PGA2.0

Well, different denominations may well interpret prophesies differently, but the laws of physics are the same for everyone so the possibiity that actual prophecies exist is not relative.   i.e they aren't possible!

I can't help but think the interpretation of prophecy is a form of cultural (denominational) relativism.

The separation of church and state is not a secular philosophy except to people who reject religion. 

Without reading the thread, I find myself wondering what is the logical connection between atheism/relativism and prophecy.

you can just take Him on His word and He will truly reveal these things to you 

So in order to be convinced I must accept your claims ahead of time? You will forgive me but if your claims cannot convince anyone who doesn't believe before even hearing it then it can't be that convincing. 

If you accept that prophecy is audience specific and accurate to that audience

Why should I accept that? 

If I want to say a prayer in public

Then, you are free to do so in many public places. You are conflating Public with Public Schools.

Clearly, you have never bothered to understand secularism or you are deliberately trying to deceive. Which is it?

Christians, in the last 80 years or so, have only been seeing things as bits and pieces which have gradually begun to trouble them and others, instead of understanding that they are the natural outcome of a change from a Christian World View to a Humanistic one; things such as over permissiveness, pornography, the problem of the public schools, the breakdown of the family, abortion, infanticide (the killing of newborn babies), increased emphasis upon the euthanasia of the old and many, many other things...The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a "buzz" word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.

So, Humanism is the absolute certain result, if we choose this other final reality and say that is what it is. You must realize that when we speak of man being the measure of all things under the Humanist label, the first thing is that man has only knowledge from himself. That he, being finite, limited, very faulty in his observation of many things, yet nevertheless, has no possible source of knowledge except what man, beginning from himself, can find out from his own observation. Specifically, in this view, there is no place for any knowledge from God. [3]

Yes, secularism, for the most part, controls the USA. It is very intolerant to religious views.

You couldn't be more wrong. So, I have to question your motives here, whether you really don't understand what secularism is about or you're being dishonest and deceptive. 

The secularist wants him to practice his religion at home while the secularist hijacks the moral fiber of the country to a leftist/socialist position.

Theres not such thing as a secularist, its Secularism, and its meant to protect you and everyone else from religious oppression.

The secularist pretends he/she is the most tolerant person but when you look at what is going on in your country the opposite is the case.

You'll need to support that claim with evidence.

If the religionist can't practice his religion at school because the secularist will not let him how tolerant is the secularist to other views?

A school is a place of learning, NOT a place of worship. You have churches, your home and plenty of public places to pray and worship your God, yet here you are complaining about not being able to do it in schools, where people are learning things, like writing and reading and being able to comprehend concepts and ideas. Pray in your church, they don't teach math and physics there, so stop complaining.

if you accept prophecy as accurate and specific then you accept the reality of magic.  If you accept magic is is it really justified to not accept the gods?  In terms of pedantic logic maybe you can accept prophecy but not gods but it seems a desperate postion to maintain.

Let's pretend for a moment that I accept the prophecy as being specific and accurate. In that case so What? You still have yet to demonstrate your claim that some god(s) were the source of the prophecy. You seem to be missing the point here.

A kid in Minnesota wrote the following NEW School Prayer:-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now I sit me down in school, Where praying is against the rule; For this great nation under God, Finds mention of Him very odd.

 If scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights; And anytime my head I bow, Becomes a Federal matter now.

 Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene; The law is specific,

That kid in Minnesota will someday (hopefully) learn that he is not in a country controlled by his religion or any religion, that the countries laws are secular, because there's more than one religion and everyone needs to be treated fairly. He is free to practice his religion at home where it belongs, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to practice his religion in school where it doesn't belong, which is what he is trying to promote.

Unfortunately, his parents should have pointed that out to him before he publicized that "Prayer" as now it only makes his parents look like bigoted fools.

Philosophy books are full of arguments over what the word 'evil' means/refers to and it is hotly debated whether abstracts can be said to exist or not.

To discuss 'does evil exist' we could start by saying 'for the purpose of this debate evil means.. and exists means....'.    But that means  people agreeing to use 'evil' and 'exist' in away they might prefer not to.

If SM specifies definite meanings I will endeavour to give a definite answer, but  I reserve the right to give a different answer if the meanings of 'evil' and'exist' are changed!

Let's pretend for a moment that I accept the prophecy as being specific and accurate. In that case so What? You still have yet to demonstrate your claim that some god(s) were the source of the prophecy. You seem to be missing the point here.

The language is specific as to the timeframe. 

Oh, I was unaware that any biblical prophecy mentioned a specific date, or even a specific year, but as I said even if the prophecy in question is specific to the minute and 100% accurate you would still have to demonstrate some how that the source of this prophecy was god.

IMO there is no single canonical interprtetation of the word 'evil' nor even of 'exists'.

Thus the answer can be yes or no, depending on how the words are interpretted.

Follow up question. Does evil exist?

Sherlock Holmes stories mention real historical people, places and events.  Almost every piece of fiction does.  The issue is not if Herod (etc)exists but if God exists.   

Then Deuteronomy 28 lists the curses, these same curses we witness in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. 

D28 is really over top!  but its not prophesy... it is list of dire threats of what the Hebrews should expect if they ever dare to abandon YHWH.   It like a preacher threatening his flock with tales of fire and brimstone if they sin.

It is interesting that the penalties for aposasy given in D28 are all earthly.  Ancient Judaism had no use for an after-life in heaven or hell; YHWH gave his rewards and punishments right here on earth, during life.  The Sadducees rejected after-life upto and beyond the time of Jesus, cf Mark 12;18 "18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question." 

They speak of prophecies that come to pass in their lifetime. They testify to the most significantly important events in the history of the world. So, their level of credibility is different from these other sources. 

This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.

Please lay down the evidence from history from these other accounts, like the flying spaghetti monster.  

There is no sufficient evidence for these propositions that is the entire point. 

The evidence is outstanding regarding the biblical accounts 

Ok then present it.

The Bible is evidence and it contains evidence that what is said is true.

The bible makes claims. That some one wrote a book does not make the contents of that book true.

Prophecy or predictions are reasonable to believe as happening before the events took place, in both testaments.

This is a claim not evidence of any... You know what, I think you get it.

How could God be pure and holy if He condoned evil and allowed it in His presence?

Is it your belief that god is omnipresent omnipotent and omniscient?

No nation lasts forever. Therefore the prediction that a nation will fall is not particularly impressive. Someday America will fall. That prediction does not make me a prophet.

Since you seem intent on discussing prophecy to the exclusion of all else however let's assume for a moment that some biblical prophecy is true and impressive. It still doesn't tell us where this prophecy originates only that predictions were made. Even if the prophets claim a source how can we ever demonstrate that the source they claim is the actual source of the prophecy? It could have been from some god(s) or it could have been some devil(s) or it could have been beamed into their mind by space aliens or they could be the source themselves without the need for an external agency. Even if biblical prophecy were impressive as prophecy

it is still unimpressive as evidence of any god(s).

And where do you find this in the biblical narrative?

In the bible, where else. 

I keep getting a distinct impression that you have a bone to grind here.

Not at all. I am questioning the actions of this god in particular and the unreliability of the scripture. It is what I am interested in, it is what I do. 

 

I have questions, lots of them and all raised by these unreliable scriptures.

 

Why were nations, men women and children ordered to be murdered simply because they had their own god?

This god, your god, is no better than the god of Islam is today who orders all and any who do not believe in him to be butchered. It was then, no different from Islam today.  The one thing I can say for the Quran is that it makes no secret of its purpose, its intentions and its penalties for not converting. Whereas the New Testament hides a another  story beneath it veneer of peace and love thy neighbour

 

The testimonies of the gospel writers and NT writers is credible from an internal and external standpoint. 

This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.

These gospel writers speak of events that actually happened.

This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.

Love conquers death? What does that even mean? Is death (the breakdown of order and expenditure of finite energy stores in the Universe, on the microcosmic level of the breakdown of the human body to the point of total non-operability) a cosmic force that was introduced as a result of man's fall? Is that the big problem? And not the sinful nature of man (which in my opinion was simply exemplified by, rather than caused by, the Fall)? But if sin was the cause of death, then wouldn't the continued existence of sin mean a continuation of death as a natural consequence of such?

A better way of putting it would be "love conquered sin" imo.

christus victor is a theory of atonement that says love concquers death, and that Jesus in dying defeated death and sin for mankind. this is in contrast to the penal substitution model which says that God needs an infinite sacrifice to apprease his wrath and the only sacrifice that can do that, is Jesus dying. 

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 

If you look back you will see what Amalek did to the Israelites and if you look forward you see how they influenced the Israelites to turn away from God, as well as threatening Israel. God is being just and also looking out for the long-term interests of Israel, through whom the Messiah will come.

And if you opened your eyes you will see these was wars of  the Gods, struggling for power  but fought by duped humans. Humans were and still are tools of the gods. Chattel to lay down our lives for the egoes of gods who cannot live in peace among themselves. This kind of "faith" is a mental disease and blind faith will , without doubt, get you killed. And there is no reward.

As I said, at this point we should agree to disagree.  I don't believe explaining my views to you again will help the situation.

It seems clear to me we are talking past one another and you and I should agree to disagree at this point.  

My point is that it is only recently we ha[v]e started to thin[k] in terms of conflicted brain processes.   Primitive man saw it a fight between gods and devils; later it was about 'cosmic consciousness' and 'destiny'.   But really its justs down to the way our brains haver evolved to help us reproduce before we die.

"Magic, god(s), ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster and pandimensional beings all have about the same level of evidence and saying god did it you may as well say magic. You may substitute god(s) for magic in my previous post if it helps you understand my meaning better.

Failure to admit your ignorance does not make it go away. If you have evidence other than anecdotal please present it but allow me to be perfectly clear the bible is not evidence it is the claim. Without some sufficient evidence (objective physical evidence would be nice and anecdotal testimony is not sufficient) I reject the claim the bible represents. Logic without evidence or logic based on incorrect can lead to incorrect conclusions so logic while a necessary component is useless without evidence. Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes either those are profoundly unimpressive."

all have about the same level of evidence 

They do, specifically anecdotal testimony. If evidence beyond anecdotal exists for any of these propositions kindly provide it and I will gladly retract this statement

I am asking you to think about the issues in terms of brain processes rather than abstracts. 

   

As eusocial animals it is necessary we can distinguish between that which is good for us and our group from that which is bad for us and our our group.   I am suggesting that somewhere in your head a lump of neurones is repsonsible for taking a number of inputs and outputting its best guess as to something's probable "harm or benefit", those words being intended broadly.  That output is placed into your consciousness and is your 'subjective judgement' of its morality.

As we are dealing with what is a neural net, the mapping between input and output may be complicated and messy - far more then simply subjective morality begin proportioal to 'harm/wellbeing' and can be wrong in many cases.   Also as brain are all different, different people may well judge the 'morality' of the same thing differently.

Let me suggest that critters have been able to distinguish between 'hot things' and 'cold things' for millions of years, long before they had any concept of thermodynamics and 'heat energy'.   Our 'heat sense' is a thermometer -  it's not as precise or reliable as a mercury-in-glass affair but it does the same job.

Let me suggest that critters have been able to distinguish between 'hot things' and 'cold things' for millions of years, long before they had any concept of thermodynamics and 'heat energy'.   Our 'heat sense' is a thermometer -  it's not as precise or reliable as a mercury-in-glass affair but it does the same job.

That is to say that the more objective heat energy something has the subjectively hotter it feels - that correlation isn't accidental; its the whole point of evolving a heat sense.  

Suppose our 'moral sense' is very like out 'heat sense' but it estimates, not heat energy but, 'harm'.   That doesn't mean our moral sense accurately measures the harm or benefit of something - it means we get a sensation that is a rough and ready estimate of harm/benefit similar to the way our heat sense gives us a rough and ready estimate of temperature.    

Couple of common fallacies here:

Morality to an atheist worldview is a relative thing. It is based on preference and behaviorism. You can't get an ought from an is, a prescriptive from a descriptive. You can describe what you like (subjectivism/behaviorism) but that doesn't make it good, and the problem with relativism is that no society or culture can be any better than any other. If you hold a materialistic worldview then truth and values are measured through the five senses. How can you measure goodness through those senses (the descriptive)? Values can't be measured by the same token

Repugnant Hitler's Germany is no more wrong than Kim Jong-un's North Korea or Trump's USA.

I don't see anywhere that an atheists must believe or accept relative morality. The only necessarily limitation is that, whatever kind of morality they believe in, it can't be sourced to a god.

Furthermore, I don't really see how theists get a pass here with respect to morality. Different religions, different denominations, carve morality out in different ways. The morality one ends up with is almost entirely based on the random circumstances of their birth and upbringing, which are entirely relative and subjective. The only difference is, religious morality has the lack of humility to describe itself as objectively right and everything else as objectively wrong.

Given this, the objections levied against "atheist" relative morality aren't unique to it. It is correct that, without some higher level framework, you can't judge between different relative frameworks, but again, that applies to the variety of different religious frameworks as well. How can we say that Christian Morality according to the Bible is "any better" than Islamic Morality according to the Quran?

The most egregious error is this notion that because a system is relative, it can't be used to judge anything. Well that's simply false. The entire point of a framework is to make such judgments. It's just that different frameworks can judge the same situation differently. It doesn't eliminate the ability to judge one as better than the other, it just means that such judgement is only relevant to those people that participate within that framework. Which, for yet another time, applies just as much to religious as it does to irreligious frameworks. You think a Buddhist gives a shit as to whether or they're observing the Sabbath?

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.

This answer is out of context and does not address the double standard you've been charged with. If you think morality to be objectively based, then your opinion ('man was made in the image of god') has no place as a foundation of morality. 

There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).

Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 

You do get an is from an is though!  It's not a matter of mankind ought to be concerned for itself, rather mankind is concerned for itself.

Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?

This is not a fair representation of what I've been advocating.  We are either going to have an honest conversation, Peter, or we are not going to have one.

I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.

Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 

You're switching from individuals to populations.  The individuals you referenced ARE extremes as they are not typical.

When you make a claim, it is up to you to supply your burden of proof

I have not made any claim I merely do not accept yours.

How many times a day do atheists make this claim of ignorant and ill-informed Christians on these threads?

The same amount of times Christians exhibit their ignorance and lack of being informed. These are explained to the Christian who ignores the explanations in favor of their ignorant and ill-informed beliefs.

How much do you know of the Preterist argument? If you don't know much about it how can you say it is insufficient?

As I understand it, preterism is concered with the prophetic elements of scripture.  Preterists argue amongst themselves concering whether a prophesy has alreay been fullfilled or is yet to be fulfilled - they do not concern themselves so much with the validity of prophesy; the truth and reality of prophesy is taken as a given.

Prophesy flies in the face of scientific understanding of the world.   As I see it, that means we have a stark choice; we can posit the existence of the 'supernatural' not restricted by such things as cause and effect and finite properties or we can reject the reality of prophesy.  

Then it is up to you to show I am also ill-informed and ignorant

Actually this is not how it works. That we are all ignorant and ill-informed is the default position until proven otherwise. Claims of special knowledge will be dismissed.

Magic, god(s), ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster and pandimensional beings all have about the same level of evidence and saying god did it you may as well say magic. You may substitute god(s) for magic in my previous post if it helps you understand my meaning better.

Failure to admit your ignorance does not make it go away. If you have evidence other than anecdotal please present it but allow me to be perfectly clear the bible is not evidence it is the claim. Without some sufficient evidence (objective physical evidence would be nice and anecdotal testimony is not sufficient) I reject the claim the bible represents. Logic without evidence or logic based on incorrect can lead to incorrect conclusions so logic while a necessary component is useless without evidence. Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes either those are profoundly unimpressive.

Suppose someone dies of a heart attack in a New York hotel room.  The Haitian housekeeper says its because some enemy used voodoo.   Is she right?  More to the point, how could you prove to her that it wasn't voodoo?

People who claim 'goddidit' are in the same position as the housekeeper - they are making a claim that can't be refuted, only dismissed.

In 2018 cosmologists are still working hard on discovering the real mechanisms behind the origins of the universe.

It's seems to be some job, just as doing an autopsy on a heart-attack victim is harder than saying 'it was voodoo'.

So to PGA I say that his belief is no more than rank superstition and shows a lack of intellectual curiosity.   'Goddidit' is not - strictly speaking - illogical.  It is boringly obvious that an if an entity capabale of creating universes and enabling prophesy existed it would explain everything.

'Goddidit' is an answer - but you have to believe it to believe it, just as only another Haitian would believe the housekeeper!

This is the ploy of many atheists - avoidance

Saying that I don't know and refraining from making any claim in the absence of sufficient evidence is not avoidance it is honesty. 

I don't have the answers to any of these  questions but that doesn't mean that magic is the answer.

You have gone beyond claiming that the universe had a cause and on to claiming it was a specific cause. Can you demonstrate this specific cause or is this a false dichotomy?

You have also claimed that nothing can begin to exist without a cause can you demonstrate this or is it impossible to prove a negative?

You have made the claim that something exists which did not begin to exist. Can you demonstrate this or is it a bald assertion?

https://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html

Answer: The Bible never records Jesus saying the precise words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity. When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).

John reiterates the concept of Jesus’ deity: “The Word [Jesus] was God” and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). These verses clearly indicate that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. And this same verse declares that God purchased His church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” The Father refers to Jesus as “O God,” indicating that Jesus is indeed God.

In Revelation, an angel instructed the apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation did. There are many other passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus’ deity.

The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that, if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). A created being, which Jesus would be if He were not God, could not pay the infinite penalty required for sin against an infinite God. Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected, proving His victory over sin and death.