Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not defending the Catholic Church, which he was baptized into BTW. In fact if you want to contend with it I may want to help. I contending the claim that faith in a personal creator God is Nonsense by pointing out some of history’s most sensible people believed in him. A list of sciences who's who reads like a Christian roster. There is no merit whatever in suggesting faith is irrational or unjustified. Catholic Church history is a whole other matter.

Why would it surprise you that in a society that was predominantly Christian, most people doing science (or proto-science, depending on the era) would be predominantly Christian as well... especially in cases where a person would be shut out of patronage and status - if not persecuted outright - if he didn't proclaim Christianity?

The vast majority of the history of European science was performed by white male Christians. If we've come to realize that their being white and male was only a matter of cultural factors that had nothing to do with their ability to do science, why would we assume the opposite for their Christianity?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There was no victory only concession. You argument was the equivalent of France's military history.

Technically: Your claim can't even theoretically be true. Startling is a relative statement made about a value I assigned to something. Even if false and even if unimpressive it may or may not be startling to me and you have no access to that either way.

Uh okay. I do not find it startling at all.
If it were false (and I think it is) what exactly would be startling about it?

Factually: there are over a dozen improbable details in this one prophecy that came true as facts of history. When you can do likewise once for every 200 hundred times the Bible does so, then you may submit it for review. Until then by what standard is 2000 plus predictions that came true not impressive.

In your opinion, that is. Except you ignore the fact that Tyre was never completely destroyed and still exists to this day.

In my opinion, your prophecy did not come true as facts of history nor is it likely that any of the other 2000 predictions you allude to did either. To me, they are on par with supposed Nostradamus prophecies - vague enough to be able to fit many different events throughout history.

This is absurd there is no qualitative comparison between Nostradamus and the Bible. It is not even worth the effort to contrast.

There is to me. There is nothing startling or remarkable about any supposed prophecies made by Nostradamus, though some think so. Same goes for your supposed Bible prophecies.

Now this is the one decent argument possible. If you had made this one instead of revising or denying history, complicating the obvious, and trivializing the momentous you might have developed a contention with some teeth.

Oh okay, that must be why you completely glossed over it just now.

History is not something I feel compelled to deny for convenience.

Apparently it is.

The fact that this prophecy and history are identical is as sound a fact as countless other well established accepted historical claims. I do not think a single claim in that prophecy even has a historical countercliam possible. Nu-uh is not a rebuttal. Not that the core of your claims were historical, they were mostly the assigning of meaning and intent to a narrative in opposition to thousands of years of exegesis and hermeneutics based on arbitrary preference.

Except that the prophecy and history are NOT identical and so your claim is neither factual nor sound.
The prophecy claims that Tyre would be completely destroyed (it wasn’t), that it would be Nebachannezzar doing the destroying (it wasn’t) and that Tyre would never be rebuilt (it was). Even if you we pretend that Tyre was destroyed (which it wasn’t), it still exists to this day, so in fact, it never stopped existing, or it was rebuilt. Which is in direct contradiction to your supposed prophecy.

I gave you a whole lot more than “nu-uh.” Nice try though.

Who Are "They"?

• 3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

.....

Adonai YHWH now is said to bring on a specific attacker -- Nebuchadnezzar. In our view, this brings on the first of the nations against Tyre. And now note how the pairing changes:

• 8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

Note that now the pairing I/they is not used, but it is now he -- Nebuchadnezzar, as all would agree -- who is "in charge" of the scene.

• 9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

The "he" continues, and the subsuming "his" (with reference to the axes).

• 10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

In one more case Nebuchadnezzar's forces are personified under himself; the horses are "his" and the horsemen, wheels and chariots are subsumed under the heading of when "he" enters.

• 11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

And yet again: HIS horses, HE shall slay. But now note the change in the next verses:

• 12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

We return to "they" for the first time since v. 4. And:

• 13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

We return also to "I": Adonai YHWH. And it continues:

• 14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html

Please spare me the cut and paste jobs from apologetics websites.

There is no “victory” when one person appears on the battle field to see the other slink over the horizon yelling parting ineffective taunts, only dissatisfaction of a battle ill-conceived and impotently "not" fought.
Besides the purposeful and irrelevant ambiguous nature of your "prophecy" I can pretty much guaranty it will not happen with those details intact.

Okay, so when I point out that Tyre was never destroyed and still exists (despite the fact that your Bible claims it WILL NEVER BE REBUILT), to you, that amounts to yelling taunts and slinking over the horizon? I’d say those are some pretty big discrepancies in the accuracy of your supposed prophecy. No wonder you have to pretend like all I’m doing is insulting you. Come on now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since that relatively modern settlement was never prophesied to be destroyed I do not see the applicability. I gave what was predicted to be destroyed, why it and it alone was the focus of the prophecy, and why assumptions that it applies to any city in the area or named Tyre are ridiculous. What power do facts, logic, and Biblical scholarship have against preference? Apparently nothing.

Oh it wasn't? Tyre was never prophesied to be destroyed? That's news. So it's just a coincidence that a place named Tyre still exists in the same location as the original Tyre? I mean, we're not talking about some separate location on the other side of the world or something. Facts and logic aren't on your side.

How about the part about never being rebuilt?

 

[1robin]

Personal sufficiency yes - validity no; even were 100% of all people to believe a claim that does not mean it is not nonsense.

If you had said just because them believing so does not make it true then I could have agreed. Saying something is nonsense is to say it has no rational merit perceptible. Something everyone believed would have perceptible merit, or merit that was perceived, even if ultimately wrong. However the ultimate wrongness is unknowable, all we have is a very common and logical faith based on very god arguments. Not nonsense.

That is all I was indicating - that your use of the fact that some intelligent people have at times believed a claim to be true does not mean it is not a completely fallacious (not merely wrong) claim.

That is not the context I used them in. You said that to have faith in a personal God is nonsense. I simply pointed out that the experts in logic and rationality have faith so it is not nonsense though whether true or false is not known at this time.

Indeed especially when many of the people you claim to support the idea had extremely different theological positions yet you try to claim them as 'Christians' such as (here are three in a row) Leibniz who suggested that Jesus had no real role in the universe and didn’t think he performed miracles, Smith who was a deist who thought people ascribed the unknown to gods out of superstition and Washington point blank refused to take communion and when the issue was pushed, refused to go to church on days when there was communion, did not request a Christian minister at his death bed and explicitly refused to say one way or the other whether he was in fact a Christian despite how willing you are to claim him as such - though I suppose you are less willing to hasten to claim some of the less undesirable (and indeed less mentally stable) Christians in history to support the position.

The only context here was a God and faith.

But even were I to pretend to believe that each of these people were devout Christians, the idea of using such a list to support a position is a fallacy, it does not indicate either that the position is valid or that it is NOT nonsense - only that these individuals for their own reasons, found practicing the religion to be helpful or desirable or an affirmation of their beliefs, that doesn’t mean they were not engaging in a nonsensical concept.

I did not use it in connection with any Christian claim. I used it only as proof that faith is reasonable and it is more than sufficient for that. I do not care if you find it insufficient to prove things I never claimed it was sufficient for. That was not an argument for God it was an argument for the intellectual permissiveness of faith.

Such a list neither enhances nor detracts from the validity of your position, it might serve to enhance or detract from your argument - but either would be a fallacious effect because the list is immaterial to the position's validity.

Use it for what it's purpose obviously was and most of this post was unnecessary. You literally built an argument I never made using a few names I gave for another point and claim it failed to meet the arguments requirements you invented. I agree. A little context and you would have saved ten minutes at the keyboard.

 

[darkendless]

If you had said just because them believing so does not make it true then I could have agreed. Saying something is nonsense is to say it has no rational merit perceptible. Something everyone believed would have perceptible merit, or merit that was perceived, even if ultimately wrong. However the ultimate wrongness is unknowable, all we have is a very common and logical faith based on very god arguments. Not nonsense.

The problem with this sentence is the world belief. Belief has no rational merit only congregational acceptance.

Beliefs and nonsense until they have a logical/rational leg to stand on.

 

[1robin]

What evidence is there to show that religious belief is anything other than human vanity, since human vanity is present in every aspect of religious faith?

Nope, it only exists in every religion in your head and that only by force. When Peter was said to have denied Christ three times was that vanity? When Christ washed the apostle’s feet (one of the humblest actions in human history) and the apostles allowed it to be recorded that in their spiritual blindness they recoiled from this necessary event. Was their allowing the story of their failure of God an act of pride or humility? Is the fact that Israel recorded its own time and time again flat abject failure of God in the most heinous and despicable ways. No other book of theology is a humble and self-deprecating as the Bible and I know of no book of any kind that is in any era, of any kind. What vanity in the apostles created a theology that condemns the very ones who created it as unworthy? This is a new front runner for the most absurd claim I have ever seen. Tell me an act less suggested by vanity than Paul's recording that he was literally killing the children of almighty God until he was knocked senseless by the truth. What appeals to vanity in any of the apostles lives? This was a new level of desperate. The number one reason I hear former atheists say they waited so long to be saved is pride. They thought it embarrassing to admit their sinfulness. The very first act of a Christian is to admit total depravity and failure. Yeah, vanity driven for sure? What is vain about Paul’s statement that he was chief among sinners?

Would you like to give me what you consider to be the thrust of Dr Greenleaf’s arguments and the main points of what he believes should count as evidence?

You want me to tell you what Simon Greeleaf said in a paper you read? I do not understand the context. He gave the actual methods by which evidence is judged reliable in law and examined the Bible using those means, I can't imagine what your asking for.

For if you maintain he is one of history’s most gifted experts then you might want to see read my objections? We will be specifically discussing his Testimony of the Evangelists.

That is histories determination not mine, though I agree. No offense intended but until you co-found a Harvard law of your own or write the literal book on evidence then I will be going with his conclusions. If your position means you must tear down the Newton's, Greenleaf's, and Sandage's of the world you might want to rethink the position.

This has nothing to do with quantum physics and it seems you’ve not read what I actually wrote in that paragraph! Please read the third sentence and then continue to the third, which sums up the argument that I’ve been making throughout.

I agree and since that is what I said then why bring it up. I can't read the third sentence and then continue to the third. That is as impossible as an effect arising without a cause. If this is your core argument then I would appreciate your posting it in response in its full glory as, as it is you say I missed something.

'Brilliant scholars' apart, whatever you say cause is – and it is you who are proposing purely speculative assertions, not me – it remains the case that it is not a logical phenomenon, and that is all I’m saying. But you are making extra-empirical claims that you cannot support.

Half of science involves extra-empirical claims, why is only faith (where these types of things belong) not permitted to make them. Cause and effect is not is not a phenomenon, it is an absolute brute fact that is not determined by natural law. It can be used to make a very valid argument (not proof) for God and has been for thousands of years and still is by very very competent scholars. I do not care what category or label or description you give it it is a very valid argument to consider and our academic betters on both sides do so in countless debates and discussions even if they ultimately disagree. See Lennox, Dawkins, Craig, Zacharias, Hitchens, Turek or even Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Kalam or hundreds more throughout history etc ad infinitum. It did however vary in form and substance over time. Whatever its faults, it is based on much better reasoning and on much more reliable observations that multiverses are based on. Yet the multiverse guys accuse the Cosmological argument guys of fault. What kind of reasoning is this and on what world is this logical?

It seems we are in agreement as to God’s limitations; he can only do what is logically possible.

I believe that is as good a way to put it as any. I also believe our brains are far too limited to know for sure what an infinite mind may do.

And I have to tell you that argument from contingency is an accepted and essential part of the Cosmological (or causal) Argument because if the world need not exist (and every scrap of contingent matter can be conceived not to exist) then, according to the argument, we can only account for its existence when we arrive at its cause. In essence this is no different from saying that everything that begins to exist, ergo, being contingent, need a cause for its existence, which cannot itself be contingent and so has always existed. And this cause, or so the argument goes, will be God a personal being who makes free choices. It is not an ontological argument; it is a causal argument, in other words it argues (cosmologically) from the perceived structure or origin of the universe.

So far this is the only point you have made that has any merit IMO. I think it the central core that everything that you say is based on. It is also not something that applies to the arguments I use or at least I do not see how. I suggest you drop the rest and we peruse this alone as it is all that has potential at this point IMO.

From the things you say it seems your understanding of ‘brilliance’ appears to be based on deference and an argument from authority rather than the arguments themselves? And if you want to argue from authority then you should know that ‘brilliant’ scholars’, both theist and skeptic, such as Aquinas, Bertrand Russell, Immanuel Kant, and Paul Tillich et al have also rejected the ontological argument - but even my saying this to you is ridiculous, for in every case an argument from authority is no argument at all.

My claim of brilliance is based on obvious qualification and consensus not authority. I use authority for what it is applicable to. I never said anything was true because X said so. I use authority to show it is intellectually valid even if contended only. If two people disagree then I know of no better grounds on which to add to the discussion than professional opinion. That is exactly what is done in court cases where death and life are in the balance and see no reason whatever it does not apply to theology. In fact theology depends on the capability and sincerity of its prognosticators. The very first response of most to claims that can’t be proven is oh yeah who says and it is the most valid question.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
My discussion is with you and not with a third party. Although on forums such as this one we often just articulate the overall premise of the argument. But we don’t need to be told an argument is sound because such-and-such said so. An argument is to be judged by what is expounded, not by the reputation of its author.

No it is with me and what I rely on. Where and why I adopted an argument from is about as relevant an issue as possible if impassable person dissagreement has dead locked a discussion..

I’m not grandly ordaining what may or may not be discussed. Science self-evidently can only concern itself with the natural world because that is what science is. But we need to remember that science is a series of probabilities founded on what is known to have gone before, and can never be logically certain. And if it is argued that we can venture beyond experience I believe it is entirely reasonable to enquire how exactly that is to be done.

Any complaints about my methods are eclipsed by the methods that resulted in strings or multiverses as legitimate scientific theories and God as not. Again I do not know why but every format instruction you employ shows up as text in your posts.

 

[1robin]

Why are you using emotional terms like "stupid", which is not a term attributable to me? I have very clearly stated an argument that leads to a logical absurdity and, to demonstrate such, while it may show that a proposition is nonsense it most certainly is not an ad hominem attack in any respect. It is clear to me that you are not familiar with this form of augmentation and take offence on behalf of others as a result.

I did not realize I used "stupid". Substitute whatever you actually said for stupid and re-evaluate. I bet it won't affect much of anything. Your argumentation counters an ontological argument I do not use. I saw no application to the cosmological argument sufficient to affect it. Please restate it if you think I missed something but I caution you I do not tolerate any insinuation that faith is the result of ignorance or stupidity. Not because it is offensive alone but mainly because it isn't true.

 

[1robin]

The problem with this sentence is the world belief. Belief has no rational merit only congregational acceptance.

Beliefs and nonsense until they have a logical/rational leg to stand on.

By what authority do you claim the faith arrived at by vast numbers of the most brilliant and capable scientists, legal professors, experts in evidence and testimony, history, mathematicians, and moralist's is nonsense? Were Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Graham, Sandage, Greenleaf, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Gottfried Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur, William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Nicola Tesla, Max Planck, Henry Ford, Wright Brothers, Winston Churchill, Guglielmo Marconi, Niels Bohr, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Michael Polanyi, Johannes Gutenberg, and Enrico Fermi, etc.. ad infinitum all a bunch of irrational idiots, and even if true why would I ever believe some random guy on a blog is capable of rendering their careful conclusions nonsense. The arrogance it must take take to claim this is truly remarkable. I arrived at faith with no association with any congregation of any kind and have no idea what that statement even means. I am out of time but will respond to what ever you cough up to adress this soon.

 

[1robin]

It might perhaps be useful to note that nonsensical and nonsense are very different terms, the use of the term nonsensical while apt at times can cause quite a bit of ire due to the association many people make with the term nonsense which is often used as a value judgement or dismissal while nonsensical describes the characteristic of a claim or statement etc where it is not readily understandable, that it is difficult (or even impossible) for sense to be made of the statement by the respondent.

Too late the proverbial cat is out of the nonsensical bag. Biblical faith may be true or false, what it has never been is nonsense.

 

[darkendless]

By what authority do you claim the faith arrived at by vast numbers of the most brilliant and capable scientists, legal professors, experts in evidence and testimony, history, mathematicians, and moralist's is nonsense? Were Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Graham, Sandage, Greenleaf, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Gottfried Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur, William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Nicola Tesla, Max Planck, Henry Ford, Wright Brothers, Winston Churchill, Guglielmo Marconi, Niels Bohr, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Michael Polanyi, Johannes Gutenberg, and Enrico Fermi, etc.. ad infinitum all a bunch of irrational idiots, and even if true why would I ever believe some random guy on a blog is capable of rendering their careful conclusions nonsense. The arrogance it must take take to claim this is truly remarkable. I arrived at faith with no association with any congregation of any kind and have no idea what that statement even means. I am out of time but will respond to what ever you cough up to adress this soon.

Very simple, there is nothing empirical to support it.

Provide bis free evidence that is indisputable and it will cease to be nonsense. Until then, your faith is faith. Just because you have numbers means nothing. 2000 years ago everyone believed the earth was flat. Now we know it's nonsense. Just because all the smart ones as well as everyone else believed so doesn't make it any less of a joke.

 

[1robin]

Very simple, there is nothing empirical to support it.

Provide bis free evidence that is indisputable and it will cease to be nonsense. Until then, your faith is faith. Just because you have numbers means nothing. 2000 years ago everyone believed the earth was flat. Now we know it's nonsense. Just because all the smart ones as well as everyone else believed so doesn't make it any less of a joke.

I think there was a miscommunication somewhere. I never said anything about the empirical quantity or quality of what argues for faith, I commented on your use or your seconding the word nonsense. We believe in a great many non-empirical things but only God is subject to the derision of a certain group and only they use "nonsense" to describe it. It is your burden of proof not mind. Also of course my faith is faith. We call it faith, we have the burden of faith and more than meet it. It is science that claims facts and yet makes conclusions (especially concerning things falsely used to counter God) that are based on more faith given less evidence that my beliefs require. It is the standards of science that are not being met not faith. I do not have time for hate. I have better things to do than debate with presence and a general dissatisfaction with reality. If you have an argument then present it. I have little desire to contend with emotion and the rhetoric it traffics in.

 

[1robin]

With respect, you have made arguments to or from authority in the following posts: 899; 900; 914; 952; 957; 958; 963, and 966.

Once again I do use authority but never to prove anything is true. I use it to support its intellectual permissibility. I am tiring of these invalid accusations.

And please would you state where in any of the posts you are responding to you have seen the term 'nonsense' used?

You betcha:

It is unmitigated nonsense to propose an All Sufficient Being who supposedly seeks a relationship with his creation

This is an unmitigated rant not supportable on any level.

 

[1robin]

Why would it surprise you that in a society that was predominantly Christian, most people doing science (or proto-science, depending on the era) would be predominantly Christian as well... especially in cases where a person would be shut out of patronage and status - if not persecuted outright - if he didn't proclaim Christianity?

NIO but it does surprise me how few non Christian's appear on the list at that time in comparison. Yes some do, but Christianity is represented disproportionally. That list is not of Christians in the West it is of science of the world. Actually I think that list was a list of Christians in that did great things but any list of "science" in general has a very large portion of Christians in it.

The vast majority of the history of European science was performed by white male Christians.

The issue was never the composition of European science. It was why is Christian Europe represented so heavily in the scientific input worldwide.

If we've come to realize that their being white and male was only a matter of cultural factors that had nothing to do with their ability to do science, why would we assume the opposite for their Christianity?

If I understand what you are saying their being connected to the father of all reality would make quite a difference. I would not be that bold or at least wasn't being so here. My point was that brilliant men had faith and that makes faith not "nonsense". I think you got my purposes confused.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My point was that brilliant men had faith and that makes faith not "nonsense". I think you got my purposes confused.

People can be (and are) brilliant in one area and simultaneously not so brilliant in other areas. I'd say this describes most people, actually.

So faith can still be nonsense.

 

[1robin]

Uh okay. I do not find it startling at all.
If it were false (and I think it is) what exactly would be startling about it?

What? The fact that even if that one fact was false and there exists no reason to think so then 90% is still left untouched. Find me any other prophecy outside the Bible that specific and that accurate not to mention 2499 more from the same source.

In your opinion, that is. Except you ignore the fact that Tyre was never completely destroyed and still exists to this day.

No No No, the Tyre of Biblical times was utterly destroyed. The mainland city was obliterated into dust by Nebuchadnezzar with maybe a few columns still half standing. The island fortress was battered into rubble by Alexander, in one of the most brutal and well document sieges of the ancient world. If you took a picture at this moment no city existed worthy of the name city. Much later a completely different group of people built another city very near the spot and that is what exists today and that has nothing whatever to do with the prophecy. In fact even large portions of the newer city were destroyed several times over but again that has nothing to do with the prophecy.

In my opinion, your prophecy did not come true as facts of history nor is it likely that any of the other 2000 predictions you allude to did either. To me, they are on par with supposed Nostradamus prophecies - vague enough to be able to fit many different events throughout history.

Your opinion is contrary to history. Give me one of Nostradamus prophecies (the best) I guarantee you I can superseded it in detail and accuracywith at least five. There are 350 plus for Christ alone. Where did Nostradamus match that?

There is to me. There is nothing startling or remarkable about any supposed prophecies made by Nostradamus, though some think so. Same goes for your supposed Bible prophecies.

All I can say is I completely reject the historicity of your claims. If you can't demonstrate what you claim then that is the end of the line.

Oh okay, that must be why you completely glossed over it just now.

Not even close. I did not want to change gears until the former issue was settled. Actualy I hoped you would drop the nonsensical objections you have raised and try to prove this one alone. The only reason this one has any applicability is that the evidence against it is less substantial and absolute as that against Tyre not being destroyed. All the evidence that exists is on my side of the issue but there is less than desired. The reason I said this issue is better than your others is that there is not enough evidence to absolutely shut it down. There is for the others but I can't force you to admit it. However even this argument can not possibly apply to Alexander, no evidence exists that it even applies to Nebuchadnezzar but as I said it is not a slam dunk as it was in the other cases.

Apparently it is.

Good one. Who could argue with such 5th grade scholarship of this caliber. "I know you are but what am I" - did I win? As it is history and the prophecy are identical. Fortunately unlike morality and current events you side can't obscure it.

Except that the prophecy and history are NOT identical and so your claim is neither factual nor sound.

How would you know you can't even get the prophecy right as I will explain? I have studied military history for over 30 years and knew about the siege of Tyre long before I was a Christian. It is common knowledge.
It was even taught as such in western civ at my university.

The prophecy claims that Tyre would be completely destroyed (it wasn’t),

It was unless you are redefining destroyed to mean every atom removed from the location or every stone of every building was taken apart. A thousand historical declarations of a cities’ destruction where much more was left than Alexander did and no one has ever balked at the language. This is revisionism and redefinition based on preference.
The seven month siege, from January to July 332 B.C., was over. "The great city over which Hiram had once held sway was now utterly destroyed. Her king, Azimilik, and various other notables, including envoys from Carthage, had taken refuge in the temple of Melkart, and Alexander spared their lives. The remaining survivors, some 30,000 in number, he sold into slavery. Two thousand men of military age were crucified. Then Alexander went up into the temple, ripped the golden cords from the image of the god (now to be renamed, by decree, Apollo Philalexander), and made his long-delayed sacrifice: the most costly blood-offering even Melkart had ever received." (Green, p. 262).
One historian wrote, "Alexander did far more against Tyre than Shalmaneser or Nebuchadnezzar had done. Not content with crushing her, he took care that she never should revive; for he founded Alexandria as her substitute, and changed forever the track of the commerce of the world." (Edward Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, ch. 4).
He literally hired and captured the navies of several nations and constructed the first boat siege rams in history to dismantle a single small island. Are you suggesting he did not do so? He sold into slavery or killed all the inhabitants of the Island without destroying the very fortress they were in? This was one of if not the longest, most brutal and catastrophic sieges in history at that time. It is famous for its destruction. This is nuts.

that it would be Nebuchadnezzar doing the destroying (it wasn’t)

This is even worse. The prophecy specifically says that Nebuchadnezzar will FAIL to destroy the island fortress and only conquer the mainland settlement. The prophecy specifically says the direct opposite of what you claim. This is worse than wrong, it must be intentional.

and that Tyre would never be rebuilt (it was).

No it was not.
"The modern city of Tyre is of modest size and is near the ancient site, though not identical to it. Archaeological photographs of the ancient site show ruins from ancient Tyre scattered over many acres of land. No city has been rebuilt over these ruins, however, in fulfillment of this prophecy." (Dennis and Grudem, “Tyre,” The ESV Study Bible)
In point of fact, the mainland city of Tyre later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance during the Hellenistic period. But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean…All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia b.c., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander’s causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it ever was built up again after Alexander’s terrible act of vengeance. In the light of these data, then, the predictions of chapter 26, improbable though they must have seemed in Ezekiel’s time, were duly fulfilled to the letter—first by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century, and then by Alexander in the fourth." (Archer, “Tyre,” Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)
You know what there is no point to this. Anyone this wrong is being so on purpose. Facts have no power over preference. I leave you to the reality you have constructed.

 

[1robin]

Oh it wasn't? Tyre was never prophesied to be destroyed? That's news. So it's just a coincidence that a place named Tyre still exists in the same location as the original Tyre? I mean, we're not talking about some separate location on the other side of the world or something. Facts and logic aren't on your side.

How about the part about never being rebuilt?

I have explained this several times and if this was discussion with anyone who actually cared about truth, evidence, and fact it would have been enough. I have no reason to bang my head against a wall of intentional obfuscation but I will explain this one last time. God was not angry with the name Tyre, the landscape of the area, nor the geographical location. He was angry with the Phoenician people that occupied Tyre because they rejoiced when they took the trade control of the area away from Jerusalem (or maybe another Israel city, it isn't important which). He pronounced a judgment on them and THE CITY THEY HAD BUILT.

1. The prophecy says over and over again that YOU will never be rebuilt, that THIS city will be destroyed.
2. It never says any city that happens to be named Tyre built in the general area.
3. That does not make any sense what so ever. The people who later built a different city in a slightly different location were not who God was angry with. Why would he care? Why would he have made any predictions about them?
4. It is PERFECTLY logical and consistent with history and the Bible that God promised to destroy the Phoenician’s and the city they had built and actually uses those words. He additionally added they would never build a new city there. Not only did that very thing happen the entire Phoenician empire collapsed from that point. The entire Phoenician culture ceased to exist as a distinct society.

This will not be gone through again. I can't fight intentional misunderstandings of plain facts and logical confusion that has no merit, used to promote plausible denial. Believe what you want to, you will anyway, and reason and facts have no power to alter that. This is what I have always claimed, it is what the prophecy has always said and in specific language, and what the concensus among scholars concerning the interpretation of it has been.

 

[F0uad]

I still have a hard time understanding what Atheist mean by evil?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I still have a hard time understanding what Atheist mean by evil?

You make it sound as if Atheists have no morals. Atheists extract their values from secular society and base them off of minor rationality or none. Atheists values, morals and understanding are subject to personal interpretation or creation by an individual.

The concept of evil by Atheist is either a definition or actions they have learned by society such as murder, stealing and and varying mischief or ideals, beliefs, and actions that conflict with their own views points.

You don't need god to have morals because in reality morals do not exist as long as we do not acknowledge the words of another person.

 

[1robin]

You make it sound as if Atheists have no morals. Atheists extract their values from secular society and base them off of minor rationality or none. Atheists values, morals and understanding are subject to personal interpretation or creation by an individual.

The concept of evil by Atheist is either a definition or actions they have learned by society such as murder, stealing and and varying mischief or ideals, beliefs, and actions that conflict with their own views points.

You don't need god to have morals because in reality morals do not exist as long as we do not acknowledge the words of another person.

So is morality legislated by popular opinion? Is it simply specieism (whatever is good for humans)? Or is evil and good simply what a person likes or does not like. A conversation about moral apprehension is not very interesting. We both may apprehend that murder is bad. A God given conscience is about as perfect an explanation for that phenomenon as possible. A conversation about what grounds or founds what is actually right or wrong is where the weakness of the atheist's position lies. An atheist may be just as moral as anyone he simply can't sufficient show his actions are moral or "right" on atheism. The best atheists can do is a kind of almost arbitrary, majority approved, ethics. Nothing actually right or wrong has any meaning on atheism.