Religimyth...

[Royal_Tour 0]

Yea... I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you but I will try.If someone wrote something down, and someone else 5 hundred years later wrote something down that confirmed a prophecy in the first guy's book...and THEN someone else put a binder on BOTH those books, does that make both books the same book?

He's saying that the 500 years later guy only wrote what he did because he read the first guy.

/\ THIS

Then he must make the case that the historical evidence of the prophecy is failed as well?

No... all i want is a simple nod from you, that you will agree.. "Its Possible that the prophecies from OT to NT could have been written because they followed what was said in the OT. even if they didnt fully come true."

[Balloon guy 158]

/\ THISNo... all i want is a simple nod from you, that you will agree.. "Its Possible that the prophecies from OT to NT could have been written because they followed what was said in the OT. even if they didnt fully come true."

So if a guy writes down that in the future X will happen, then 500 years later X happens and some guy writes it down, you are saying that the 2nd guy was influenced by the first guy, not by the occurrence of X?

[Balloon guy 158]

Homer was most likely a symbolic name that people used, and that which we call the Iiliad (as well as the many other books that comprised the greater work, of which we only have the Odyssey) came from Greek oral tradition and was only written down much later. Basically, people memorized (and improvised) huge amounts of story, which was then passed down generation to generation before it was actually penned.So, in that sense, it's probably not too different from the Hebrew tradition before they became all methodical and anal about writing things down in the same way over and over again (how boring).

So the movie 300 was fiction??Dang I really liked that movie

[brvheart 1,752]

This post has no effect as you clearly don't even understand the roots of your own beliefs.

oh.

So which is it, did the writer write the second book because of what he read? Or did Alexander throw every bit of the ancient city of Tyre into the sea in order to fool me into giving 10% of my paycheck to the church?

OLD TESTAMENT LEGALISM!

[Balloon guy 158]

OLD TESTAMENT LEGALISM!

No, it's cool, I tithe post-taxesSo I still got a little rebel in me!

[Royal_Tour 0]

For instance the city of Tyrefollowed by Alexander the Great's conquest of TyreSo which is it, did the writer write the second book because of what he read? Or did Alexander throw every bit of the ancient city of Tyre into the sea in order to fool me into giving 10% of my paycheck to the church?

Ezekiel 26 prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city of Tyre. Ezekiel 26:14 says 'You will never be rebuilt...' Verse 21 says 'I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord.'.In chapter 29, Ezekiel conceded that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Tyre at all, a fact confirmed by history. Verse 18 says 'Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre.'.How do people who believe the Bible is always true get around the fact that chapter 29 says that the prophecy in chapter 26 never came true?They simply say that chapter 26 was about Alexander the Great and not Nebuchadnezzar, even though Alexander is not mentioned in Ezekiel.Alexander the Great conquered Tyre, but Tyre was always rebuilt.How do people who believe the Bible is always true get around the fact that Tyre has been rebuilt when Ezekiel says it was not rebuilt?They simply deny that Tyre has been rebuilt.I should point out that the Tyre of Nebuchadnezzar consisted of an island fortress and mainland colonies or surburbs. Nebuchadnezzar conquered the mainland parts, but he could not conquer the island fortress. Alexander the Great conquered the island fortress. More FactsThese events are described in the Prophets (Nevi'im) and Writings (Ketuvim), sections of the Hebrew Bible. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar engaged in a thirteen year siege of Tyre (585-572 BC), which ended in a compromise, with the Tyrians accepting Babylonian authority.Book of Ezekiel - these prophecies were originally written in the 22 years between 593-571 BC

[crowTrobot 2]

So the movie 300 was fiction??

fiction based loosely on a historical battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

[Royal_Tour 0]

So if a guy writes down that in the future X will happen, then 500 years later X happens and some guy writes it down, you are saying that the 2nd guy was influenced by the first guy, not by the occurrence of X?

No. i'm saying the guy 500 years later just made up that X happened. and decided to write his own version of what X would be like if it came true.

[vbnautilus 48]

Then he must make the case that the historical evidence of the prophecy is failed as well?For instance the city of Tyrefollowed by Alexander the Great's conquest of Tyre

And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her...and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water...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 (Ezekiel 26:4,12,14).

So which is it, did the writer write the second book because of what he read? Or did Alexander throw every bit of the ancient city of Tyre into the sea in order to fool me into giving 10% of my paycheck to the church?

The prophesy specifically predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which he didn't ( a fact conceded in chapter 29, v 18 "'Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre"). It also says that the city wouldn't ever be rebuilt:26:14 "You will never be rebuilt..."Which, it was, given that it is there today. The method of destruction was not a particularly impressive prediction given that Tyre was on the water, and that's how people destroyed stuff back then.

[Royal_Tour 0]

So which is it, did the writer write the second book because of what he read? Or did Alexander throw every bit of the ancient city of Tyre into the sea in order to fool me into giving 10% of my paycheck to the church?The prophesy specifically predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which he didn't ( a fact conceded in chapter 29, v 18 "'Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre"). It also says that the city wouldn't ever be rebuilt:26:14 "You will never be rebuilt..."Which, it was, given that it is there today. The method of destruction was not a particularly impressive prediction given that Tyre was on the water, and that's how people destroyed stuff back then.

i beat you/;

[Balloon guy 158]

The nation of Tyre was a mainland city that after being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar transferred their city to the island, so their eventual destruction by the army of Alexandra fulfilled the prophecy, and the current city of Tyre is in fact still the island nation, not the mainland one, allowing for the 'never to be rebuilt' part to remain currently accurate. Then in 1760 a small fishing village was built there to further establish the 'place to spread fishing nets' part of the prophecy.But I can see how you guys would think that the second location of Tyre, having been rebuilt, would somehow get confused with the first part that was prophesied about.

[Royal_Tour 0]

The nation of Tyre was a mainland city that after being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar transferred their city to the island, so their eventual destruction by the army of Alexandra fulfilled the prophecy, and the current city of Tyre is in fact still the island nation, not the mainland one, allowing for the 'never to be rebuilt' part to remain currently accurate. Then in 1760 a small fishing village was built there to further establish the 'place to spread fishing nets' part of the prophecy.But I can see how you guys would think that the second location of Tyre, having been rebuilt, would somehow get confused with the first part that was prophesied about.

The problem with this is that Alexander conqured the island. I wrote that on the last page. But that island has been rebuiltso which is it? Is the prophecy about Alexander conquering Tyre, yet it being rebuiltor about Nebuchadnezzar?

[Balloon guy 158]

The problem with this is that Alexander conqured the island. I wrote that on the last page. But that island has been rebuiltso which is it? Is the prophecy about Alexander conquering Tyre, yet it being rebuiltor about Nebuchadnezzar?

We have this thing called New York in the USA, it is named after a city in England called York.Any prophecy about York would not apply to New York because it is a different place.The prophecy about Tyre was about the mainland city, that after being destroyed the former inhabitants moved to the island and rebuilt, taking their old name with them. The old city was later completely destroyed and thrown into the sea...fulfilling the prophecy. The second city, which took their name from the first location was rebuilt, but the 1st location, was not. In fact it is now a 'place to spread fishing nets'. If they built a new city in Connecticut and called it Tyre would you attribute that as proof that the city of Tyre was rebuilt?Using the 2nd city as an example of a failed prophecy is flawed.

[Royal_Tour 0]

The prophecy about Tyre was about

You seem to be going back and circling...Just so we're clear, Your opinions are? The prophecy in Ezekiel is about Alexander or Nebuchadnezzar?

[speedz99 145]

If the country was largely religious, and used that belief system to reach it's apex, and has now degraded into a more neutral outlook on things society, do you get to claim credit for it's current status? Or do you look at atheism as a parasite feeding on the carcass of lazy Christians?

I'll go halfsies with you. These countries didn't get where they are as christian nations and then just decide one day to lose religion. Religion has been declining for a long time in those areas as they've been modernizing. In the end, they're doing extremely well without religion. Better than almost any country still steeped in religious...stuff.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'll go halfsies with you. These countries didn't get where they are as christian nations and then just decide one day to lose religion. Religion has been declining for a long time in those areas as they've been modernizing. In the end, they're doing extremely well without religion. Better than almost any country still steeped in religious...stuff.

I'll take half. Although you could also look at the example of the island of Haiti/Dominican Republic Same island, same culture etc and yet the mountain allowed for a separation of them as countries during the rum trade. The Dominican Republic side was based on the nation of Spain's catholic heritage, while the other side which became Haiti was allowed to continue in it's voodoo based non-Christian heritage. Compare the courses of those countries and you have a good example of two places, starting off on the same foot, ending up completely different, with the only difference being the religion it's underpinning was built on.

[Balloon guy 158]

You seem to be going back and circling...Just so we're clear, Your opinions are? The prophecy in Ezekiel is about Alexander or Nebuchadnezzar?

Neither, the prophecy is about a city called Tyre

[speedz99 145]

I'll take half. Although you could also look at the example of the island of Haiti/Dominican Republic Same island, same culture etc and yet the mountain allowed for a separation of them as countries during the rum trade. The Dominican Republic side was based on the nation of Spain's catholic heritage, while the other side which became Haiti was allowed to continue in it's voodoo based non-Christian heritage. Compare the courses of those countries and you have a good example of two places, starting off on the same foot, ending up completely different, with the only difference being the religion it's underpinning was built on.

This will make much more sense in the "christianity vs voodooism" thread.

[Balloon guy 158]

This will make much more sense in the "christianity vs voodooism" thread.

Sorry, I lump all you guys in the same label of 'Non-Christian'.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'll take half. Although you could also look at the example of the island of Haiti/Dominican Republic Same island, same culture etc and yet the mountain allowed for a separation of them as countries during the rum trade. The Dominican Republic side was based on the nation of Spain's catholic heritage, while the other side which became Haiti was allowed to continue in it's voodoo based non-Christian heritage. Compare the courses of those countries and you have a good example of two places, starting off on the same foot, ending up completely different, with the only difference being the religion it's underpinning was built on.

But clearly religion wasn't the only thing the Spanish brought.

[Balloon guy 158]

But clearly religion wasn't the only thing the Spanish brought.

sure they brought the idea of Siesta... the single smartest thing any nation has implemented since weekends. I mean naps... at work...every day!

[Royal_Tour 0]

Neither, the prophecy is about a city called Tyre

But on the last page you wrote:

Then he must make the case that the historical evidence of the prophecy is failed as well?For instance the city of Tyrefollowed by Alexander the Great's conquest of TyreSo which is it, did the writer write the second book because of what he read? Or did Alexander throw every bit of the ancient city of Tyre into the sea in order to fool me into giving 10% of my paycheck to the church?

Your point here was to show that the prophecy came true during Alexander's conquest over Tyre. Yet, Alexander's conquest was on the island, not mainland. and The island has been rebuilt.

[Balloon guy 158]

But on the last page you wrote:Your point here was to show that the prophecy came true during Alexander's conquest over Tyre. Yet, Alexander's conquest was on the island, not mainland. and The island has been rebuilt.

Ohh, now I get what you are saying.The reason Alexander was the major completer of the prophecy was because in his attack of the city ( the new city built on an island after the old one was destroyed) he took the ruins of the old city, which still existed, and used those stones to build a causeway to the new city. The fulfillment of the prophecy was in Alexander removing all stones from atop each other and throwing them into the sea. Anything that happened to city number 2 is irrelevant, as is it's being rebuilt after Alexander. The prophecy was regarding the old city, when Alexander threw every stone into the sea.

[Randy Reed 0]

Randy I can point to a lot of people who are Christians who's lives are not half as moral as some atheist I know. Nor do I think atheist want immorality or sinful behavior to become rampart. I have never said that I think atheism = immorality, only that a person who is not a Christian<the same person when he becomes a Christian.

I think that we can agree on alot of common ground as far as what is moral. I think that we can agree that both sides cold lead to certain issues. To the athiests religon often leads to illogical behaviour since you can justify things without reason. The religous side would argue that athiests would hold a dimmer view of human life leading to nutcase scientists doing horrendous thingsfrom cloning, euthansia, selective breeding or as far as selective killing to further the species since they have no moral basis for doing good.In alot of cases we probably both value and want to protect the same thing.But ulimately it comes down to what you can personally live with I guess. I can't fake some imaginary God or handle the crazy way people act when under the influence of it.I do think that we would ultimately be better off without it.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think that we can agree on alot of common ground as far as what is moral. I think that we can agree that both sides cold lead to certain issues. To the athiests religon often leads to illogical behaviour since you can justify things without reason. The religous side would argue that athiests would hold a dimmer view of human life leading to nutcase scientists doing horrendous thingsfrom cloning, euthansia, selective breeding or as far as selective killing to further the species since they have no moral basis for doing good.In alot of cases we probably both value and want to protect the same thing.But ulimately it comes down to what you can personally live with I guess. I can't fake some imaginary God or handle the crazy way people act when under the influence of it.I do think that we would ultimately be better off without it.

And I can understand why you think this.Trust me, I got a lot of crazy brothers who I got to shake my head and take it that they are on my side, and I'm sure a few of them do it about me.But brvheart is too chicken to say anything