Christianity and the End Times

Marketing is offering a product. I'm saying there is no product, no snake oil that will fix everything that ails you. So I wouldn't say I'm marketing anything. Promising nothing but blood, sweat, toil and tears is not what I would call marketing.(It occurs to me that that's about what God promised Adam and Eve when they grew up.)

Even if your assessment of fulfilled prophecy is correct, that's no reason to assume that any other prophecy will be fulfilled. Say there's a 40% accuracy rate to this point in time. It could just be worse than random guessing. You'd need near 100% to conclude that there was a divine origin - but of course you can' t have that because you conveniently push all of the unfulfilled prophecies into our future.Edited by ringo, : Spelling on my fone.

He was.

Maybe that's a hint that they didn't?

I would argue that I don't care one way or the other, so bias doesn't enter into it. Of course if you have little support for your opinion it's natural to want to believe that one position is as good as another.

Things that are "well written" are usually edited. The quality of the final result doesn't necessarily tell us much about the author.

Faith uses "revisionist" as a swear-word, as if the "traditional" ideas should never be challenged. There's nothing wrong with revising our thinking as new evidence is discovered. Remember how bleeding was traditional before medical science revised its thinking?

Did you read my post at all? Did you miss this part?

quote:

---

Remember how bleeding was traditional before medical science revised its thinking?

---

Do you think we should still be bleeding people because it's traditional? Come on. Use your head for once. That's like saying nobody should challenge criminals except other criminals - a truly idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. It has to do with looking at the facts, like medical science looked at the facts and decided that the tradition of bleeding was more harmful than helpful.

That doesn't make a bit of sense. He couldn't repeat what had already been said? Why not? He couldn't bring different sources together in one place? Why not?

Yes, bringing different sources together in one place adds them together. He doesn't say that. He says that he understands the events, not that he experienced them. Nope. He doesn't say that.

The ad hominem just illustrates the fact that there is no substance to your position.

Taking it where it leads is a bad thing? Do you value the Bible only because all other texts have no value?

It's strange then that what you repeat to us is usually nonsense and not from the Bible. I note how you cite two commentators who told you what to think about the Bible. You should try opening it when you post here. Maybe then you wouldn't be such a screaming harpy.

Of course you don't - because you don't like what it says about Him. You cherry-pick the bits you like and ignore the rest. Your inner unction is a maze with no exit. Yes, inner unction should always be questioned. Inner unction is the source of impulses good and bad. It isn't even a question of "instead". Everybody should go with evidence and science first. Then, if there's no evidence, you can fall back on faith. Faith should never, ever, ever be the starting point for anything.

Really, these discussions would go a lot smoother if you understood what evidence is. Once again you don't get your own evidence; everybody has the same evidence. Thomas.Ironically enough, though he is derisively called "Doubting" Thomas by the faith crowd, it wasn't he who demanded evidence; it was Jesus who offered it: So the moral of the story is: Don't believe what the commentators tell you. Every scientific paper puts evidence ahead of faith. They don't consider faith at all.