The Tyre prophecy

[1robin]

I have changed my mind since your request was deceptive. You know that I have a large advantage in this thread, and that you have made many blunders, so you are trying to limit discussions about your blunders to my post 329, which you did not reply to. I will not agree to that, nor should I since that helps you, not me. I have spent a lot of time on this thread, including conducting a lot of research. I am not going to abandon all of that time and research just to make it easy for you to not have to discuss your many blunders other than the ones that I mentioned in my post 329. You can refuse to reply to my post 329 if you wish, or to any of my other posts, but if you do, I will frequently remind people, especially new people, of my post 329, and some of my other posts from time to time, and more people will know that you are evasive, and that you have made many blunders.

This is not a contest. There are no judges, no prizes, or trophy's. My confidence in biblical prophecy is so strong you have not even dented it. No discussion goes on indefinitely. Professional debates have strict time boundaries. I have made twice and many posts as you (even including that half of yours are duplicates) but I would never suggest that that sheer volume alone meant anything nor mandated anything. Eventually things end, I get burned out, and want to move on.

I will respond to any single post you give, but there is no deception (quit guessing at my motives, you are deplorable at it). It can be 329 or a new one, I don't care but that is as far as I am going with Tyre. I have become evasive but not because of the quality of your posts but simply the sheer volume of them. You made better claims here than any other thread but at best I would say you offered reasonable challenges to maybe 20% of that prophecy and nothing you have said has any effect on the remaining 80%. I am not obligated in any way to continue a discussion forever. We have been at this for months and you have done no additional relevant damage to the prophecy in quite a while IMO (and your constant claims to victory, the deficiencies in my responses, and the effectiveness of your own claims) has put me off.

It would not be possible to adequately discuss my post 329 without sometimes referring to some of my previous posts since my post 329 is based upon some of my previous posts, and some of those posts have good, and relevant additional information which you know make my post 329 even better. For example, in one of my previous posts, I showed that some Bible commentaries say that verse 19 is a metaphor. Obviously, if verse 19 is a metaphor, your arguments about the island being largely, or even partly covered by water are irrelevant. Also you never provided any valid evidence that says that earthquakes covered a good deal, or any of the island with water, but that doesn't matter since no recorded earthquakes occurred within your time frame.

Jewish Rabbis say that every verse has 50 levels of meaning. That is absurdly abundant but many verses do have several meanings. Some have so many layers that man is not a candidate as a source. Water is used as a metaphor and that verse literally as well. I have determined you do not fully understand probability or things like convergent confirmation but the chances a metaphor about water targets an island that actually was covered by water (the percentage that was is irrelevant) is basically zero. So a literal interpretation is justified. By the fact that wave and water metaphors appear in the same prophecy a symbolic interpretation is also justified and backed up by many such dualistic prophecies throughout the bible.

There was no need for a deal since you could have just replied to all of my post 329, and then left the thread, but you wanted to make a deal with me so you would not have discuss some of your other blunders that are not in my post 329, and you did not want to discuss some of my other posts which I used for some of my arguments in my post 329. Few people ever make deals before they leave a thread. They typically make a few explanatory comments, and then leave the thread, or leave without making any comments.

The sole reason I ever offered to respond to one last post of your choosing was courtesy. I wanted you to have some closure and not have me just stop (which I am perfectly justified in doing and have it happen to me constantly with far less of a topic having been covered). If you keep accusing me of ulterior motives I will withdraw that offer and simply end this debate. I have spent more time on this that your repetition and persuasiveness merit. Anyone who knows me would tell you I am obsessed with theological debate but you make me look like I only have a casual interest. Not that your claims are that good (though some are not bad) but that your volume is that large and your thinking of it as a competition that intense. It's just weird. Your not even the only one but you are the most extreme. I attract the longest winded people here and have at least 3 others banging away with similar volumes and I no longer have as much time as I did. I made you an offer of one last round of your choosing out of sheer courtesy. I would take it because I am going to soon bring this to a close regardless.

If you are smart, and honest, you will admit that your time frame is wrong, and agree with some of your own sources, and John A. Bloom,, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University, who say that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D., when the fortress was finally completely destroyed. However, that would still not reasonably prove that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

I wil answer this or anything you can put in any one post in detail and read any response you make. However I am not going to answer this plus 329 plus what is below plus what is the following post. Get your last attempts all in one place and I will address them.

In my post 329, I provided reasonable proof that according to your time frame, which even some of your own sources reject, including Paul Ferguson, Ph.D., who you praised, the prophecy failed for at least four reasons. If you are honest, you will admit that my arguments are valid. You know that after Alexander defeated the island fortress, a lot of the island was not covered by water, and that the island was useful for far more than just the spreading of nets, and that the earthquakes that you mentioned had not occurred by that time.

Make up your mind do you want 329 to be your last post or not. Don't suggest otherwise then refer to a few lines down.

In one of my posts, I asked you what part of the Tyre prophecy impresses you the most. You did not reply to that request. Would you like to reply to it now?

This one is interesting but I am sticking to my statement. Put this and anything you feel most valuable in one post and I will respond.


Continued below:

 

[1robin]

But you know that the Tyre prophecy has lots of problems that you did not know about when you started making posts in this thread. That is why you recently said:

"I will move on to another prophecy that is far more certain."

I can PROVE this is complete crap. When I first mentioned discussing a prophecy. I suggested Tyre BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST CHALLNGED of any. In my experience it is picked on more than any other because it has some grey areas that require a little study to resolve like what it means by "you will never be rebuilt" It actually means the Phoenician city not any city but that is inconvenient and so is constantly denied by your side. Tyre is not one of the easiest prophecies to defend and I said so at the start. I will give you this most of your complaints have not been typical. Your have been new to me anyway but they have run their course.

In part of your post 119, you said:



Your recent claim regarding my victory dance is an example of hypocrisy since what you said about herding cats was an example of a victory dance. At that time, you were arrogant, and boastful, and had already assumed that you had won the debates so far, and that you would continue to win them in the future. As it turned out, you embarrassed yourself on many occasions. You recently became overconfident again as follows:

No that was an example of exasperation. It had nothing to do with winning or loosing. It had to do with the frustration of not even being able to get the other person to follow along with a line of reasoning. That analogy is very accurate. A cat will go anywhere but the one place you and he need to go and they have no idea why they won't. They just sense someone wants them to go somewhere and refuse.

I replied:



When I said that, you quickly lost interest in that absurd approach.

Don't get this.

One of your main problems in many debates is that you overestimate your debating ability, and your knowledge of issues. You have made many comments in many threads that were not valid that I did not bother to comment on. How much knowledge does the Bible require that prospective Christians have? Does God require that all prospective Christians all over the world be walking encyclopedias? If not, what does God require that they know, or believe? You have brought up physics, biology, and biblical textual criticism, and you have debated those issues a lot. How much does God require prospective Christians to know about those vast fields of knowledge? In another thread, you said that you object to all ignorance, but you also said that there is no need for Christian creationists who know very little about biology to give up accepting creationism since there are not any risks for Christians who accept creationism. So you do not actually object to ignorance, or if you do, you do so primarily when skeptics are ignorant. Following your line of reasoning, there is nothing wrong with Christians accepting the global flood theory, the young earth theory, and many other crazy theories as long as those Christians will have eternal life. Of course, there are other risks involved regarding Christians who accept crazy theories since it drive many prospective Christians away from Christianity. Davis Young is an evangelical Christian geologist. He rejects the global flood theory, and has said that Christians who accept it sometimes drive prospective Christians away from Christianity. The same is sometimes true of Christians who accept creationism.

You can't imagine how useless your critique of me is. I have an insane amount of debate experience and normally use debates that people with w whole lot of letters in front of their name taught me. I know what is discussed, I know what the tactics are, I know what is conceded by both sides, I know what is not, I know what the replies will be most of the time. Please quit clogging up my time with personal commentaries (that is one reason I have gotten burned out, half your statements are about me not the issue), guesses at my motivations, repeating your posts, and claiming who won what. I do not trust your side of the argument and I have both substantial biblical reasons and personal ones not to so your critiques do not have any traction. I will make one admission then conclude responding to anything beyond my offer here. rarely I do add on something to a solid claim because I want to see if it can stand scrutiny. Sometimes they do not but I know the difference. Other times my sourcing is flawed because I am in a hurry and grab a source without reading I through. I never claimed perfection or anything close but I do feel the over all weight of my argumentation has been greater than yours even if you had time to polish a weaker argument than I for a stronger one.

So in summary you have three options concerning me and Tyre.

1. Post one grand final stand and I will respond in detail.
2. Try to guilt me into not ending this but it will not work.
3. If you choose 1, we can also move on to a new prophecy and as inconvenient as it might be for your ego it is because I no longer think your case will grow any stronger and I am tired of Tyre and personal commentaries, I am not by any stretch of the imagination intimidated what so ever.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you choose 1, we can also move on to a new prophecy.......

Choose whatever you like, and I will discuss it if I am familiar with it, or interested in it, but first I need to finish with this thread.

Tyre is not one of the easiest prophecies to defend and I said so at the start.

Obviously not since you have not adequately defended it.

I will answer this or anything you can put in any one post in detail and read any response you make. However I am not going to answer this plus 329 plus what is below plus what is the following post. Get your last attempts all in one place and I will address them.

I will try to limit my arguments to one post, but it might take two posts.

Edit: I have begun to prepare my post, and there is no way that the allowed 10,000 characters will be enough. I will use however many posts I need, and you can decide whether or not you want to reply to them. The Trye prophecy is much too long, and complex to limit to 10,000 characters. As you know, some Christians have written entire books on shorter Scriptures than the Tyre prophecy.

 

[1robin]

Obviously not since you have not adequately defended it.

For the love of ......... I just got through saying to stop it with the personal commentaries.

I will try to limit my arguments to one post, but it might take two posts.

Edit: I have begun to prepare my post, and there is no way that the allowed 10,000 characters will be enough. I will use however many posts I need, and you can decide whether or not you want to reply to them. The Trye prophecy is much too long, and complex to limit to 10,000 characters. As you know, some Christians have written entire books on shorter Scriptures than the Tyre prophecy.

If you had not done exactly what I had said not to and by the way I have resolved to stop doing them myself as often as I notice them in the future I would have been fine with two posts. However since you show me such little regard on what basis can I do so. My offer was one post and it stands. You know when writing materials were in short supply the common response from scholars when a paper was submitted was "great, now say the same thing in half the space". Why don't you try it and see if it works? That is why so many great writing is from centuries ago.

 

[Agnostic75]

For the love of ......... I just got through saying to stop it with the personal commentaries.

If you had not done exactly what I had said not to and by the way I have resolved to stop doing them myself as often as I notice them in the future I would have been fine with two posts. However since you show me such little regard on what basis can I do so. My offer was one post and it stands. You know when writing materials were in short supply the common response from scholars when a paper was submitted was "great, now say the same thing in half the space". Why don't you try it and see if it works? That is why so many great writing is from centuries ago.

I will reduce my questionable comments as well, but I will make my posts as long as I want to make them. I do not like you either, and I have had some discussions with a number of Christians over the years at various Internet forums who are a lot nicer than you are. An example of your sometimes questionable conduct was your post 304 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html, which was the main thread on homosexuality. I told you at least several times that that post was deplorable since it made many false claims. You did not apologize for the post, and you apparently did not even bother to try to verify what your conservative Christian sources said.

 

[1robin]

I will reduce my questionable comments as well, but I will make my posts as long as I want to make them.

I have suggested you make them more efficient but I have never required it. I however am perfectly justified in limiting what I respond to. When I have an hour left to reply and I see 3 or four posts of yours that are walls of information which includes redundancy's I have no choice but to put them off and I get to them far later than I do in other cases and my response are always rushed. You can do as your wish though, but I am not budging on my intention to respond to one final post (however long you wish) about Tyre.

Instead of choosing a single prophecy I would like to investigate the multitude that point to Christ. These are among the strongest so you should feel challenged. You rejected the prophecy about Israel, is this one acceptable?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Choose whatever you like, and I will discuss it if I am familiar with it, or interested in it, but first I need to finish with this thread.

I have above.

Obviously not since you have not adequately defended it.

I reject your conclusion and if that is the case after hundreds of thousands of words there is no hope of either of us changing our minds by adding more. It is easy to defend but compared to the other prophecies it is not among the relative easiest in the bible.

I will try to limit my arguments to one post, but it might take two posts.

Edit: I have begun to prepare my post, and there is no way that the allowed 10,000 characters will be enough. I will use however many posts I need, and you can decide whether or not you want to reply to them. The Trye prophecy is much too long, and complex to limit to 10,000 characters. As you know, some Christians have written entire books on shorter Scriptures than the Tyre prophecy.

We have both written short books of our own here. If you could not in my opinion significantly affect most of the prophecy what do you think you are going to gain? Your arguments have been of the same type for some time, you are just stating them differently. What is it you think is going to happen? You can make two posts if you want but I will select the best one post's worth of arguments to respond to.

Let me ask a personal question if I may. How do you have this much time? Do you work? Do you have a job like mine where you have free-time to post? Do you have a family? You can refuse to answer anything you feel inappropriate but your an enigma and I can't stand not understanding stuff.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have above.

What prophecy did you mention? You mentioned something about Israel, but you said that that was not something that you would use to defend Bible prophecy. I said that I would rather discuss a prophecy that you would use to defend Bible prophecy as long as I am familiar with it, but I am not aware that you mentioned any.

We have both written short books of our own here. If you could not in my opinion significantly affect most of the prophecy what do you think you are going to gain? Your arguments have been of the same type for some time, you are just stating them differently. What is it you think is going to happen? You can make two posts if you want but I will select the best one post's worth of arguments to respond to.

This is a long thread. New people frequently show up at this forum. For the sake of long time members, and especially new members who would not be interested in reading the entire thread, a relatively brief review of this thread would be very helpful. In addition, you have not replied to some of my most recent arguments.

Let me ask a personal question if I may. How do you have this much time? Do you work? Do you have a job like mine where you have free-time to post? Do you have a family? You can refuse to answer anything you feel inappropriate but your an enigma and I can't stand not understanding stuff.

I am retired. There is plenty that you do not understand, for example, in this thread, and in the thread on homosexuality. You sometimes come up with utterly ridiculous arguments. If you wish, I can give you many examples from many threads, and from three forums. I have read a lot of your replies to various other people that I did not comment on. You have made a multitude of illogical, and false arguments, and you have wasted lots of your time discussing issues that did not influence what anyone believes.

We still need to discuss my post 340 a lot more regarding the possibility that God is an imposter, and we still need to discuss whether or not God has free will a lot more, and we still need to discuss whether or not God provides a reasonable amount of evidence to everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable a lot more. As I suggested in that post, I think that we should discuss all three issues in the thread on indisputable proof that God exists since we have already discussed those topics in that thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument 1

Ok, so it is a big fat no. You can't do it so your trying to invent reasons to rationalize that away. Fine I give up, but I knew the answer before I asked anyway. You did not do what you said Ezekiel did despite me giving you massive, gargantuan, and enormous advantages in every way possible.

Been there, done that. I said:

If you can find similar circumstances today regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and the mainland settlement, I will be happy to predict that the attacker will severely damage a fortress.

In addition, if you can find similar circumstances today regarding the island fortress, I will be happy to predict that it will be largely damaged within 1700 years.

As I showed, I will be happy to do what Ezekiel did if you will provide some circumstances that are similar to the mainland settlement, and the island fortress. If you cannot provide any, then your argument was obviously not valid.

Argument 2

You claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, and that after that, there was no Phoenician presence at the island. If that is true, the prophecy definitely failed for the following three reasons for which I will use three numbered arguments:

The island did not look anything like a bare rock at that time. Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and Arrain says that very little damage was done to the wall that faced the causeway, and Arrian implies that no breaches were made from the causeway, and that only a few breaches were made. There is no way that a largely undamaged fortress can look like a bare rock that has been scraped clean.

Consider the following:

Ezekiel 26:4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

And I will scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock; a bare smooth rock, which has not any surface of earth upon it. So the Targum,

"I will give her for the smoothness of an open rock.''

Tyre was built upon a rock; and whereas the inhabitants had brought earth thither, and laid it upon it, in order to make gardens and orchards, and plant flowers and trees; this should be all removed, and it should become a bare rock, as it was at first. It denotes the utter destruction of it. It has its name from a word which signifies a rock; See Gill on Isaiah 23:1.

Alexander did not make the island like "a bare smooth rock, as it was at first." In addition, Alexander did not cause anywhere near the "utter destruction" of the island.

At Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre, Arrian gives a lengthy description of the battle. He says that the wall that faced the causeway was damaged very little, and that Alexander had to go elsewhere to breach the walls.

Argument 3

The issue of the spreading of nets complements, and works with Ezekiel's descriptions of the widespread destruction of the fortress, and the rest of the island. The island was useful for much more than just the spreading of nets since the fortress was rebuilt. Since nets were spread before, and after Alexander defeated the fortress, Ezekiel must have meant that the island would be useful only for the spreading of nets, which did not happen until 1291A.D., when the fortress was completely destroyed.

Argument 4

The island was certainly not largely covered with water at that time, and probably not even 25%, especially since the causeway would have helped to prevent erosion.

You said that earthquakes covered part of the island with water, but no recorded earthquakes occurred by that time.

It would not be possible to adequately discuss my post 329 without sometimes referring to some of my previous posts since my post 329 is based upon some of my previous posts, and some of those posts have good, and relevant additional information which you know make my post 329 even better. For example, in one of my previous posts, I showed that some Bible commentaries say that verse 19 is a metaphor. Obviously, if verse 19 is a metaphor, your arguments about the island being largely, or even partly covered by water are irrelevant. Also you never provided any valid evidence that says that earthquakes covered a good deal, or any of the island with water, but that doesn't matter since no recorded earthquakes occurred within your time frame.

Jewish Rabbis say that every verse has 50 levels of meaning. That is absurdly abundant but many verses do have several meanings. Some have so many layers that man is not a candidate as a source. Water is used as a metaphor and that verse literally as well. I have determined you do not fully understand probability or things like convergent confirmation but the chances a metaphor about water targets an island that actually was covered by water (the percentage that was is irrelevant) is basically zero. So a literal interpretation is justified. By the fact that wave and water metaphors appear in the same prophecy a symbolic interpretation is also justified and backed up by many such dualistic prophecies throughout the Bible.

I have no problems with the possibility that verse 19 is a metaphor, and I quoted a Bible commentary that says that the verse is a metaphor, but I do have some problems with your claim that the verse is also literal, primarily because you have not provided any scientific, or historical evidence that the water level of the island rose at all by the time that Alexander left Tyre, and because no recorded earthquakes occurred by that time.

As far as metaphors are concerned, I doubt that they make any Bible prophecy more believable.

Nebuchadnezzar got to Tyre in 586 B.C., which is the same year that one of your sources says Ezekiel wrote the Tyre prophecy. Alexander left Tyre in 332 B.C. That means that there were only 254 years for the island to be partly covered by water, for the island to be useful only for the spreading of nets, and for the island to look like a bare rock. Even many conservative Christians reject that, including at least two of your own sources, and John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University.

Argument 5

Even if you changed your date to 1291 A.D., when the fortress was finally completely destroyed, that would not be reasonable evidence that it is probable that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

Argument 6

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible says:

Ezekiel 26:12

"They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into that water."

Almost all Christian defenders of the Tyre prophecy misinterpret verse 12, and claim that Alexander fulfilled part of it when he built the causeway. You said that it doesn't matter if verse 12 refers only to the island fortress, but it matters a great deal to the many conservative Christians who claim that Alexander's building of the causeway fulfilled part of verse 12. You said that Alexander's damage to the walls, which by the way was only moderate, would have fulfilled verse 12, but that is not likely since chapter 26 describes far great destruction to the fortress than Alexander caused.

At the very least, you cannot provide any credible evidence that Alexander's damage to the walls probably fulfilled verse 12.

If you wish, I can explain why verse 12 refers only to the island fortress.

Argument 7

Surely few historians would be impressed by an ancient prophecy that predicted that a fortress on an island would be largely destroyed within 1700 years.

Argument 8

Surely very few historians, including those who know that Ezekiel was a slave in Babylon, would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned by ordinary means about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. William Lane Craig, and Ravi Zacharias are not historians, but I assume that they would not claim that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means even if they believe that God told him about the plans. Logically, it would not be possible for anyone living today to adequately estimate the odds that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means. It doesn't matter how you reply to these arguments since you will never get anywhere with them with any skeptic, most liberal Christians, and even some conservative Christians.

Do you know of any historians who claim that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means?

Argument 9

You said that is was very unusual that Alexander attacked the island fortress, and that the only reason that he attacked it was because the Tyrians hung his messengers from the walls. However, Arrian shows that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers. In addition, Arrian says that Alexander had some strategic reasons for attacking the fortress. Further, some modern sources say that Alexander had some strategic reasons for attacking the fortress.

Argument 10

You said that Alexander's use of certain naval equipment was unprecedented, but it was plausible, if not probable that someone would defeat the fortress within 1700 years. You said that it was very unusual that Alexander killed, or enslaved many thousands of Tyrians, but Ezekiel did not say anything about how many people would be killed, and he did not say anything about slavery.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

What prophecy did you mention? You mentioned something about Israel, but you said that that was not something that you would use to defend Bible prophecy. I said that I would rather discuss a prophecy that you would use to defend Bible prophecy as long as I am familiar with it, but I am not aware that you mentioned any.

The 350 that predict Christ and points in his life. I will only use maybe a dozen or so but I have not decided which yet. You rejected the prophecy about Israel so I have selected the prophecies about Christ.

This is a long thread. New people frequently show up at this forum. For the sake of long time members, and especially new members who would not be interested in reading the entire thread, a relatively brief review of this thread would be very helpful. In addition, you have not replied to some of my most recent arguments.

New people do not show up here. In every Tyre thread I have been in it was me and maybe 2 others.

I am retired.

That explains it. It must have been nice to have social security, Medicare, plus maybe a pension to look forward to. Not these days, thanks liberals.

There is plenty that you do not understand, for example, in this thread, and in the thread on homosexuality You sometimes come up with utterly ridiculous arguments. If you wish, I can give you many examples from many threads, and from three forums. I have read a lot of your replies to various other people that I did not comment on. You have made a multitude of illogical, and false arguments, and you have wasted lots of your time discussing issues that did not influence what anyone believes. .

Your commitment to limit your personal comments did not last long. In fact it never occurred at all. I have seen thousands of debates, and have been involved in hundreds. None of them was so clearly one sided as the homosexual thread here. Claiming victory there is not doing you any favors with me. Now get off the soap box, stop cheering yourself, and incriminating me for exactly the same things you have done (plus a few I did not do) and focus on your final plea for Tyre.

We still need to discuss my post 340 a lot more regarding the possibility that God is an imposter.

What has that got to do with Tyre? I also have no way of even going about thinking on that, it is self destructive and incoherent if you understand divine command theory.

I saw a single post that qualifies as your final hurrah against Tyre but I thought you said there would be two. Where is the other one?

 

[Agnostic75]

What prophecy did you mention? You mentioned something about Israel, but you said that that was not something that you would use to defend Bible prophecy. I said that I would rather discuss a prophecy that you would use to defend Bible prophecy as long as I am familiar with it, but I am not aware that you mentioned any.

The 350 that predict Christ and points in his life. I will only use maybe a dozen or so but I have not decided which yet. You rejected the prophecy about Israel so I have selected the prophecies about Christ.

I would be happy to discuss Israel if you would use that topic as a defense of Bible prophecy, but you said that you wouldn't.

The only messianic prophecies that I know a little about are Isaiah 53, and Micah 5:2. I will be happy to discuss either of those prophecies with you. If we discussed Isaiah 53, I would frequently appeal to a number of Jewish experts. Such a thread would be interesting since there are at least several Jews at this forum who know a good deal about Judaism. In addition, I could let readers at the General Religious Discussions forum know about such a new thread at this forum. I will be happy to discuss Micah 5:2 with you but there is no way that you can reasonably prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and even if you could, that would not reasonably prove that he was the Jewish messiah that is mentioned in the Old Testament.

This is a long thread. New people frequently show up at this forum. For the sake of long time members, and especially new members who would not be interested in reading the entire thread, a relatively brief review of this thread would be very helpful. In addition, you have not replied to some of my most recent arguments.

New people do not show up here. In every Tyre thread I have been in it was me and maybe 2 others.

You are unnecessarily wasting time with banter and trivia when you could be replying to my post 350. I was able to get everything into one post.

I have seen thousands of debates, and have been involved in hundreds. None of them was so clearly one sided as the homosexual thread here.

I have adequately refuted your two main arguments a number of times in two threads, and you never replied to some of my arguments. I will go to the main thread on homosexuality and discuss your two main arguments again. I might revise what I said, or add to it, or make some new arguments. Readers can judge for themselves whose arguments are best.

Edit: I just finished making that post in the main thread on homosexuality at
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-have-relationship-other-226.html#post3866988. I will not reply to any more of your posts in any thread unless you reply to that post.

We still need to discuss my post 340 a lot more regarding the possibility that God is an imposter.

What has that got to do with Tyre? I also have no way of even going about thinking on that, it is self destructive and incoherent if you understand divine command theory.

If God is an imposter, and is omnipotent, and omniscient, he is able to predict the future, in which case no Bible prophecy makes any difference.

I also have no way of even going about thinking on that.......

That is because there are not any good refutations of it. If God was an imposter, how would you be able to know that?

.......it is self destructive and incoherent if you understand divine command theory.

We have already discussed this before at another forum. You mentioned divine command theory, and William Lance Craig, so I found a pertinent website by Craig at Slaughter of the Canaanites | Reasonable Faith, and I told you that nothing in the article reasonably disproves my theory. I also asked you what you were talking about. You said that you do not understand divine command theory, and suggested that I study it myself. It was not appropriate for you to mention something as evidence that you do not understand.

Craig says:

"On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command."

That has nothing to do with my theory since Craig was only justifying what God does.

My arguments are not strange at all since you already believe that good and evil supernatural beings exist, and that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. I merely proposed that it is reasonably possible that God is doing what you believe Satan already does, and is an imposter. It is more probable that God is an imposter than it is that he is who the Bible says he is. It is a reasonable assumption that a loving God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and without creating the virus in animals that became the AIDS virus after it was transferred from animals to humans.

I have three main arguments that reasonably prove that the God of the Bible does not exist, or is an imposter. First of all, there is my post 3639 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...utable-rational-proof-god-exists-existed.html, which argues that since the God of the Bible does not have free will, he cannot exist since no loving God would ask people to love a being who does not have free will. As I told you, without choice, morality has no meaning. We debated that issue for a while, but none of your arguments were valid, and you withdrew from that debate.

Second, there is my post 3640 on the same page, which reasonably proves that God does not provide a reasonable amount of evidence for everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable. By implication, that proves that the God of the Bible does not exist since the Bible implies that God is fair. We debated that issue for a while, but none of your arguments were valid, and you withdrew from that debate. I proved that geography often determines why people believe what they believe. You said that the human heart determines what people believe, but that was just a game of semantics since what I obviously meant was the geography often determines why the human heart chooses what to believe.

Third, there are my arguments in this thread about the possibility that the God of the Bible is an imposter. If the God of the Bible is an imposter, then the God of the Bible does not exist. It is more probable that God is an imposter than it is that the God of the Bible exists.

We need to discuss all three of those issues a lot more. If you refuse to do so, I will not discuss any other issues with you in any thread except for the Tyre prophecy. I suggest that we discuss these issues in the other thread since we already discussed them in that thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have seen thousands of debates, and have been involved in hundreds. None of them was so clearly one sided as the homosexual thread here.

Just please answer one question, in your opinion, are some homosexuals better off practicing homosexuality than practicing long term abstinence?

My most recent arguments on the Tyre prophecy are in my post 350.

By the way, I apologize for some of my conduct.

 

[1robin]

Just please answer one question, in your opinion, are some homosexuals better off practicing homosexuality than practicing long term abstinence?

By the way, I apologize for some of my conduct.

An apology given to me covers a multitude of mistakes. I also apologize to you for getting a little short with you at times.

I will answer your question but let me point out I have no need to, for my main contention to have been valid. I do not need to reform the prison system to know stealing is wrong. Anyway.

I know that humanity at large would be better off without homosexuality. That fact is evident from unending statistics and common sense. I would think that homosexuals in particular would be better off but I do not think they would agree. They apparently place more value on fulfilling their desires than the risks they produce. So they would move heaven and earth to make it seem like there were all sorts of devastating costs to not practicing homosexuality. IMO they would be making up most of them, a few would have merit, but none would justify the cost regardless.

I would think the most logical way to go about it would be to initially label the practice as wrong, and not require anyone else to pay the costs of those who engage in it but not criminalize what people do in private. Not validate it by a covenant that only Christianity is the foundation for (marriage). Civil unions may be ok but I would restrict them in any way where others are involved and must pay for them. While these type measures are enforced I would study it in detail and without bias of any kind to get at what it's true nature is and what measures are available to deal with it. I think that the issue is far too politically involved to get much good science concerning it done. We should assume it is a choice until persuaded reliably otherwise.

I have had many problems associated with a wrong choice on my part but I have never asked anyone outside my family to put up with them or pay for them.

I will get to your earlier posts soon.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I know that humanity at large would be better off without homosexuality. That fact is evident from unending statistics and common sense. I would think that homosexuals in particular would be better off but I do not think they would agree. They apparently place more value on fulfilling their desires than the risks they produce. So they would move heaven and earth to make it seem like there were all sorts of devastating costs to not practicing homosexuality. IMO they would be making up most of them, a few would have merit, but none would justify the cost regardless.

I would think the most logical way to go about it would be to initially label the practice as wrong, and not require anyone else to pay the costs of those who engage in it but not criminalize what people do in private. Not validate it by a covenant that only Christianity is the foundation for (marriage). Civil unions may be ok but I would restrict them in any way where others are involved and must pay for them. While these type measures are enforced I would study it in detail and without bias of any kind to get at what it's true nature is and what measures are available to deal with it. I think that the issue is far too politically involved to get much good science concerning it done. We should assume it is a choice until persuaded reliably otherwise.

I transferred what you said to the main thread on homosexuality and replied to it there. I hope that that was ok with you since that is a better place to discuss homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

I transferred what you said to the main thread on homosexuality and replied to it there. I hope that that was ok with you since that is a better place to discuss homosexuality.

I don't care as I will not see it anyway but I can't figure why you would want to.


I have lost track which posts are your finale for Tyre, can you tell me the priority of what you wished me to get to and if the prophecies about Christ are ok?

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't care as I will not see it anyway but I can't figure why you would want to.

I have lost track which posts are your finale for Tyre, can you tell me the priority of what you wished me to get to and if the prophecies about Christ are ok?

I must have accidently deleted something that I told you a couple of days ago. I told you that I am tired of debating since I have debated a lot for many years at these forums, and at another Internet website, and that there are more important things to do in life than spend too much time debating, and that I only wanted to try to arrive at some agreed upon conclusions with you about homosexuality before I stop debating. Since you do not want to discuss homosexuality any more, there is nothing left for us to discuss.

You can still start any new threads on Bible prophecy that you want to start and discuss them with other people.

 

[1robin]

I must have accidently deleted something that I told you a couple of days ago. I told you that I am tired of debating since I have debated a lot for many years at these forums, and at another Internet website, and that there are more important things to do in life than spend too much time debating, and that I only wanted to try to arrive at some agreed upon conclusions with you about homosexuality before I stop debating. Since you do not want to discuss homosexuality any more, there is nothing left for us to discuss.

You can still start any new threads on Bible prophecy that you want to start and discuss them with other people.

Holy heck what are you talking about. You have been pushing a debate with me , trying to suck me into new threads, posting the same thing over and over, getting upset even when I was slow in responding, now you really are not interested. Fine with me either way but this is like a Jeckle and Hyde sort of change here. You just let me know what you want to do and I will respond accordingly. This was as unexpected as having a liberal lower taxes.

 

[Agnostic75]

Holy heck what are you talking about. You have been pushing a debate with me, trying to suck me into new threads, posting the same thing over and over, getting upset even when I was slow in responding, now you really are not interested. Fine with me either way but this is like a Jeckle and Hyde sort of change here. You just let me know what you want to do and I will respond accordingly. This was as unexpected as having a liberal lower taxes.

I have lost interest in debating you, and everyone else since, as I said, there are better things to do other than spend too much time debating. Still, I am wiling to continue my debates with you if you will not be evasive. I am not willing to spend many months debating, and researching, and then have you withdraw when my arguments get better than your arguments are. When my arguments get better than your arguments, you always claim that we have already discussed the issue enough, that your arguments were better, and that you will not discuss the issue any more. That happened with the main thread on homosexuality, and with my post 3639 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-364.html (regarding the issue about whether or not God has free will), with my post 3640 on the same page (regarding whether or not God provides a reasonable amount of evidence to everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable), and with my post 2259 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-have-relationship-other-226.html#post3869426 (which is my most recent reply to you in the main thread on homosexuality), and with my post 3640 on the next page until recently, when you were willing to discuss that issue some more in this thread, which is my post 340 at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/154618-tyre-prophecy-34.html. That post is about whether or not the God of the Bible is an imposter.

Consider the following from your post 354 in this thread:

Just please answer one question, in your opinion, are some homosexuals better off practicing homosexuality than practicing long term abstinence?

I will answer your question but let me point out I have no need to, for my main contention to have been valid. I do not need to reform the prison system to know stealing is wrong.

I know that humanity at large would be better off without homosexuality. That fact is evident from unending statistics and common sense. I would think that homosexuals in particular would be better off but I do not think they would agree. They apparently place more value on fulfilling their desires than the risks they produce. So they would move heaven and earth to make it seem like there were all sorts of devastating costs to not practicing homosexuality. IMO they would be making up most of them, a few would have merit, but none would justify the cost regardless.

I would think the most logical way to go about it would be to initially label the practice as wrong, and not require anyone else to pay the costs of those who engage in it but not criminalize what people do in private. Not validate it by a covenant that only Christianity is the foundation for (marriage). Civil unions may be ok but I would restrict them in any way where others are involved and must pay for them. While these type measures are enforced I would study it in detail and without bias of any kind to get at what it's true nature is and what measures are available to deal with it. I think that the issue is far too politically involved to get much good science concerning it done. We should assume it is a choice until persuaded reliably otherwise.

I have had many problems associated with a wrong choice on my part but I have never asked anyone outside my family to put up with them or pay for them.

I adequately refuted those arguments in my most recent reply to you in the main thread on homosexuality.

After you had made many blunders in that thread, and had become evasive, you came up with the following main arguments:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

I adequately refuted those arguments a number times in the main thread on homosexuality, and in another thread. I also showed in my most recent reply to you in the main thread on homosexuality that there is no need for all homosexuals to practice abstinence, a ridiculous claim that you made in your first post in that thread, and I showed that you do not have a reasonable secular moral basis to say that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that a number of other high risk groups should not practice abstinence even though you had previously said that any deaths at all from AIDS was too many deaths.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that many homosexuals do not produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost, and thus do not need to practice abstinence. One of your main problems is that you believe most of your post 304 in the main thread on homosexuality, which makes many false, and misleading claims. Anyone who believes most of that post would believe that homosexuals are generally much worse off than they are. Homosexuality is a serious problem, but the best way to deal with it is not to say that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, and not to make two composition fallacies like you did. In another thread, you said that you did not make any composition fallacies, but you did since regarding your two main arguments, in item one, you said "homosexuality," which is a composition fallacy since you judged all homosexuals based upon some homosexuals, and you did the same thing regarding item 2. Wikipedia says:

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)."

So there is no doubt that you made two composition fallacies, not only because you implied all homosexuals regarding your two main claims, but also because in your first post in that thread you said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, which is an absurd claim that no major medical organization makes. I assume that you never wanted to admit that at least some homosexuals are better off practicing homosexuality than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence.

I will not have any further discussions with you unless you agree to discuss all of the posts that I mentioned much more than we have discussed them, and until I am satisfied that we have discussed them sufficiently. Then we can discuss some other issues. In addition, I take back what I said about not asking you to discuss the Tyre prophecy any more other than replying to my post 350, which you have not done. That is primarily because I have spent far too much time making posts, and conducting research, to let you get away with only making one more post. Of course, you can only make one more post if you want to, and you don't even have to make one more post if you do not want to, but I will not make any more deals with you since there are not any good reasons for me to make any deals with you. I have never previously heard of anyone trying to make a deal with someone to only reply to one more post. When people do not want to make any more posts in a thread, they simply vacate the thread. They do not make deals before they vacate threads. The only reason that you tried to make a deal with me is that you know that I have the advantage in this thread. You said that the Tyre prophecy is easy to defend, but it is not easy to defend if your premise is that it is probable that God inspired it. At best, it is only plausible that God inspired the Tyre prophecy, and it definitely failed according to your limited time frame, as I showed in my post 350. You recently said that verse 19 can be a metaphor, but I used that argument before you did in response to your bogus claim that earthquakes covered part of the island with water. Not only is there not any credible evidence that earthquakes ever covered part of the island with water, but no recorded earthquakes occurred within your limited time frame, nor did the island look anything like a bare rock, not was the island only useful for the spreading of nets. I discussed those issues in part of my post 350.

You can discuss some other Bible prophecies whenever you want to whether or not I am at this forum. I think that a good one to discuss would be Isaiah 53 since there some Jews at this forum who know a lot about the Old Testament, and would like to discuss that issue with you, and so would some other skeptics. You could also discuss Micah 5:2, but you would not get anywhere with that prophecy since no one can reasonably prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and as a discussion forum at http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/1449967-micah-5-2-not-about-jesus.html shows, Micah 5:2 is not about Jesus.