Earth Guide for Aliens [Video]
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Earth Guide for Aliens [Video]
Earth Guide for Aliens [Video]
Quote of the Week: Blaise Pascal | Reflections
Image via WikipediaThank you, Dr Kenneth Samples
Not only do we only know God through Jesus Christ, but we only know ourselves through Jesus Christ; we only know life and death through Jesus Christ. Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or our death, of God or of ourselves.—Blaise Pascal, Pensees, trans. A.J. Krailsheimer, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin, 1995), no. 417/548.
Quote of the Week: Blaise Pascal | Reflections
So-Called "Failed" Biblical Prophecies - Part 1
1. Ezekiel incorrectly predicted that Babylon would conquer Egypt.
2. Ezekiel incorrectly predicted King Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city of Tyre (or Tyrus).
3. Micah incorrectly predicted the destruction of Jerusalem.
4. Jeremiah incorrectly predicted that the Babylonians would be exiled for 70 years, but it apparently only lasted 59 years.
My friend e-mailed me those four points, as well as his "source":
http://www.goatstar.org/failed-prophecies/#Ezekiel%20predicts%20Babylon%20would%20conquer%20Egypt (it's a semi-article that has very little actual info, so it's difficult to understand).
I decided to split this into 4 posts.This first post will be about Ezekiel and a prophecy given that Egypt would be conquered by Babylon. Ezekiel 29: 10-12 and 30:10-11 are quoted using the NRSV translation. In the NIV the passages read:
8 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill both man and beast. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
“‘Because you said, “The Nile is mine; I made it,” 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. 11 The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries.- Ezekiel 29:8-12
10 “‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘I will put an end to the hordes of EgyptWhat does history say? Did Nebuchadnezzar conquer Egypt? The link given above says "No" but it makes no mentions of cuneiform inscriptions that support the Bible. I actually found somel links that help flesh out those early years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.I don't want to just spit out what the links already say. So here they are.
by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
11 He and his army—the most ruthless of nations—
will be brought in to destroy the land.
They will draw their swords against Egypt
and fill the land with the slain. Ezekiel 30:10-11
Did Nebuchadnezzar conquer Egypt?
Ezekiel Timeline
What does it mean to be "Regenerate"? Part 2
...atheist-about-Christianity-but-agnostic-about-all-other-religions...
Why must you be wrong about everything? Atheism is a statement of belief, and agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, so as far as I know, I'm atheist about all religions and their supernatural claims.
Interesting ways of defining "agnosticism" and it does not seem that everyone agrees with you: "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge." It can't be a statement of knowledge because uncertainty is not knowledge. It's good that Ryan has made up his mind because he did not say that before. Once he said that he was not sure about other religions but he was sure that Christianity was wrong. It's not really progress, but it is something.
now he thinks the Bible has mistakes in it.
And outright falsehoods!
So Ryan always thought that the Bible has had mistakes in it? He certainly thinks they are now. What was the falsehoods?
Consider this: Anderson is arguing that rest and relaxation and connecting with one's family is the same thing as what
I did no such thing, I am aware that the bible makes wild, unsubstantiated supernatural claims. I asked you to demonstrate that what you perceived to be regeneration in your life, that you (mis)identify as biblical/supernatural regeneration, is any different than the regeneration in my life. What I would argue though is that doing things you love can produce the same results that christians get when they think they are being regenerated by the holy spirit. Since you can't demonstrate that the holy Spirit exists, you'll need to demonstrate that what you actually get from your regeneration is different at all, in any way, from what I get when I'm regenerated by doing things I love. (spoiler alert, you don't do that!)
Here is the problems in communicating with Ryan. Arguing that doing the things you love is no different than the same feelings one has from Biblical regeneration is no different from how I summed up Ryan's argument. He just restated what I said. The reason why Ryan is confused is that he has not realized that comparing his definition of regeneration and what the Bible says about it is like trying to compare a potato chip to a microchip.
...notice that Ryan didn't bother to explain how his idea of regeneration is back up by this scripture.
Um... why would I explain why my idea of regeneration is backed up by your scripture? I'm an atheist, remember? I just don't think your "scripturally backed up" version is any different than my version in practice. That's the key, in practice.
Um, my point was for Ryan back up his understanding of regeneration of what the Bible says about regeneration with scripture. How can we even begin to discuss these issues if we can't agree on what the Bible says, I discussed how this worked out in practice. Remember the discussion about Galatians 5? That's what the Bible's regeneration is in practice!
In order to get the happy feelings he got from enjoying what he owes God for any he has to keep doing it
[In order to get the happy feelings he gets from enjoying the things God gave him, Ryan has to keep doing those things.]
What a messy sentence. But I think I get the gist. You realize I have a memory, right? But either way, I'll keep doing these things or other things until I die and I will have as full a life as I possibly can.
For which you owe God. Everything you have.
But that's really besides the point, except that it demonstrates (twice) that you are not a clear thinker. But let me ask, don't you have to keep going to church and/or keep trying to "not sin" to "get the happy feelings"?
Nope. Going to church and fighting your flesh are consequences of regeneration. It's a gift of God. You don't kick it off. You can't continue it. You can't finish it. You can do nothing without Jesus. I thought that you knew what the Bible says, Ryan?
Now come'on [sic] be honest: you can find yourself some where [sic] in verses 19-21. If you are still in those verses and not in verses 22-26 you need to get saved because you are [sic] regenerate yet.
So we're back to Martin Luther being biblically unregenerate?
Who said Martin Luther's life wasn't in verse 22-26? Can Ryan prove that verses 19-21 apply to Martin Luther? Sure would like to see that.
I don't know about you but I think that I have more than shown how the Bible describes regeneration.
Yes, nice job, and good for you, but I that's not what I asked for. What I asked was that you demonstrate how what you, Marcus McElhaney, perceives to be regeneration in your life is any different than what I perceive to be regeneration in my life. You do see the difference, right? I've never met a Christian who could demonstrate this, so don't beat yourself up too badly about it.
I thought showing how Biblical regeneration is more than just enjoying the life God blessed you with would be enough. But if Ryan wants a more personal example how about this one: The Holy Spirit keeps me from cursing out Ryan and keeps me praying for him and having patience with him no matter what ignorant argument he puts forth. He keeps me from using profanity and outright unfounded rudeness. Being regenerate causes me to treat Ryan better than he treats me. How about that? God is truly good.
What had happen' was.....: What does it mean to be "Regenerate"?
New Atheism, Science & Morality by Glenn Peoples - Apologetics 315
New Atheism, Science & Morality by Glenn Peoples - Apologetics 315
What? Debunking Christianity: It's Ignorant to Say "There is No Evidence for a Historical Jesus"
Okay, having watched James McGrath and Tommy Baker duke it out with the fanatical mythicists (not all are fanatical), I want to put to rest the ignorant claim that “There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.” There most definitely is. It's called "confirming evidence" or evidence of things we would expect to find if there was a historical Jesus, and it is Legion.
Amen. Hallelujah! John Loftus does seem to see something the same way I do.
Let's have done with such an ignorant claim.
Yes, Please. This we can agree on.
The debate is whether there is sufficient evidence.
Here is where we part company. I do think that there is more than sufficient evidence for Jesus' physical existence in time.
My claim in chapter 12 of The Christian Delusion
is that at best the Jesus movement that stemmed from John the Baptist and later reflected in Paul's genuine letters was an apocalyptic doomsday cult, and that this apocalyptic message of theirs can be found in every Jewish religious group or movement from the time of the Maccabees to the Bar Kokhba revolt.And here also is where there is several points of contention. There is far from a consensus on Loftus' theory but at least he doesn't claim Jesus never existed.
I find that the fanatical mythicists are not taking this evidence seriously. This is what is called disconfirming evidence, which is the strongest type of evidence, and it disconfirms the mythicist position.
I agree again. But I doubt John Loftus is going to make a habit of this - following the truth where ever it leads.
These mythicists are not true skeptics for they are making a claim about the historical evidence, that there was no historical Jesus. At best the historical evidence is patchy. At best they should stop behaving like believers, who, when their pet theory is criticized insult and berate the person who says otherwise. If they were really interested in the truth they would assess it dispassionately. The skeptical mythicist, at best, should simply be interested in the discussion and learn from all sides, not claiming more than what the evidence shows, and say "I don't know if there was or if there wasn't a historical Jesus," like my friend Hector Avalos. There is no reason for all of this emotional bluster. That's a mark of fanaticism which is born of faith, like the religionists they reject.
I'd agree with this also although I disagree with Loftus as to how much of the Bible is credible. He agrees with the Bible that Jesus existed, but denies the most important things the Bible says about Jesus. Still it's better than outright denying the historical evidence blindly. It's not fanaticism to accept a position for which you have evidence for. And there is too much evidence to deny Jesus did in fact exist.
Debunking Christianity: It's Ignorant to Say "There is No Evidence for a Historical Jesus"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)