That said, he claimed 'typo' and you have no cause to doubt him except for surliness. Apologize or be forever damned - it costs me nothing to consign people to the hells that they wish upon others.

[Robin]

I don't believe you.
Oh, no. How will I get over that?
So now you were faced with two possibilities; admit it or lie.
Not surprisingly, you lied.
Was that a revelation from God was it?
Since you claim you know and it was merely a "typo," shall I search for other such "typos"?
I have no doubt I have made the same one in the past and will do so in the future. I am more used to referring to the book as "Apocalypse" but people here don't always know what I mean by that.

As I said, it is such a trivial quibble.

[154]

Complexity, Please ignore me and never respond to anything I post ever again.
I couldn't care less what you say.

[Complexity]

Complexity, Please ignore me and never respond to anything I post ever again.
I couldn't care less what you say.


Happy dance!

:yahoo :wave1 :yahoo

Au contraire, ma petite chien!

I will be offering expert commentary and guided tours of your mind (sort of like the tours of Hell House that you fundies like to give at Halloween).

I am now, without question, your biggest fan.

This should be great fun!

I'd like to thank the Academy...

(I may have made some mistakes in my high-school french, especially involving gender, but I simply can't be bothered to look it up - I'm that happy!)

I await your next missive with bated breath...

(and that reminds me of one of my favorite words and hobbies)

[154]

Fine. Maybe I'll play your way. Your posts will remain but mine would be promptly removed, but you'll see them.

Removed breaches of Rule 2, 12, and 0

[Trent Wray]

Oopsy. Look at that. Another "typo."

Liar.

I won't post the other "typos" going back to 2005. 154, are you a coffee person? What's your favorite food? Is there anyone alive you think it would be unjust to see sent to hell?

Yes I think all three questions are relevant.

[Complexity]

Fine. Maybe I'll play your way. Your posts will remain but mine would be promptly removed, but you'll see them.

Removed quoted moderated content


Actually, the activity that you referred to is not my favorite one (in either direction), but thank you for thinking of me.

My parents are proud of me.

You may have misunderstood what will happen. I'm not planning on much direct interaction with you (unless the DEVIL makes me do it), and I certainly am no longer interested in casting pearls, but I will become your most enthusiastic explicator to others.

[Robin]

Fine. Maybe I'll play your way. Your posts will remain but mine would be promptly removed, but you'll see them.

Removed quoted moderated content


Ain't Christianity wonderful?

[154]

154, are you a coffee person?I guess that depends on what you mean by "coffee person." Yes, I drink coffee. Sometimes a couple times a day, but sometimes not for weeks or even months a time or two. What's your favorite food?I don't have one particular favorite, I suppose. I love a good rib-eye. Can't go wrong with pizza. One of my specialties is an albacore salad. Good peaches are just a gift from God. And when I'm hungry enough, a microwaved potato or three with a bottle of Frank's Red Hot will do me just fine. I'm very easy.Is there anyone alive you think it would be unjust to see sent to hell?I'm sure there is, but I believe in a good God who will reconcile all things.
Yes I think all three questions are relevant.If you think you're setting me up for some trap, be advised, unlike all of you here, that I never have a problem saying "I don't know" and recognize that the Infinite can reasonably be expected to exceed the capacities of the finite, that is, The Creator knows more than the mere created.

[154]

Ain't Christianity wonderful?I understand your only point is to oppose and reject. I am but a sinful man, just like you. You demand perfection but despise Jesus Christ. Save it. I don't need your praise of me or you. I already know you are a liar.

[Trent Wray]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "coffee person." Yes, I drink coffee. Sometimes a couple times a day, but sometimes not for weeks or even months a time or two. I don't have one particular favorite, I suppose. I love a good rib-eye. Can't go wrong with pizza. One of my specialties is an albacore salad. Good peaches are just a gift from God. And when I'm hungry enough, a microwaved potato or three with a bottle of Frank's Red Hot will do me just fine. I'm very easy.I'm sure there is, but I believe in a good God who will reconcile all things.
If you think you're setting me up for some trap, be advised, unlike all of you here, that I never have a problem saying "I don't know" and recognize that the Infinite can reasonably be expected to exceed the capacities of the finite, that is, The Creator knows more than the mere created. Okay I'm more avid about coffee than you I think, by a few degrees. And although I love pizza, I'd trade it in for crawfish any day of the week, although a good Greek salad with lamb chops comes in a close second. And there are a couple of people, at the very least, that I would think it unjust if a god were to show up and send them to an eternal punishment. And I admit I'm wrong, or "I don't know" quite a bit. I rarely have a problem doing that, although those times do exist.

So we could both be sitting in a coffee shop after a nice meal, chatting with a loved one we admire and/or adore. You might have some preconceived notions about me, someone you don't know. I might have some about you, or I might not. Whatever.

What will determine who goes to hell and who doesn't at that moment we are both in the coffee shop, essentially being only a few degrees different from each other in that moment?

[Robin]

I understand your only point is to oppose and reject.
And what do you base this opinion upon?
I am but a sinful man, just like you. You demand perfection ...
Wait a minute - it is you who are demanding perfection, not me. I am just suggesting a little rudimentary civility.
...but despise Jesus Christ.
Who said I despise Jesus Christ?
Save it. I don't need your praise of me or you. I already know you are a liar.
If you need to believe that then fine.

But your statement says more about you than it does about me.

[Complexity]

I'm very easy.


:jaw-dropp

The coffee comment was telling. I don't think he appreciates the joys of a great coffee, brilliantly roasted and lovingly prepared.

Gotta admire the way he snuck 'god' into the peachs. You know, there's something about the shape of a peach that's somewhat familiar... Yep, he snuck 'god' into a peach. That old devil...

[154]

Okay I'm more avid about coffee than you I think, by a few degrees. And although I love pizza, I'd trade it in for crawfish any day of the week, although a good Greek salad with lamb chops comes in a close second.And I'll also try anything once, within reason I suppose, but most seafood is a no-go for me. Years ago, visiting friends down on the TX coast, they told me how great the crawfish was, and "sucking the heads" too. I tried.And there are a couple of people, at the very least, that I would think it unjust if a god were to show up and send them to an eternal punishment. And I admit I'm wrong, or "I don't know" quite a bit. I rarely have a problem doing that, although those times do exist.

So we could both be sitting in a coffee shop after a nice meal, chatting with a loved one we admire and/or adore. You might have some preconceived notions about me, someone you don't know. I might have some about you, or I might not. Whatever.Not really. No problem here. Except for one snarky response to me, you've been a decent guy as far as I can tell. I don't hold grudges. Even Complexity would see that if he was able not to insult first and only. While serious and honest, this is only brief diversion and entertainment. My purpose here? To say some things, no matter how much it may bother some of you, that will be implanted in some heads and just might, maybe, somewhere down the line, bear some fruit, God-willing, despite myself.
What will determine who goes to hell and who doesn't at that moment we are both in the coffee shop, essentially being only a few degrees different from each other in that moment?God.

[154]

And what do you base this opinion upon?
Wait a minute - it is you who are demanding perfection, not me. I am just suggesting a little rudimentary civility.My apologies if my assumption here has already been conditioned incorrectly.
And I would never demand or expect perfection from any mere man. I know myself too well.
Who said I despise Jesus Christ?Alright, who do YOU say that Jesus Christ is?
If you need to believe that then fine.
But your statement says more about you than it does about me.I need very, very little. Judge me however you see fit. I trust the Judge.

[Complexity]

And I'll also try anything once

(snipped for fun and because the voices made me do it)


:cool:

There are many things that I wouldn't consider trying even once.

I'm far too much of a gentleman to discuss them here.

154 - would you like to be my roomie at TAM some year?

I can't go this year due to other commitments, but I would so enjoy going some year, and I think we'd have so much to talk about.

[154]

154 - would you like to be my roomie at TAM some year?

I can't go this year due to other commitments, but I would so enjoy going some year, and I think we'd have so much to talk about.If you are buying, yes, sure.

Now tell me what that is and where that is, roomie.

[Complexity]

My purpose here? To say some things, no matter how much it may bother some of you, that will be implanted in some heads and just might, maybe, somewhere down the line, bear some fruit, God-willing, despite myself.


In other words (actually, in those words), you are here to proselytize.

Many, many have tried before you. I think you'll find that your words will not have their intended affect.

I will do my best to help you explain your beliefs accurately and with style, for I think it is important to have your views, and those of people like you, recorded for the edification, amazement, and amusement of future generations.

[154]

In other words (actually, in those words), you are here to proselytize.Nah, I wouldn't go that far. Pearls, you know...

And c'mon now, tell me about our trip. I'll remind you in a year.

[Complexity]

If you are buying, yes, sure.

Now tell me what that is and where that is, roomie.


I wouldn't pay for you, of course, for you might misconstrue that as imposing some peculiar obligation upon you. Heaven forefend!

The Amazing Meeting!, of course. Easy to find information on it. Check out the top of the index page of these forums.

I think it remarkably unlikely that you would attend a TAM, but I've been wrong many times before.

When I go, I may just enjoy a single room all by myself. As much as I'm sure I'd enjoy your conversation, I'm guessing that meeting and talking with hundreds of people from JREF and the forums would take a lot out of me, and I'm willing to bet that some peace and quiet at the end of the day would be welcome. Late night pillow talk with you (different beds, of course!) might not be as peaceful as one would hope for.

We could get together there over some great coffee so that you could let me know just how much hellfire will hurt. I already know what you think on the subject, but who am I to deprive you of the pleasure of sending me to hell yet again.

Besides, hell is my domain. We'll have plenty of time to talk later.

[Robin]

Alright, who do YOU say that Jesus Christ is?
A holy man who lived about 2,000 years ago and impressed the people at the time enough to build a religion around him.

Whether he was the incarnation of God, or the precursor to Muhammad or just a man with a good line in chat I cannot say.

[154]

I wouldn't pay for you, of course, for you might misconstrue that as imposing some obligation upon you. Heaven forefend!

The Amazing Meeting!, of course. Easy to find information on it. Check out the top of the index page of these forums.

I think it remarkably unlikely that you would attend a TAM, but I've been wrong many times before.It's not that important to me. But if you'd like to put me to the test, buy me a ticket, put me up at the cheapest dump you can find, that'll be fine, I'll drive there wherever it is. Bet me.

When I go, I may just enjoy a single room all by myself. As much as I'm sure I'd enjoy your conversation, I'm guessing that meeting and talking with hundreds of people from JREF and the forums would take a lot out of me, and I'm willing to be that some peace and quiet at the end of the day would be welcome.

We could get together there so that you could let me know just how much hellfire will hurt. I already know what you think on the subject, but who am I to deprive you of the pleasure of sending me to hell yet again.You don't know me at all. You would almost certainly be surprised at how well we otherwise got along. Try me.

A holy man who lived about 2,000 years ago and impressed the people at the time enough to build a religion around him.

Whether he was the incarnation of God, or the precursor to Muhammad or just a man with a good line in chat I cannot say.That's a fair answer. I apologize for assuming otherwise of you.

[Complexity]

You don't know me at all. You would almost certainly be surprised at how well we otherwise got along. Try me.


I know enough.

There never is an 'otherwise' with you people - its always 'god' this and 'hell' that.

I honestly think I'd rather have a beer with Roadtoad.

Yep, damned sure - I'd much rather have a beer with Roadtoad.

[Robin]

Turns out I misremembered in any case. All the talk of "signs" I was thinking of occurs in the Gospels, not the Apocalypse.

[Trent Wray]

And I'll also try anything once, within reason I suppose, but most seafood is a no-go for me. Years ago, visiting friends down on the TX coast, they told me how great the crawfish was, and "sucking the heads" too. I tried.Not really. No problem here. Except for one snarky response to me, you've been a decent guy as far as I can tell. I don't hold grudges. Even Complexity would see that if he was able not to insult first and only. While serious and honest, this is only brief diversion and entertainment. My purpose here? To say some things, no matter how much it may bother some of you, that will be implanted in some heads and just might, maybe, somewhere down the line, bear some fruit, God-willing, despite myself.
God.What kind of fruit are you hoping it will bear?

See .... this is something I don't get. This is what I've always kinda called "shotgunning". Someone who believes they know god, or some truth, etc and so forth ... and the idea that merely speaking words that they believe to be true will have some mystical effect, because they are "gods" truths. And so they take those words, ideas, whatever .... and throw them at a group of people, hoping some of them will stick. If they don't stick, either it wasn't meant to be yet, they only planted a few seeds, or the people were too wicked to let the words/truths have an effect.

Now, I can understand this tactic when it comes to marketing, or hawking some product on the street at passerbys hoping to get a quick sale, etc.

But aren't you generally talking about eternal life verses eternal torment? Don't you believe that you're actually doing something on god's behalf, the supposed creator of the universe and judge of the living and the dead and all of that? So are you selling some snake oil to make a buck for your conscience so you can feel like you tried, or are you actually trying to change someone's eternal destiny as you believe it and see it?

If I was merely trying to sell a product, I would do the shotgun technique. But if I thought that I was actually impacting someone's life to the degree that they were either headed down a path to hell or a path to eternal life .... I would take it much more seriously.

I would see the crowd before me not as a group of people having a talk on a forum, or sitting in a coffee shop deciding which blend to try, etc and so forth. I would see all the people as possible casualities .... people's whose souls were standing in the very balance of life and eternal torment and torture.

Have you ever been tortured? Have you ever been in a position where your life was threatened for days on end? Have you ever lost a love one and had them die in your arms, watching them breathe their last breath?

Would you give those people some bandaids or try to sell them some aspirin? Or would you scream for help and call 911 and do all you could to make sure they had an army which swore to leave no soldier behind .... or a set of physicians and doctors and surgeons ready to go at a moment's notice to practice their intricate and specific skillset to save a life hanging in the balance?

If I honestly believed that these people on this forum were threatened with eternal torture before my eyes, I would not settle for, "maybe I'll get some stuff into their heads and bear some fruit, whether they like it or not." I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your attempts at proselytyzing (sp) seem more like you're trying to meet personal quotas than actually caring about someone's eternal destination. It sounds like you're content to throw us bandaids and sell us Flinstone Vitamins rather than being absolutely sure and positive we get the best spiritual care we can possibly get and that 911 has been called and that your army of backups are on the way to save our souls from torment and despair forever.

I don't understand how a believer can be content with, "Well, I hope this does something. I hope this works. If not, oh well." Is that what you hope the surgeon performing a coronary artery bypass graft on your wife is saying? I doubt it.

So let me ask you .... is there a way that you can be absolutely, positively sure that you are actually helping us and trying to bear fruit in the ways that we specifically need this done in order to have our souls saved from a moment of torment in hell? Did God himself tell you to say exactly the words you said, to each one of us in exactly the ways you were supposed to say them? Did he commission you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to do or speak things in his name and take that responsibility upon yourself? Because if we are all sitting right now on a surgeons table and you are telling us we are going to code any moment, something more than a bandaid would be nice.

And this is the point where I generally would ask you if you are going to make guesses and quote scriptures and still attempt to speak on god's behalf, that you please call God into the room so he can take over because the bandaids aren't working that I can tell. And perhaps we need the actual surgeon to step up instead of a passerby just like us. Unless of course you've never met the surgeon, or gotten anything more than a bandaid yourself. And if that's the case .... how can you possibly be content with a bandaid for yourself or your loved ones, hoping that it all works out? I would want to have words with a god who was threatening me and a loved one over something of that nature. Wouldn't you? Or are you content to leave others behind and let us die here in this forum?

I mean no disrespect, but do you see my point whatsoever?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

What kind of fruit are you hoping it will bear?

See .... this is something I don't get. This is what I've always kinda called "shotgunning". Someone who believes they know god, or some truth, etc and so forth ... and the idea that merely speaking words that they believe to be true will have some mystical effect, because they are "gods" truths. And so they take those words, ideas, whatever .... and throw them at a group of people, hoping some of them will stick. If they don't stick, either it wasn't meant to be yet, they only planted a few seeds, or the people were too wicked to let the words/truths have an effect.

Now, I can understand this tactic when it comes to marketing, or hawking some product on the street at passerbys hoping to get a quick sale, etc.

But aren't you generally talking about eternal life verses eternal torment? Don't you believe that you're actually doing something on god's behalf, the supposed creator of the universe and judge of the living and the dead and all of that? So are you selling some snake oil to make a buck for your conscience so you can feel like you tried, or are you actually trying to change someone's eternal destiny as you believe it and see it?

If I was merely trying to sell a product, I would do the shotgun technique. But if I thought that I was actually impacting someone's life to the degree that they were either headed down a path to hell or a path to eternal life .... I would take it much more seriously.

I would see the crowd before me not as a group of people having a talk on a forum, or sitting in a coffee shop deciding which blend to try, etc and so forth. I would see all the people as possible casualities .... people's whose souls were standing in the very balance of life and eternal torment and torture.

Have you ever been tortured? Have you ever been in a position where your life was threatened for days on end? Have you ever lost a love one and had them die in your arms, watching them breathe their last breath?

Would you give those people some bandaids or try to sell them some aspirin? Or would you scream for help and call 911 and do all you could to make sure they had an army which swore to leave no soldier behind .... or a set of physicians and doctors and surgeons ready to go at a moment's notice to practice their intricate and specific skillset to save a life hanging in the balance?

If I honestly believed that these people on this forum were threatened with eternal torture before my eyes, I would not settle for, "maybe I'll get some stuff into their heads and bear some fruit, whether they like it or not." I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your attempts at proselytyzing (sp) seem more like you're trying to meet personal quotas than actually caring about someone's eternal destination. It sounds like you're content to throw us bandaids and sell us Flinstone Vitamins rather than being absolutely sure and positive we get the best spiritual care we can possibly get and that 911 has been called and that your army of backups are on the way to save our souls from torment and despair forever.

I don't understand how a believer can be content with, "Well, I hope this does something. I hope this works. If not, oh well." Is that what you hope the surgeon performing a coronary artery bypass graft on your wife is saying? I doubt it.

So let me ask you .... is there a way that you can be absolutely, positively sure that you are actually helping us and trying to bear fruit in the ways that we specifically need this done in order to have our souls saved from a moment of torment in hell? Did God himself tell you to say exactly the words you said, to each one of us in exactly the ways you were supposed to say them? Did he commission you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to do or speak things in his name and take that responsibility upon yourself? Because if we are all sitting right now on a surgeons table and you are telling us we are going to code any moment, something more than a bandaid would be nice.

And this is the point where I generally would ask you if you are going to make guesses and quote scriptures and still attempt to speak on god's behalf, that you please call God into the room so he can take over because the bandaids aren't working that I can tell. And perhaps we need the actual surgeon to step up instead of a passerby just like us. Unless of course you've never met the surgeon, or gotten anything more than a bandaid yourself. And if that's the case .... how can you possibly be content with a bandaid for yourself or your loved ones, hoping that it all works out? I would want to have words with a god who was threatening me and a loved one over something of that nature. Wouldn't you? Or are you content to leave others behind and let us die here in this forum?

I mean no disrespect, but do you see my point whatsoever?

I have often wondered this same thing. When I was a believer, I wasn't taught you had to believe in Christ to be saved, just Christ like in that you were a good person, so I never wrestled with this.


I have a friend of mine who used to be a born again, then she lost her faith. when she lost her faith, her closest religious friends just lost it. They begged, they cried, they pleaded with her. They had a "spiritual intervention." She eventually had to cut off her friendship with them because all they did all the time when they were together was try and "save" her.

I live in Boston. there's a guy I see all the time in the subways here who is passing out literature about how to be saved from Hell. he's got a big sign and goes up to people and gets very emotional. He is a very common figure here around the city.

now on the one hand, these people are obnoxious. And in the first case, they really were emotionally taxing on my friend. But you know what, at least you know they sincerely care about whether or not people go to Hell. They actually are trying to save souls. They actually are severely bothered at the idea of people being tortured when they can save them.

but people like the ones you describe, I do get the feeling they just want to win points with the big guy and don't really care about the rest of us being tortured. And that bothers me from an empathetic stand point. how can you just be so flippant about billions of people getting tortured for eternity?

But the worst are the ones who take pleasure from it. I can't tell you how many times on a net forum I've seen a believer smugly mock a non believer with something along the lines of "well you can believe you're right all you want, but when you're burning in Hell then you'll KNOW I was right!"
They seem to think "well, I can't force this person to think/act like me...but at least i take comfort in the fact they'll be tortured forever." which just is so disturbing to me.

[Trent Wray]

I have often wondered this same thing. When I was a believer, I wasn't taught you had to believe in Christ to be saved, just Christ like in that you were a good person, so I never wrestled with this.


I have a friend of mine who used to be a born again, then she lost her faith. when she lost her faith, her closest religious friends just lost it. They begged, they cried, they pleaded with her. They had a "spiritual intervention." She eventually had to cut off her friendship with them because all they did all the time when they were together was try and "save" her.

I live in Boston. there's a guy I see all the time in the subways here who is passing out literature about how to be saved from Hell. he's got a big sign and goes up to people and gets very emotional. He is a very common figure here around the city.

now on the one hand, these people are obnoxious. And in the first case, they really were emotionally taxing on my friend. But you know what, at least you know they sincerely care about whether or not people go to Hell. They actually are trying to save souls. They actually are severely bothered at the idea of people being tortured when they can save them.

but people like the ones you describe, I do get the feeling they just want to win points with the big guy and don't really care about the rest of us being tortured. And that bothers me from an empathetic stand point. how can you just be so flippant about billions of people getting tortured for eternity?

But the worst are the ones who take pleasure from it. I can't tell you how many times on a net forum I've seen a believer smugly mock a non believer with something along the lines of "well you can believe you're right all you want, but when you're burning in Hell then you'll KNOW I was right!"
They seem to think "well, I can't force this person to think/act like me...but at least i take comfort in the fact they'll be tortured forever." which just is so disturbing to me.
In some ways, I have more respect for the fundie who is actually willing to take their beliefs seriously and act upon it .... than the person who is claiming and treating my possible eternal torture like it's either entertainment in a movie they are watching or I'm just a plastic thing on an assembly line with little to no value which they have to inspect during their work day while they're on the clock.

Tossing around the idea that I am going to be tormented forever and that they either like it or don't really care all that much about it essentially makes them a criminal or a psychopath with no empathy in my mind. If I walked up to a strangers door, knocked, and then announced to the household that everyone needed to listen to my message or else they were all going to be raped, beaten, and tortured for hours .... they would call the police. Likewise, if I told them the same but adding that I was content to just sit and watch if they didn't want to do anything about their imminent torture, rape, and beatings ... they would still call the police.

At least the fundie heard the message, believed it, and then were willing to put their money where their mouth (allbeit their deluded and dangerous mouth) was. The casual believer who tosses around those ideas like they're not the threats they really are, are essentially playing with toy guns, pointing it in my direction, but never pulling the trigger. And if it weren't for the society we live in realizing they are just toy guns most of the time, there would be MUCH more violence and bloodshed over their ideas and statements that they make. Enter the clash between Islam and Xtianity and Judaism, etc and so forth. Telling somebody they are going to burn in hell forever on an internet forum is the luxury of someone who is playing with a toy and knows that they themselves will suffer no consequences. Walking down the street of Amman and proclaiming the same thing, with the same attitude, will be taken a little more seriously I imagine then posting the stuff here to an overall rational and understanding group who won't respond with violence to the toy guns being pointed at them.

[154]

What kind of fruit are you hoping it will bear?

See .... this is something I don't get. This is what I've always kinda called "shotgunning". Someone who believes they know god, or some truth, etc and so forth ... and the idea that merely speaking words that they believe to be true will have some mystical effect, because they are "gods" truths. And so they take those words, ideas, whatever .... and throw them at a group of people, hoping some of them will stick. If they don't stick, either it wasn't meant to be yet, they only planted a few seeds, or the people were too wicked to let the words/truths have an effect.

Now, I can understand this tactic when it comes to marketing, or hawking some product on the street at passerbys hoping to get a quick sale, etc.

But aren't you generally talking about eternal life verses eternal torment? Don't you believe that you're actually doing something on god's behalf, the supposed creator of the universe and judge of the living and the dead and all of that? So are you selling some snake oil to make a buck for your conscience so you can feel like you tried, or are you actually trying to change someone's eternal destiny as you believe it and see it?

If I was merely trying to sell a product, I would do the shotgun technique. But if I thought that I was actually impacting someone's life to the degree that they were either headed down a path to hell or a path to eternal life .... I would take it much more seriously.

I would see the crowd before me not as a group of people having a talk on a forum, or sitting in a coffee shop deciding which blend to try, etc and so forth. I would see all the people as possible casualities .... people's whose souls were standing in the very balance of life and eternal torment and torture.

Have you ever been tortured? Have you ever been in a position where your life was threatened for days on end? Have you ever lost a love one and had them die in your arms, watching them breathe their last breath?

Would you give those people some bandaids or try to sell them some aspirin? Or would you scream for help and call 911 and do all you could to make sure they had an army which swore to leave no soldier behind .... or a set of physicians and doctors and surgeons ready to go at a moment's notice to practice their intricate and specific skillset to save a life hanging in the balance?

If I honestly believed that these people on this forum were threatened with eternal torture before my eyes, I would not settle for, "maybe I'll get some stuff into their heads and bear some fruit, whether they like it or not." I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your attempts at proselytyzing (sp) seem more like you're trying to meet personal quotas than actually caring about someone's eternal destination. It sounds like you're content to throw us bandaids and sell us Flinstone Vitamins rather than being absolutely sure and positive we get the best spiritual care we can possibly get and that 911 has been called and that your army of backups are on the way to save our souls from torment and despair forever.

I don't understand how a believer can be content with, "Well, I hope this does something. I hope this works. If not, oh well." Is that what you hope the surgeon performing a coronary artery bypass graft on your wife is saying? I doubt it.

So let me ask you .... is there a way that you can be absolutely, positively sure that you are actually helping us and trying to bear fruit in the ways that we specifically need this done in order to have our souls saved from a moment of torment in hell? Did God himself tell you to say exactly the words you said, to each one of us in exactly the ways you were supposed to say them? Did he commission you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to do or speak things in his name and take that responsibility upon yourself? Because if we are all sitting right now on a surgeons table and you are telling us we are going to code any moment, something more than a bandaid would be nice.

And this is the point where I generally would ask you if you are going to make guesses and quote scriptures and still attempt to speak on god's behalf, that you please call God into the room so he can take over because the bandaids aren't working that I can tell. And perhaps we need the actual surgeon to step up instead of a passerby just like us. Unless of course you've never met the surgeon, or gotten anything more than a bandaid yourself. And if that's the case .... how can you possibly be content with a bandaid for yourself or your loved ones, hoping that it all works out? I would want to have words with a god who was threatening me and a loved one over something of that nature. Wouldn't you? Or are you content to leave others behind and let us die here in this forum?

I mean no disrespect, but do you see my point whatsoever?

Do you really think I should dedicate the time and effort to make my every post as long as yours?

Do you really think I should also post 100 times as frequently to keep up with you?

And do all this to greatly expound on my thoughts, experiences, philosophies and learnings
to an audience that will mostly dismiss it out of hand with insult?

So I would be criticized for proselytizing or I can be criticized for being less than sufficiently serious, but either way I likely get nowhere and no approval.

Exactly how masochistic would you have me be?

I started here with some truly incredible prophecies fulfilled concerning Jesus Christ and Israel. Not a single person here took them seriously or showed any genuine curiousity or interest in further examination. Not one.

[Complexity]

Do you really think I should dedicate the time and effort to make my every post as long as yours?

Do you really think I should also post 100 times as frequently to keep up with you?

And do all this to greatly expound on my thoughts, experiences, philosophies and learnings
to an audience that will mostly dismiss it out of hand with insult?

So I would be criticized for proselytizing or I can be criticized for being less than sufficiently serious, but either way I likely get nowhere and no approval.

Exactly how masochistic would you have me be?

I started here with some truly incredible prophecies fulfilled concerning Jesus Christ and Israel. Not a single person here took them seriously or showed any genuine curiousity or interest in further examination. Not one.


jeebus and israel? Yawn.

I don't expect you to do much of anything. I certainly think you've written sufficiently on the few topics that interest you. No one is biting. No one is interested. Find a much better topic or scribble on, writing only for yourself.

None of your points has been worth addressing, none of your questions has been worth answering, none of your posts has been worth reading.

Some of us will continue to perform our civic duty by pointing out silliness and error to future generations, but don't mistake this for interest.

[Trent Wray]

Do you really think I should dedicate the time and effort to make my every post as long as yours? If you really believed what you claim, you should dedicate the time and effort necessary to get the job done. If you saw a person in crises ... say, trapped under a car that was on fire, would you walk up to her and tug a few times and say, "sorry, I gotta go," ? Would you stand there and condemn her for not freeing herself after a few of your tugs? Would you pass the buck?

Would it have been better for you to not even try to help her in the first place? After all .... it's not ABOUT YOU is it? Consider her for a moment. You show up and attempt to help her in a crises but then jet after a few attempts. You give her a false hope. How many of you is it going to take coming along before she gives up on people like you alltogether?

This sums up not only the flippancy in which you treat us hell bound heathen ... but it also sums up the inadequacy of quoting some ancient prophecies we are supposed to believe. THEY ARE FALSE HOPE. If you believe we are hell bound, in crises, in need of truth .... you are but one of many who have come along and given us words that have no meaning and no relevance to the crises here and now. And each one of you has left, without being able to free us from our hell-bound crises. At some point, many of us looked around and realized we weren't trapped under a car that was about to explode, like your prophecies have proclaimed time and again.

But again, if you really were interested in convincing us, you would not stop until the job was complete. And if you were really interested in helping us escape hell, you would HELP instead of taunt and antagonize. Furthermore, if we are hellbound and ignorant of truth, why do you expect us to react kindly to you in the first place? Shouldn't the norm, for someone trapped in a burning vehicle, be to react irrationally? Screaming and yelling and flipping about? Especially considering those who have tried to "help us" before were unable to. Why should we trust you? Would you trust someone who was putting you down and threatening you?

Do you really think I should also post 100 times as frequently to keep up with you?

And do all this to greatly expound on my thoughts, experiences, philosophies and learnings
to an audience that will mostly dismiss it out of hand with insult?

So I would be criticized for proselytizing or I can be criticized for being less than sufficiently serious, but either way I likely get nowhere and no approval.

Exactly how masochistic would you have me be?

I started here with some truly incredible prophecies fulfilled concerning Jesus Christ and Israel. Not a single person here took them seriously or showed any genuine curiousity or interest in further examination. Not one. This is all about you, and not about us ... the hell bound heathen. You are making what I consider to be the greatest error of a believer ... you are hoping that the heathen respond to you, and what you perceive to be incredible, and what you perceive to be truth. And if we don't, you write us off or blame us for not getting it the billionth time around and you even get upset when we dare to insult you.

You are wanting to be god and use the authority you think god has, and you are wanting us to worship you and your words. But you won't see this in yourself, most likely .... because that is the way pride works. If you wanted to truly help us, you wouldn't be concerned so much with how we responded to you ... but whether or not we got help. And when you see that your efforts fall short ... instead of blaming us, you'd go and get your God to appear and show up and take over. Since it's supposed to be all about him and us, right?

But instead, you are getting in the way of your own god. Thus, who are you wanting us to see as god? You see my point?

[154]

..you.. you.. you.. you.. you.. you.. your.. you.. you .... it's not ABOUT YOU is it? You.. You.. you.. you.. you treat us hell bound heathen ... inadequacy of quoting some ancient prophecies ..THEY ARE FALSE HOPE.. you.. you..words that have no meaning and no relevance.. you.. your prophecies.. you.. you.. you.. you would HELP instead of taunt and antagonize..you expect us to react kindly to you in the first place?..Why should we trust you?.. you.. you.. you.. This is all about you.. You.. you.. you.. you.. you.. you.. you even get upset when we dare to insult you.. You are wanting to be god.. you.. you are wanting us to worship you.. your words.. you.. yourself.. pride.. you.. you.. you.. you.. your efforts.. you'd.. your God.. you.. your own god..you..You see my point?Wrong.

"154" does not matter.

"154" is not my point.

[Trent Wray]

Wrong.

"154" does not matter.

"154" is not my point.
Prove it :)

[Robin]

I started here with some truly incredible prophecies fulfilled concerning Jesus Christ and Israel. Not a single person here took them seriously or showed any genuine curiousity or interest in further examination. Not one.
I went looking for these and couldn't find them. Can you point me at the post or posts you mean?

[Mark6]

Fine. Maybe I'll play your way. Your posts will remain but mine would be promptly removed, but you'll see them.
Removed quoted moderated content


How nice. Thank you for this display of Christian charity and benevolence. Keep advertising!

[Foster Zygote]

...unlike all of you here, that I never have a problem saying "I don't know"...
All of us here? Most people on this forum say "I don't know" all the time. "I don't know" is the driving force behind the practice of science.

[Mark6]

Here is what Christ says about this issue:

http://bible.cc/matthew/16-4.htm
To summarize: I am telling The Truth, no I am not going to present any evidence, and if you even ask for evidence you are wicked and will be forever condemned.

Exactly what a charlatan would say -- and not even a very smart or imaginative charlatan.

I am supposed to believe that god gave me reason, yet if my reason leads me to doubt god's existence -- or even ask for evidence, -- I will be subjected to unimaginable torture fot trillions of trillions of trillions of years?

I find it much more likely that your religion was made up by controlling and vicious men, than that being in charge of universe is THAT powerful yet THAT cruel, small-minded and vindictive.

[Mark6]

I went looking for these and couldn't find them. Can you point me at the post or posts you mean?
Right here:
If you are, or get, familiar with the prophetic scenarios,
you will probably have some cause and opportunities for reflection and reconsideration,
and maybe soon.
He never actually quoted or listed any prophecies. Just kept saying "go and get familiar."

[Foster Zygote]

What will determine who goes to hell and who doesn't at that moment we are both in the coffee shop, essentially being only a few degrees different from each other in that moment?
Well you, obviously. You just admitted that you defile yourself by eating shellfish.

[154]

Right here:Wrong.
He never actually quoted or listed any prophecies. Just kept saying "go and get familiar."Wrong again.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5789815#post5789815

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5814937#post5814937

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5814984#post5814984

[Complexity]

Wrong.
Wrong again.


Wrong.
Wrong again.

[Trent Wray]

Well you, obviously. You just admitted that you defile yourself by eating shellfish.

Ooooo cher! Aiyeee ! :)

[Robin]

Wrong.
Wrong again.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5789815#post5789815

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5814937#post5814937

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5814984#post5814984
Thanks - I'll have a look.

[Robin]

Wrong.
Wrong again.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5789815#post5789815


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5814937#post5814937
OK, let's take this first prophecy (and I note that the second is a reposting of the first)

The very precise date for Artaxerxes' command comes from Robert Anderson's "The Coming Prince" which is the source for the rest of the calculations here, so it can hardly be regarded as independent.

Scofields notes of 1917 say:

The latter decree is, obviously, that from which the "seven weeks" (49 years) run, unless by "the commandment to restore," etc. is meant the divine decree Dan 9:23. In the present state of biblical chronology the date of the decree of Artaxerxes cannot be unanswerably fixed farther than to say that it was issued between 454 and 444 B.C. In either case we are brought to the time of Christ.

So it seems likely that Anderson might have been self serving about his selection of the day.

The next point is the premiss that the years can be multiplied out by 360. The Hebrew year had a variable number of days and it would be absurd to talk about a long time frame in term of years with constant numbers of days.

The article itself points out that the Hebrew week of years had a specific agricultural purpose and so this would have referred to seasonal years.

Using seasonal years the prophecy is out by about 6 years by my calculation

Finally, we see that the alleged mathematical precision of the prophecy evaporates when the article talks of things to come which are only referred to as happening in vague time frames like "on the horizon"

So all in all I am not too impressed by this first prophecy.

[SOdhner]

1. When it comes to people who genuinely believe they're trying to save me from a terrible fate, I appreciate it. When Mormons or Jehava's Witness' or whoever come to my door I let them know they're wasting their time and won't be converting me but I also offer them a drink (I live in Arizona, it's hot out) or my couch for a few minutes. Why? Because they're trying to do something nice for me. I don't think they're right, but THEY do and they're following that belief in a cheritable way.

2. When it comes to the reliegious folk who are here to show us all the error of our ways, the problem is that they can't look at it from our perspective. To them, the Truth is obvious and self-evident. There are a few people here that are downright hostile when it comes to religion unfortunately, but setting those aside you have a lot of people who aren't refusing to believe out of spite but simply have not been given any compelling evidence.

154 - the evidence you have provided is not compelling. It's not that nobody has read it or that we all hate Jesus or anything. We're trying our best to discover the truth. We want to learn, we want to know more about this incredible universe. There are just too many reasons that the bible doesn't convince us of its authenticity. We're not alone in that, either - heck, I go to a Christian church and even the pastor points out contradictions and historical inaccuracies in the bible. If you can't find compelling evidence for your beliefs, why should we choose them over any of the other religions (or lack thereof) out there?

[Meadmaker]

OK, let's take this first prophecy (and I note that the second is a reposting of the first)

The very precise date for Artaxerxes' command comes from Robert Anderson's "The Coming Prince" which is the source for the rest of the calculations here, so it can hardly be regarded as independent.

Scofields notes of 1917 say:

The latter decree is, obviously, that from which the "seven weeks" (49 years) run, unless by "the commandment to restore," etc. is meant the divine decree Dan 9:23. In the present state of biblical chronology the date of the decree of Artaxerxes cannot be unanswerably fixed farther than to say that it was issued between 454 and 444 B.C. In either case we are brought to the time of Christ.

So it seems likely that Anderson might have been self serving about his selection of the day.

The next point is the premiss that the years can be multiplied out by 360. The Hebrew year had a variable number of days and it would be absurd to talk about a long time frame in term of years with constant numbers of days.

The article itself points out that the Hebrew week of years had a specific agricultural purpose and so this would have referred to seasonal years.

Using seasonal years the prophecy is out by about 6 years by my calculation

Finally, we see that the alleged mathematical precision of the prophecy evaporates when the article talks of things to come which are only referred to as happening in vague time frames like "on the horizon"

So all in all I am not too impressed by this first prophecy.

This was my impression as well. It illustrates that the standard of proof needed to make us all sit up and take notice is going to have to be a lot higher than what those articles actually achieve.

I want to add my two cents on why this particular prophecy doesn't measure up. Some of this will repeat your points.

154,
First, I would like to know how the date for Artaxerxes' decree is arrived at. I ask this because it really is the centerpiece of this prophecy, after all. If the date is just sort of somewhere nearby, it wouldn't be all that significant, but if two highly significant events were compared and it was found that the interval that elapsed was exactly a certain number of days, that would be quite a coincidence, and bear some looking into. Is it the first day of the first month in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes? Or is there some independent historical documentation?

Next, we move on to the calculation of days. The premise is that the Hebrews used a 360 day calendar for a year. That's news to me. I would be very surprised if it were true. It certainly isn't true today, and as far as I know, months have always been measured by the Hebrews as being from new moon to new moon, and that isn't a 30 day interval. The modern Hebrew calendar synchs the dates with the solar cycle by adding months at particular intervals. I don't know how that was done in biblical times, but I think it was, in fact, done, so that the calendar was useful for agriculture. (Aside: The Muslim calendar doesn't do this. A "year" in that calendar is several days short of a solar year, so that important festivals occur in different seasons even in the course of a single lifetime.)

If that's the case, and I would be surprised if it were not, then the average year would have almost exactly 365.25 days in it, not 360. That's about 7 years off, which isn't so much of a bullseye.

Then there's the specific decree of Artaxerxes. In the book of Ezra, it doesn't tell anyone to rebuild Jerusalem. In Ezra, it is clear that at the time of that decree, Jerusalem was an existing, thriving, city, with a rebuilt temple where the God of the Jews was already being worshipped. The letter from Artaxerxes just told Ezra to go there and take some Jews with him, and put him in charge of adminstering some of the kingdom. If I were to pick a decree for the rebuilding of the temple to start some sort of prophetic clock, it would seem to me that Cyrus' edict would be a good choice, far better than Artaxerxes' letter to Ezra.

So, it seems as if maybe this prophecy isn't quite as impressive as the article made it seem. It is by no means certain that the decree of Artaxerxes is in any way related to the prophecy in Daniel. The calendar calculation seems a bit wrong. I haven't looked into whether he got the date of the first Palm Sunday correct, but it's certainly possible. There is some doubt about the date due to a lack of specifficity in the Gospels (some might assert contradictions, but that's another story.) However, the 360 day year seems to be simply an invention in order to make the dates work out. It's almost as if the author wanted a specific answer, and worked the facts around until he got what he wanted.

[Robin]

I think that in Nehemiah, Artaxerxes gives an order to rebuild the city walls and strengthen some buildings around the Temple.

So it might refer to this, or to Cyrus's edict or it might refer to the answer Gabriel has just brought to Daniel in the previous verses of this chapter.

[Meadmaker]

I think that in Nehemiah, Artaxerxes gives an order to rebuild the city walls and strengthen some buildings around the Temple.


Got it. Didn't read Nehemiah, just Ezra. Thanks for the reference.


So it might refer to this, or to Cyrus's edict or it might refer to the answer Gabriel has just brought to Daniel in the previous verses of this chapter.

What? The prophecy in Daniel might refer to something that happened in Daniel? What's the point of that?

[Robin]

What? The prophecy in Daniel might refer to something that happened in Daniel?
Only the "from date" of the prophecy.

If you read the whole thing it is quite natural to interpret it as saying that the 70 years starts from the commandment that God has just given in the previous verses.

[Meadmaker]

Seems 154 has moved on. Pity. I was looking forward to learning more about Biblical prophecy, and perhaps sharing a bit of knowledge as well.

[Robin]

Seems 154 has moved on. Pity. I was looking forward to learning more about Biblical prophecy, and perhaps sharing a bit of knowledge as well.
Yes, I feel a bit cheated. I went and researched it because 154 said that nobody showed any interest or curiousity about these "incredible" prophecies.

So after I go to the trouble of showing interest in them he disappears.

Oh well, the other prophecy seems to have similar problems, except the author is not even trying to suggest that the start dates have been independently established.

[Meadmaker]

Yes, I feel a bit cheated. I went and researched it because 154 said that nobody showed any interest or curiousity about these "incredible" prophecies.

So after I go to the trouble of showing interest in them he disappears.

Oh well, the other prophecy seems to have similar problems, except the author is not even trying to suggest that the start dates have been independently established.

And yet it happens so often. People insist that there is some sort of incredible proof for something, and when other people want to examine the "proof" and see whether or not it's really incredible, the claimant decides that the examination part isn't all that important.

Personally, I think that, as proof of God's existence goes, the prophecies of Daniel have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Indeed, while the details may appear impressive when presented carefully, when one looks at the fundamental premises that make those prophecies appear miraculous, the foundation seems weak. You might say that those gods have feet of clay. It was once much easier to propogate favored interepretations of Biblical prophecies to make them appear truly extraordinary, but the rise of the internet has changed much, by making research into alternative interpretations much more accessible to laymen. As that happens, more and more people realize that the prophecies are not as remarkable as the authors of prophecy books would have us believe. Indeed, I think the handwriting is on the wall for the peddlers of end times prophecy as proof of God's existence.

[eijah]

I would believe in a god if provided with a model of the universe including a god that had better explanatory and predictive power than the models we now use.

I would ascribe to that god only the qualities essential to or discoverable through that model.

The same thing we do with subatomic particles, distant planets, and new insect species.

It's not impossible, but current observations hold no hints of such a model being useful, and our whole history of observation makes it vanishingly unlikely that such a god would be much like the one described by any major religion.

Would in any way(s) that model itself be a "god" -- until toppled over by a more subsuming model?

I.e., sounds to me more than a bit like Moses' snake subsuming all of those other snakes, if that story of staffs and snakes has anything to do with models based on indisputable knowledge rather than being just a fairy-tale.

BTW, having been a staffer myself, and now having a staff, has anyone else here also noticed how often authority figures at the top of hier-archies take their staffs with them to meetings with other authority figures? And how often when one staff out-classes all of the the other guy's and gals' staffs, the winning authority figure all too often gets all of the credit? I think that the height of self-importance and always seek to give credit where it is due. Believe you me.

[Meadmaker]

Well, 154 has flown the coop and does not appear interested in resuming the dialog, but I wanted to share some information anyway.

Before I do so, let me relate this to the OP. Once again, we have a case where the skeptical community is actually very open minded. We are accused of just the opposite, but it's an unfair accusation. Most of us, given evidence of a phenomena, would accept the evidence and follow it to its logical conclusion. We sometimes seem close minded only because we have investigated the possibility of miracles and psychic phenomena so often, and always discovered the same thing, that we assume we will encounter it again. However, if the evidence were strong, we would certainly be willing to consider it.

To that end, I brought up the example that if confronted with evidence of the second coming of Jesus, I would reconsider my attitude toward Christianity. At that point, 154 tried to tell me that the signs of the imminent fulfillment of prophecy suggested that I would indeed see that evidence soon. OK. So, show me the data. He provided a link to a brief article that noted some uncanny predictions that had been made in the past by prophets.

At that point, though, the scenario followed an old, familiar script. Robin and I were willing to engage the subject, but noted that there seemed to be some inaccuracies in the uncanny predictions from the Bible. We were willing to discuss it, but the believer hit the road rather than submit the claims to scrutiny. Once more we, the unbelievers, were left without a demonstration of the power of God that would kick start our faith.

Now, just in case you encounter discussion of end times prophecies found in the Book of Daniel in the future, here's some interesting information that you might find useful.

The Book of Daniel contains several prophecies that relate to four kingdoms that will arise before the end times. When discussing biblical prophecies, evangelical Christians who are rapture ready usually identify those kingdoms as Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The prophecies were partially fulfilled by Christ, but a lot of the stuff that was prophecied didn't actually happen at the time of Christ, so the Christians assumed that it would be put off until the second coming.

However, making Rome fit as the fourth kingdom is pretty rough. One of the prophecies clearly refers to Alexander, and his successors were the end of the line. Daniel himself makes this identification. Also, Daniel says that the kingdom of Babylon was overthrown by "Darius the Median". The Median Empire is clearly the second beast. Then came the Persians, and then the Greeks. The Greek empire, Alexander's empire, was divided into multiple parts, one of which was the beast with ten horns. "Horns" in the book are consistently used to refer to kings, and there were 10 Seleucid kings ruling over Palestine after the breakup of Alexander's kingdom, ending with Antiochus IV, who ended sacrifices in the temple and persecuted the Jews. it was this king against whom the Jews rebelled in the wars described in the Book of Maccabees, which resulted in a Jewish restoration of the Temple, and ended up giving Jews the holiday of Chanukah.

In other words, the last beast in the Book of Daniel is generally not taken to be Rome, or a revived Roman Empire, such as the EU or the Catholic Church so often described by modern end times authors. The last beast in Daniel is actually the Seleucid Dynasty, with its last horn being Antiochus.

The author of the Book of Daniel is making a prophecy that Antiochus would be overthrown by the Saints of Judaism, at which point the Messiah would come and the end times would be upon us. Well, he was write about Antiochus, but the end times didn't happen.

Now, believing Jews had a problem. There they had this prophecy, but the prophecy wasn't fulfilled. It didn't happen. So, what did they do? They did what all believers of failed prophecy do. They reinterpreted it to mean that the rest of the prophecy hadn't happened, but it would soon. Jesus referred to the prophecy, and said it would be fulfilled soon. John, author of the Revelation, referred to it, and said it would be fulfilled soon. Modern authors continue to do so to this day. However, in reality, the Book of Daniel contains predictions about what was happening in the author's time.

One more thing. 154's article said that the Book of Daniel was finished long before New Testament times. That's true, but not quite as true as the article claims. The article puts the authorship of the Book of Daniel at a time before the Septuagint was compiled. What he doesn't apparently know is that there were lots of books that were added to it as the project went along, and one of those was the Book of Daniel. There is a great deal of evidence it was written at approximately the time of the reign of Antiochus IV. Like most prophecies, it was spot on concerning the things that had already happened, but not quite so good in its forward looking predictions.

[GrandMasterFox]

We sometimes seem close minded only because we have investigated the possibility of miracles and psychic phenomena so often, and always discovered the same thing, that we assume we will encounter it again.

I slightly disagree. I admit I'm not the oldest member of this forum, but to me it seems as if these accusations are usually a form of projection.

In most of the cases I've seen, the people who claims that we are close minded are actually the close minded people.

The people who claim "appeal to authority" are the ones doing the apealing.

The people who claim ignorant are ignorants themselves etc etc etc.

[Meadmaker]

I slightly disagree. I admit I'm not the oldest member of this forum, but to me it seems as if these accusations are usually a form of projection.

In most of the cases I've seen, the people who claims that we are close minded are actually the close minded people.

The people who claim "appeal to authority" are the ones doing the apealing.

The people who claim ignorant are ignorants themselves etc etc etc.

That's true, too. Most woos I meet are extremely close minded. I was just noting that skeptics often are not.

[GrandMasterFox]

That's true, too. Most woos I meet are extremely close minded. I was just noting that skeptics often are not.

I agree with you completely on that.
As we all know there are tons of logical fallcies in a debate - strawmen, circular logic, confirmation bias etc

From my experience, the one particular thing the woo would blame us for, is exactly what they are doing. It's almost like they are using some form of projection just to admit they aren't wrong.

[Wowbagger]

If such a powerful deity existed, then it should be able to demonstrate supernatural powers, of some sort, under controlled conditions.

In other words: If someone claiming to be a god was able to persistently beat million-dollar-paranormal challenges, that defy the very fundamentals of science, I could conceivably become a theist.

It could start off simple: Demonstrate that prayer to the deity could have an effect, such as lowering crime or healing the sick, in a statistically significant way; without fudging or cherry-picking the results, etc. That, alone, might not be quite enough, but it is a good start.

After that, you can move on to more challenging things: Fly up into the air, like Superman, to rescue an airplane that is about to crash, or something. And, do this sort of thing in front of enough witnesses (including me), enough times, so that it could not be dismissed as fake.

After that, we can fly into space together, where I can watch you Create a whole planet, and breathe life into the creatures you design, etc. Then, I might not bother arguing anymore.

But, again, we can start with the simple stuff: If you can't even make prayer effective, then what good is the claim of 'being a god'?