Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't have a problem accepting that many of the biblical accounts are based on actual events. The problem lies in proving any of the magic in those accounts.If he is, he's an honest one, as he was quick to qualify the findings with a reminder that there's no *scientific* evidence for Tall el-Hammam actually being Sodom. He's a retired Earth Scientist, Professor Emeritus at UCSB in the University of California system. He's from New Zealand has no formal theological qualifications to indicate he is a Christian. He may be religious, but if I were guessing, I'd say no. Almost certainly no fundamentalist, even if he is religious. https://www.gulfbase.org/people/dr-james-p-kennett
Yes, noted. The academic paper I linked to, written by Collins, is a refutation of Merrill's work.
If you really want to impress the atheists here, go hunting for a Precambrian rabbit. See where the rabbit hole takes you.I don't know why I, or anyone else, does that. But I do. The Bible isn't logical and I'm being illogical and irrational to believe it. I already know, but my beliefs can not be deliberately changed (I believe God exists, I can't just choose not to). Some external force would have to change my beliefs. It be interesting to hear from a clinical psychologist why some people hold only to empirical evidence, and why others 'trust' or 'have faith' in something that cannot be shown to exist with empiricism.
I don't believe everything that people tell me. I don't believe you, for example. I don't think you're a liar, I just think you're wrong. I don't know what my psychological filter is for deciphering what to believe and what not to believe. But I'd be interested to know.
One thing I can say, though, is it's not as though I cherry-pick science to believe what I do (as at least one poster here has falsely accused me of doing). I believed the account of Sodom and Gomorrah before these findings. I believe in the Genesis creation account whilst being largely ignorant as to any science which supports it or disproves it. I really just don't feel the need to have everything I believe be empirically proven.
If you really want to impress the atheists here, go hunting for a Precambrian rabbit. See where the rabbit hole takes you.
It does 'validate' those claims,
The keyword being, in my usage, 'support'. I'm not saying these findings prove or even validate the entire story, but they offer support. But now we're just engaging in a semantic argument.
Indulgence is fine by me. Naturally, you'll have to accept my opinion within the context of my appreciation for Satanism and anarchy.The hunting alone will suffice? I can't promise I'll find him, but I'll keep an eye out as I'm looking for Gomorrah. Then I'll have you AND Roy impressed with me. Who knows, maybe the discovery can be made here in Indonesia, the land of the exotic and home to the Flores Pygmy and the Orang Pendek. It's fun sometimes to indulge in the hard-to-believe, just don't make a religion out of it
Game day! Who we praying for?
Barracking for a footy team is praying!
Willing them to win when they can't hear you is a prayer to the heavens. It's an instinctive part of being human.No it's not. When I'm barracking for my footy team, an imaginary deity is the last thing on my mind.
Willing them to win when they can't hear you is a prayer to the heavens. It's an instinctive part of being human.
The tanakh contains prophecies regarding future events including the circumstances surrounding the birth, and attributes of, a promised messiah.I have a Christian question (actually, for any religious believers, if they haunt this thread)
What is the rationale behind the emphasis on prophecy?
To me, if someone manages to correctly predict a future event, there are two possible explanations:
1. They can travel forward through time and then back. This is of course horseschitte. (And plus, if you believe someone could do that, why would you put your whole life in their hands, given they already know what twists and turns await, and choose to do nothing about the bad ones?)
2. They have examined the facts such as they stand, and have made an intelligent guess as to their implication for the future, which turns out to be right.
But this is not actually “prophecy”, this is “forecasting”, and people who do it well, like share analysts, get paid good money for their proven abilities to reasonably predict future outcomes. (But none of them claim to be infallible. In fact, any successful investor knows you should treat claims of infallibility, of “100% guaranteed returns”, as risible calfsplatter. As they say, if it looks too good to be true, it is.)
So what is it? The New Testament is full of claims of fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and my impression is it is a big part of Christianity’s case, but is a “fulfilled” prophecy really that big a deal?
Or happy clappers like Morrison who believe the earth is only 3,000 years old ridiculedWhy are coal spruiking Christians like Matt Canavan not ex-communicated for destroying God's creations?
Thanks for your reply.The tanakh contains prophecies regarding future events including the circumstances surrounding the birth, and attributes of, a promised messiah.
It can be likened to a car hitched to a trailer. Without fulfillment of prophecies, there's no link between Judaism and Christianity.
The Abrahamic religions are a different beast to financial forecasting or use of a time machine. Christians believe that god lives outside of time, in that he sees past/present/future all at once. How he does so isn't my place to say. I prefer to think of god as similar to the architect character from the matrix movies. He's a mathematician who is trying to remove the anomaly (sin) from his idealistic system.
A trader can survive on a 50% (or lesser) success rate. Christianity hinges on a 100% success rate. If one prophecy fails, Christianity fails.
It seems your question is more to do with prophecies by religious figures than those contained in religious texts. Is that correct?Thanks for your reply.
Hmm, not sure about your final point. True believers, in a range of settings, show a remarkable ability to work around failed prophecies. Ordinary people would think the last thing a religious shyster would want to do is set a firm date for the fulfilment of their prophecy, but they do it over and over, and although they tend to lose a few followers each time, the ability of the majority of their followers to ignore (or explain away) the reality in front of their noses is wondrous.
And my rudimentary knowledge of the Seventh Day Adventists (who brought us Weet-Bix, and Lindy Chamberlain!) has them originating from The Great Disappointment, a period in the 19th century in America when the prophecies of a guy called William Miller failed to materialise. (Maybe someone on here has better knowledge of that than I.)
(Then there’s the whole question of what constitutes a successful prophecy. As you say, Christianity hinges entirely on its claim that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. The Jews say “nup, you got the wrong guy”. They can’t both be right.)
Disconfirmed Expectancy is the psychological term for failed prophecies, explored by Leon Festinger (of “cognitive dissonance” fame). It’s a fascinating area.
I guess my original question could be fleshed out as:
“History abounds with either disagreements over fulfilment of prophecies, or examples of believers continuing to hold on to their beliefs despite undeniable evidence to the contrary. Given the fraught history of prophecies and their alleged fulfilment or failure, what do prophecies represent to religious belief in general? Is a claim to know the future seen by followers (and crucially, potential followers) as some sort of requisite display of super-humanism? Or is the very contestable nature of prophecy the thing that makes it such a convenient tool? Or is it something else?”
To put it baldly, when someone claims such-and-such will occur in the future, what is inherent in that claim, such that when it is deemed to be proven correct (or sometimes, amazingly, shown to be utterly wrong!) it causes someone to go “seems legit. I’ll give you all my money.”?
Yes, I guess I'm conflating prophesies as contained in the Bible and claimed in retrospect to be true, with prophecies by modern day cult leaders. I don't have much time for either, and I guess my question is about the nature of prophecies in general, and what they represent in Christianity, and other religions.It seems your question is more to do with prophecies by religious figures than those contained in religious texts. Is that correct?
There's a big distinction between the two with true believers. A true Christian believes the bible is best interpreted literal for the most part, and that it contains no errors be they scientific, historical, or in prophecy. A fervent true Christian believes that god preserved his word through thousands of years without a single transcription error. Even a true believer will accept that fallible humans make errors.
Anyway, it's an interesting question. The Christians seem to have lost the appetite for answering them.
If someone could coach St Kilda to a premiership, it raises some divinity based questions.Yes, I guess I'm conflating prophesies as contained in the Bible and claimed in retrospect to be true, with prophecies by modern day cult leaders. I don't have much time for either, and I guess my question is about the nature of prophecies in general, and what they represent in Christianity, and other religions.
It's basically a display of alleged magic, but I'm curious as to why this particular display of alleged magic has worked its way to the front of the religion.
(I for example would be more impressed by a religious figure who could walk through walls, for example. Now that I would be impressed by. Or if he could sing through his penis. Or coach St Kilda to a threepeat.)
Problem is, we don't even know who St Kilda was, do we? Just the name of a ship.If someone could coach St Kilda to a premiership, it raises some divinity based questions.
I think the Jews were racist during the time of Jesus. You could argue that is still the case.i don’t know.Why are so many Christians just flat out racists?
Are these Christians real Christians or just Christian by name?
Why doesn't the church pay proper compensation to people who were repeatedly abused and molested by christian priests?
1. Because their God is the “right one” and anything else is wrongWhy are so many Christians just flat out racists?
Are these Christians real Christians or just Christian by name?
Why doesn't the church pay proper compensation to people who were repeatedly abused and molested by christian priests?