Bible Prophecy: Iran and the Gog Coalition

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 DigiMark007
The "mystery religions" are easily debunked as influences on Christianity because they occurred around the same time. They actually influenced one another somewhat (Mithraism and Christianity competed for followers early on and borrowed motifs and themes to try to undermine the others' credibility....the Mithraic wise men at the birth of Christ (Magi) is an example of this.

Mithraism was a late Roman mystery religion that was popular among soldiers and merchants, which became a chief rival to Christianity in the second century and later; the Mithraic mysteries were established during the reign of Hadrian (AD 117—138) or Antonius Pius (AD 138—161). Mithras and Jesus Christ have zero "motifs"—as you call them. Mithraism and Christianity have no connection whatsoever. For example: Mithras was born out of a rock, fully grown and naked except for a Phrygian cap, and he is holding a dagger and torch—no virgin birth!

"After almost 100 years of unremitting labor, the conclusion appears inescapable that neither Mithraism nor Christianity proved to be an obvious and direct influence upon the other in the development and demise or survival of either religion. Their beliefs and practices are well accounted for by their most obvious origins and there is no need to explain one in terms of the other."

—Gary Lease (Professor of Religious Studies)

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Habermas rightly focuses on them because some actually occurred after Christianity's inception (though the Church was hardly coherent in the early centuries, so practices like drinking the blood of the god, of Dionysian origin, were assimilated).

When have Christians—during any time of the faith—practice such rituals?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But we have resurrection myths that far predate any of that (Krshna, Horus, Odin, etc.) as well as predecessors for every story in the Bible, from each of the miracles to his temptation in the desert, to his teachings and ministry, and finally his crucifixtion.

Not a single Mystery religion on the face of the planet speaks of "resurrections!" And the latter that you present are the products of massive oversimplication and attention to detail. Read the books, "Faith and Reason" and "The Meaning of History" authored by Ronald Nash.

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.

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007—

ProphecyHotline—as you plainly stated—having "business of finding Bible passages and attempting to fit them to world events," is an unfair assessment in my opinion; after all, ProphecyHotline provides disclaimers attached to articles, not to mention the website as a whole (on the home page). And it reads:

[b]"The news and commentary links below are not endorsed by ProphecyHotline. They are listed because they relate current events which may have prophetic significance."

You further stated:

"Disclaimers like the one you mentioned are in place so they don't need to 'stick their necks out' too far with predictions."

In my view, the disclaimers were provided to ensure that readers are not mislead; fanatics only care about their agenda and would not bother with such information, and the disclaimers were not provided to serve as a scapegoat. I think *gasp* honesty was the driving force.

ProphecyHotline has presented articles (focused on current events), that "may have prophetic significance." Never—absolutely never—did ProphecyHotline claim that the articles therein have come to pass, aside from which is historically verifiable i.e., when Israel became a Jewish state in 1948! Why must you complicate such a simple issue?

And in the latter portion of the post, you state:

"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."

You—and Joseph Campbell—completely ignore the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the video below—a debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan—will provide insight to the problem?

YouTube video

YouTube video [/B]

Mr. Habermas is flat out lying. We've discussed the mythology surrounding Osiris. As for Mr. Callahan, his ability to express his opinions isn't very well developed.

Ushome, you missed the most important part of my commentary on the mystery religions.....that they aren't good sources for debunking Christianity due to their dates. I mention a few connections, but the crux of the point is that there are many earlier myths that do the same things. It's the same thing Habermas wisely does, since Christians are actually right in that instance, and it's Callahan who idiotically allows himself to be pushed into a corner (figuratively, of course).

So you soundly defeated an argument that I wasn't trying to make in the first place.

Also, I never claimed Mithric virgin birth, which you seemed so proud to refute me on. As before, an honest mistake I'm sure, but I'm amused to point out that you're now 0-2 on trying to put words in my mouth.

Your whole last post is actually probably your most factual, but also mostly reiterating things that I've said without taking on the more important refutations of Christianity.

Originally posted by ushomefree
When have Christians—during any time of the faith—practice such rituals?

Communion. The consumption of the body and blood of Jesus.

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.