Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Like no one could have figure out where Iran's headed without you...

That website also tells us how and where to expect the anti-Christ in the coming months/years.

I desperately wish someone would keep tabs on every "prophecy" that site has, then keep track of hits and misses. I hope anyone with a brain can guess which one wins in a landslide.

Be careful where you get your info from ushome....I don't know if you're just curious but still skeptical (hopefully), if you were raised with such beliefs, or if you're just gullible, but this sort of prophetic nonsense really has little, if any, rational value.

who needs glasses? And would the ones that do need glasses please put them on so ushomefree can write normal sized letters, oh and that means you to ushomefree put on your glasses

Well, besides this:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
ushomefree, do you ready believe this? No one can know the future, including the people who wrote the bible.

...it's obvious that the site is just in the business of finding Bible passages and attempting to fit them to world events. Judging from the 5-6 articles I browsed through, I'd be shocked if they manage to get 2-3% correct. It plays upon the credulous without offering evidence or even plausibility....they just say a bunch of Bibically conspiratorial stuff and trust that people will buy into it, thus gaining noteriety for their site.

And disclaimers like the one you mentioned are in place so they don't need to "stick their necks out" too far with predictions. But I'll bet my house that if they get one right, they play it up like everything they say is God's truth, and legitimate prophecy. Psychics are fond of disclaimers like that too....it's the same principle, and just as false.

...

Just use your reason for a bit. I can't possibly see how articles like this have any value for you or anyone. And I'm also unsure how anyone could be familiar with the works of Joseph Campbell and still believe the factual divinity of Jesus. I haven't heard the tapes you refer to, but I've read most of his other stuff and it's the world's best example of how religion is metaphor, not literal truth.

The Bible contains short and long term prophecies regarding people, places, and events; prophecy awaiting fulfillment pertain to the End Times.



Bible prophecy needs to be interpreted with care; failing to do so does not imply that the Bible is false.



Evidence confirms belief in the risen Jesus prior to the Gospel accounts; in any case, the Gospels was written while eye witnesses were still alive.



The Gospels do not contradict one another; some simply provide more information than others. The Gospels are "independent" accounts; small variations are expected in light of this fact.



The Gnostic Gospels were written much later--some even centuries--after the Gospels were already in circulation. The early church discarded them for obvious reasons.



Anthony Flew and Tim Callahan were completely silent on these issues; they should have been at the tips of their tongues!



You are correct; Dan Brown is one of many culprits committing such acts.



Example?



Wrong myths? That is precisely why Christianity must be false, right?



Gary Habermas voiced a stronger argument; does that warrant unfairness?



And these truths you propose were never introduced into the discussion because Anthony Flew and Tim Callahan are horrible debaters, right? You overlook the obvious for the unobvious.



You have no point. Pun intended.



I agree; he was an brilliant man--with "one" opinion.



Joseph Campbell "forces" Christianity into a mold that completely ignores the origins of the faith. This is not a blatant assumption; it is the truth.



How arrogant you are! How much research do you think I've conducted, and how much research do you think you've conducted? I'm reading a book entitled, "The Resurrection of Jesus"--a debate between John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright. And John Dominic Crossan remains silent on Mythology and Mystery religions; one of us is wrong. How much do you think you know?

so where is your glasses, your letters are so ****ed up big we aint all little stevie here

Arrogance, no. I only speak what I know I can be confident in. If you're espousing viewpoints such as ID (in past threads) or the utter infallibility of the resurrection myth, then it's obvious to me that your vaunted research is lacking. Mine may not be perfect either, but tenets that are just flat-out false (ID) or heavily disputed (the resurrection) can't be seen as unquestioned truths if one views it objectively.

You still do nothing to debunk the preceding and parellel myths. For evidence, since you like Joe Campbell, I'd reccommend Thou Art That or The Hero With a Thousand Faces. The former actually breaks down resurrection myths throughout time and discusses about a dozen common motifs throughout them all, and gives examples of each. He forces nothing upon Christianity, and actually speaks to the differences in religions on many occasions (he makes a strong disclaimer to this affect in the preface to "Hero...", among others). But he's also able to cut through the dogma to see the common metaphors in various cultures, and how this should bring a unity of purpose rather than archaic attempts to prove one or the other true and the others false.

Callahan's book, though he's a shite debator, does a commendable job showing the problems with the actual compilation of the Bible, and the conflicting stories. And yeah, there's inconsistencies in the Gospels. Off the top of my head, one of the main 4 has Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem for a Roman census, which we have confirmed to be completely false using Roman records. Not only would they not have been made to travel to another city (this is probably just for dramatic affect with the pregnancy) but the only census in the era happened somewhere around 50 years prior to the earliest estimates of Jesus' birth. Other Gospels nix the census (wisely) but posit some other reason for the move. If memory serves, another Gospel doesn't even deal with the birth (Mark?). And the manger birth is, of course, a common motif in the hero myth. I think Horus tried it first (they'd parade toy mangers around the streets on his birthday in Egypt).

That's one example. If I need to, there's others, but you'd be better served finding them for yourself since it's obvious we're at a stage where we find it hard to objectively view the others' posts.

You also asked for evidence of the scientific lack of evidence for God. I've tried to stick to Bible critique, but if you insist:
The evidence is literally everywhere (or nowhere, if you're searching for reasons to believe). The laws of chemistry, physics, evolution, etc. got the universe to this point, and all are observable and documented. The formation of the planets and galaxies, the rise of life and sentience, and so forth. There's no need in any of it for a divine creator, nor evidence to suggest divine manipulation to an otherwise deterministic universe. At best, He got to create the whole thing at the beginning then do nothing else, but there's both plausible explanations for the scientific formation of the universe as well as logical problems with a complex creator that has no prior cause.

The other bastion of hope is paranormal phenomenon, which would suggest something outside of materiality. But most mainstream attempts to verify or even produce evidence of the paranormal have been soundly debunked by numerous credible sources. The lone area that science has yet to fully pierce is consciousness, but it is a tenuous ledge, at best, to cling to if you're trying to find evidence for the Christian faith....even if it does suggest non-materiality. Through it all, the burden of proof (or even just evidence) lies with the religious, not with the scientists whose theories and opinions are observable and verifiable.

With luck, we can lay this to rest. I always feel the need to explain myself, but it's becoming clear that we're on such different wavelengths that the only thing we're good at is getting on each other's nerves. I regret this, but won't relent on my opinions even if that's the end result, however unfortunate or unintended.


...

{edit} Also, I just checked your last post more closely. You edited some of my comments on the mystery religions to make my argument seem less solid. Are we really coming to this?

Simply because details don't appear in one Gospel doesn't mean that they didn't occur.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Simply because details don't appear in one Gospel doesn't mean that they didn't occur.

simply because you can not see the invisible purple unicorn doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simply because you can not see the invisible purple unicorn doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Oh, okay. So, if one history book says that X number of people died in a fire while another book says that "people died in a fire," there must be a giant conspiracy going on to convince people that a fire occurred.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
ushomefree, do you ready believe this? No one can know the future, including the people who wrote the bible.

But if one is a believer then he believes that the Bible was influenced by God, and he probably can tell whats going to happen in the future.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simply because you can not see the invisible purple unicorn doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

You can't see it?

My patience has expired over this discussion; I thoroughly enjoyed it nonetheless. I read the book "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell, but I will purchase "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." For you, I recommend "Who Moved the Stone?" authored by Frank Morison.

It is quite possible that your knowledge regarding Mythology and/or Mystery religions is broader than mine. Still, I'm not completely in the dark; resurrection accounts within Mythology and Mystery religions are figurative or spiritual, which apply to fictional characters. The Gospels claim the "bodily" resurrection of a historical figure, whom the Apostles knew personally. In my view, it all boils down to is this: If a bodily resurrection had not occurred, it is hard to fathom the origin of the Christian faith.



I believe that "something" produces something, whereas you believe "nothing" produces something. Where do you suppose "biological" information derived from?



You do not get on my nerves; you do, however, at times, frustrate me. That's not to imply that I do not enjoy our discussions, because I do. Bravo DigiMark007!



I have no idea what you are referring to. What do you mean?

Originally posted by ushomefree
My patience has expired over this discussion; I thoroughly enjoyed it nonetheless. I read the book "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell, but I will purchase "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." For you, I recommend "Who Moved the Stone?" authored by Frank Morison.

It is quite possible that your knowledge regarding Mythology and/or Mystery religions is broader than mine. Still, I'm not completely in the dark; resurrection accounts within Mythology and Mystery religions are figurative or spiritual, which apply to fictional characters. The Gospels claim the "bodily" resurrection of a historical figure, whom the Apostles knew personally. In my view, it all boils down to is this: If a bodily resurrection had not occurred, it is hard to fathom the origin of the Christian faith.

I'll find the book and see what it's primary arguments are. If it seems worthwhile, I'll check into it and read it. No one's ever verified Jesus' tomb, however, though many have claimed to have found it but failed to produce evidence....so hopefully it doesn't deal with that issue, as the title seems to suggest, because verifiable evidence is completely missing and all that remains is vague speculation.

And lumping every single other resurrection myth into "spiritual" rather than bodily is simply false. We even see similar means of bodily ressurrection, as crucifixtion on a tree is used more than once. Some go even further. Odin's mortal sojourn to Earth, for example, actually involves him being wounded by a spear as well beore being nailed to a tree. He then becomes "one" with his divine self in the heavens upon the death of his mortal avatar. As before, this predates Jesus by several centuries.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I believe that "something" produces something, whereas you believe "nothing" produces something. Where do you suppose "biological" information derived from?

Which still begs the infinite regress question. Something created something, but what created the first something? It's a logical fallacy to make a complex creator with no prior cause.

But even if I grant you the creation point (I'm not) there's still no evidence of any supernatural influence on the universe....so you have a Creator who did nothing but create, and can't possibly be the Christian God who performs miracles, listen to prayers, answers them, influences evolution, etc.

And like I said, energy/matter is created all the time at the quantum level from nothing. It's a proven phenomenon, and the likliest origin of the universe....though still only 1 of various plausible explanations for our universe's existence that doesn't require an infinitely complex divine being.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I have no idea what you are referring to. What do you mean?

The following sentence was added to my comments:
Mystery religions began reflecting Christianity 100 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
...which implies that I am admitting that they came well after Christianity, which they did not. Most occurred in the same period, shortly before or after Christianity's inception. Mithraism was actually Christianity's rival in its earliest days, and they borrow stories and motifs from one another.

No one else could have added it. It's your post.

Something must have been eternal; otherwise, you run into an absurdity. To be put into mathematical terms, you end of with a repeating number. The Bible states that God is transcendent of His created order. If this is in fact true, God--God Himself--would not require a Creator; God is not subjected to the laws of physics He created (as you and I).



So what? That is a different issue. On thing at a time please.



Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches do not make themselves, but you think the universe has this potential. Where is your logic?



Fair enough; it must have been an accident. I apologize.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Something must have been eternal; otherwise, you run into an absurdity. To be put into mathematical terms, you end of with a repeating number. The Bible states that God is transcendent of His created order. If this is in fact true, God--God Himself--would not require a Creator; God is not subjected to the laws of physics He created (as you and I).

Something being eternal IS absurdity, especially when, if your creator isn't subject to any of our laws, how did he manage to create our laws? If he is beyond them and untouched by them, he should be impotent to affect them. No, saying that God is eternal is the same as just saying you have blind faith in it, because neither appeals to logic and just says "This is like it is because...well...that's how it is."

There's also physics models of a universe singularity (pre Big-Bang) in which matter and gravity were bent inward on themselves so greatly that time literally didn't exist, since it is a by-product of gravitational forces (this is cliff's notes Einstein, btw, but most probably realize that). The eternal substance, then, may have been the universe itself. And if you can believe in an eternal creator, it shouldn't be a stretch to believe an eternal universe....also because we can at least prove the existence of the latter, so it's inherently far more likely. Stephen Hawking's better at explaining it than me, and the idea is borrowed directly from his work.

Citing the Bible is also just as sketchy, because you're now basing cosmology on an ancient myth, and also discounting the countless deities and savior figures that are Alpha and Omega, Everything and Nothing, Creation and Destruction, etc. etc. I could use them as evidence to say that that particular god is the Creator, and you wouldn't believe me (rightly so)....this is no different.

Originally posted by ushomefree
So what? That is a different issue. On thing at a time please.

Yes, it's a different issue, but also one that must be dealt with before theists can be taken seriously. Categorically dismissing it doesn't remove its validity.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches do not make themselves, but you think the universe has this potential. Where is your logic?

The design argument, eh? This still smells like ID to me, which has obviously been debunked....or at least has yet to show evidence for itself. Life doesn't need a designer since the laws of evolution get us there easily, though ponderously slow. Comparing life or the universe to a sandwich, which does have a creator and purpose, doesn't work. It's a giant leap of logic to compare the two.

I already explained my logic of the universe's inception, dealing with energy creation from nothingness, which is entirely possible despite seeming counter-intuitive to us. It's observable and documented. The fact that the universe is complex means that it HAD to have a simple origin, just as evolution has a simple origin and basic rules. Your infinite-regress-spiting creator, as before, is logically impossible.

At least Darwin hadn't been born yet when Aquinas first used this argument. It was a lot more powerful back then.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Fair enough; it must have been an accident. I apologize.

I could see it being an accident if you intended to write it in your post but accidentally put it in the wrong section. Because entire sentences that contradict my argument can't just magically appear. In any case, I'll assume the former of those two, because it doesn't seem like something that you'd do.


..

Also, I'll relent on my earlier statement. I disagree with you on pretty much everything religious, but I enjoy these talks.

Right.

I'd really like to see where exactly the Bible refers IRAN, in particular.

Seeing how ''Iran'' was a name given by Reza Shah to PERSIA (its Greek name) in 1935. Unless Bible was written in 1935, the Bible does NOT refer to Iran.

Not to mention that Ahmadinejad is not a real Iranian either. He's some weird mix of a imperialist Nazi and a psycho.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Not a single Mystery religion on the face of the planet speaks of "resurrections!"

Fool. Such is the definition of a mystery cult.

Wake me up when we're actually in the new world, untill then I will not recognize anything about global politics as religious prophecy.


It's not some supernatural force, shit happens. And sense we now have access to information across the globe, more shit is going to happen.