The Destruction of Babylon

Originally posted by FMF
Oh so, one post after your one about Tyre, Sour, Sur, or whatever, you "don't care about Tyre, Sour, Sur, or whatever". The "evidence" comes and goes so quickly. The city of Tyre was rebuilt: something the "prophet" clearly did not foresee. This thread will be memorable for the degree to which some posters have had to grasp at an ever changing array of straws with ever diminishing composure!

We are not experts on Biblical prophecy. The experts say it has been
fulfilled. That's good enough for me. I am more interested in the
future of Babylon and if that prophecy is fulfilled or not and can it be
made false by rebuilding it so it is an inhabited City like Bagdad.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We are not experts on Biblical prophecy. The experts say it has been
fulfilled. That's good enough for me.

That it is "good enough" for you has never been in any doubt.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We are not experts on Biblical prophecy. The experts say it has been
fulfilled. That's good enough for me. I am more interested in the
future of Babylon and if that prophecy is fulfilled or not and can it be
made false by rebuilding it so it is an inhabited City like Bagdad.

An interest that would disappear just as soon as the prophecy was disproven.

You can't honestly expect anyone here to believe that you would honestly give up your
faith simply because someone rebuilt Babylon.

Given that, there is no point going on about it.

Get back to us if there is ever anything (actually and practically and indisputably testable)
that would actually make you stop believing if it were proven or disproven.

Until there is such a test then your faith is non-contingent on evidence and thus is contingent
on faith alone.

Originally posted by googlefudge
An interest that would disappear just as soon as the prophecy was disproven.

You can't honestly expect anyone here to believe that you would honestly give up your
faith simply because someone rebuilt Babylon.

Given that, there is no point going on about it.

Get back to us if there is ever anything (actually and practically and indisputably tes ...[text shortened]... h a test then your faith is non-contingent on evidence and thus is contingent
on faith alone.

Just like Paul said, "Faith alone." 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just like Paul said, "Faith alone." 😏

If it was "faith alone" you would be much less objectionable! It is when you try and present evidence for your beliefs that the arguments start. If you just said "All I have to substantiate my beliefs is my faith" then fine. ... Who knows - you just might get a bit of respect for that honesty.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just like Paul said, "Faith alone." 😏

If it was "faith alone" you would be much less objectionable! It is when you try and present evidence for your beliefs that the arguments start. If you just said "All I have to substantiate my beliefs is my faith" then fine. ... Who knows - you just might get a bit of respect for that honesty.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just like Paul said, "Faith alone." 😏

If you believe on faith alone why do you keep trying to make out that you have evidence?

If you had evidence, you wouldn't believe on faith alone.

You do believe on faith alone, because you are not prepared to accept any evidence as
being evidence against god.

Which then leads me to the question that; if you are not prepared to accept any evidence
as evidence against god, why do you try to suppress, or distort, or deny, any evidence for
how the world works?

Given that no evidence would ever convince you that your faith is wrong no evidence is any
threat to your faith so why object to any evidence that is presented?

There is no set of facts or evidence that would disprove creationism which is why it can't ever be
a scientific theory (and likewise no set of facts or evidence that would disprove god) so why do
you spend so much time and energy disputing the facts and evidence given that it makes absolutely
no difference to your position?


EDIT: Just to be clear this is indeed the same question phrased several different ways so that it's full
meaning is completely and inescapably clear.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]An interest that would disappear just as soon as the prophecy was disproven.

You can't honestly expect anyone here to believe that you would honestly give up your
faith simply because someone rebuilt Babylon.

Two things here, we assume we know wha Babylon is in reference to. I'm not sure everyone agrees. In fact, I know for a fact that not everyone agrees. Additionally, if it is the modern day city we think it is, could it be for a futuristic time frame? Prophesy, from my observation, is not given on a chronological time line, rather, it tends to combine future, present, and past events all into one chapter or even verse. They can also have double meanings.

Originally posted by whodey
Two things here, we assume we know wha Babylon is in reference to. I'm not sure everyone agrees. In fact, I know for a fact that not everyone agrees. Additionally, if it is the modern day city we think it is, could it be for a futuristic time frame? Prophesy, from my observation, is not given on a chronological time line, rather, it tends to combine futur ...[text shortened]... sent, and past events all into one chapter or even verse. They can also have double meanings.

I would agree entirely with this.
Which is why RJHinds saying that he would accept the contradiction of the prophecies
around Babylon as a test of and refutation of his faith is disingenuous.
Nobody is ever going to agree as to exactly what the prophecy means.

Even without non-Christians butting in you wouldn't get agreement.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you believe on faith alone why do you keep trying to make out that you have evidence?

If you had evidence, you wouldn't believe on faith alone.

You do believe on faith alone, because you are not prepared to accept any evidence as
being evidence against god.

Which then leads me to the question that; if you are not prepared to accept any evid ...[text shortened]... rased several different ways so that it's full
meaning is completely and inescapably clear.

My belief and faith is so strong that it would indeed take a lot to
convince me that the prophecy has failed and that there is not
a misunderstanding of what the prophecy is saying. But that
would be a start and perhaps it is possible to convince me.
Who knows? Perhaps, you could be convinced you are wrong
too, even though your faith and belief in evolution is just as
strong. Who knows?

Originally posted by RJHinds
My belief and faith is so strong that it would indeed take a lot to
convince me that the prophecy has failed and that there is not
a misunderstanding of what the prophecy is saying. But that
would be a start and perhaps it is possible to convince me.
Who knows? Perhaps, you could be convinced you are wrong
too, even though your faith and belief in evolution is just as
strong. Who knows?

I have no faith or belief in evolution,
how many times do I have to say this before you stop lying about it?


If you could be convinced by evidence that your faith is wrong you would have given up long ago.

The evidence for the earth being around 4.5 billion years old, and the universe being around
14 billion yrs old, is overwhelming.

If you were persuadable by evidence then you wouldn't hold as literally true a book that says the earth was flat.


I would be convinced that a god or gods existed if suitable proof was provided, I still wouldn't worship it or them though.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have no faith or belief in evolution,
how many times do I have to say this before you stop lying about it?


If you could be convinced by evidence that your faith is wrong you would have given up long ago.

The evidence for the earth being around 4.5 billion years old, and the universe being around
14 billion yrs old, is overwhelming.

If yo ...[text shortened]... od or gods existed if suitable proof was provided, I still wouldn't worship it or them though.

Well, at least, you are finally coming to your senses on evolution.
Now, don't you feel that was a ridiculous theory?
I think you will eventually see how ridiculous it is to think that the earth
is 4.5 billions years old and the universe is 14 billion years old, too. I
believe you will one day see I was telling you the truth all along.
One day your knee will bow to the one true God, too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, at least, you are finally coming to your senses on evolution.
Now, don't you feel that was a ridiculous theory?
I think you will eventually see how ridiculous it is to think that the earth
is 4.5 billions years old and the universe is 14 billion years old, too. I
believe you will one day see I was telling you the truth all along.
One day your knee will bow to the one true God, too.

No, evolution is one of, if not the, most successful and best supported theories in the whole of science.

It is not in any way shape or form ridiculous.

It is simply that believing in scientific theories is not something you do.

You accept that they are the best current explanation for a given set of observed phenomenon.

There is no belief or faith involved.

You know this is what I mean because you can read, so this is just you being childish.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, evolution is one of, if not the, most successful and best supported theories in the whole of science.

It is not in any way shape or form ridiculous.

It is simply that believing in scientific theories is not something you do.

You accept that they are the best current explanation for a given set of observed phenomenon.

There is no belief or ...[text shortened]... olved.

You know this is what I mean because you can read, so this is just you being childish.

It seems like it takes a whole lot of faith to believe in evolution to me.
Don't you see all the holes in the theory?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems like it takes a whole lot of faith to believe in evolution to me.
Don't you see all the holes in the theory?

are you talking about the make belief holes in the theory imagined by creationists?