When Will The End-Times Be And How Will We Know?

Your actually following the teachings and commandments of your god(s) would say nothing about whether any of those gods are real, but rather it would speak of whether you actually believe enough in those gods so as to have sufficient faith in them to do what they command and demand of you.I assume that you know the old joke about the "true believer" who went hiking, fell off a cliff, and ended up hanging there clutching desperately onto a tree root.
He calls out to God to save him. The clouds part and he hears God's voice telling him, "Have faith in me, my son, and let go!" The "believer" pauses and then cries out, "Is there anyone else there? I need a second opinion!" 
I've been waiting for an opportunity to pass this on. I got the amazon link on Facebook from Ed Babinsky, a former extreme fundamentalist who has since written a collection of deconversion testimonials. The book is Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn't Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words; it almost seems to have been written for you in this ongoing discussion.The description written by the author reads:

quote:

---

For centuries the gospels have been cherished devotional literature, and under the guidance of preachers and priests, they’ve been understood as reliable depictions of Jesus. But even the most devout Christians stumble across sayings of Jesus that don’t sound quite right. In fact—if we’re honest—some of them are alarming. I discovered a few of these verses when I was a kid, but Jesus was our lord and savior, so I didn’t let it bother me too much.

​

But the problem won’t go away, even if many of the faithful file these troublesome texts in a mental drawer marked “Too uncomfortable to think about.” In fact, the problem is much larger than many people suppose. In this book, you’ll find “things Christians wish Jesus hadn’t taught” categorized in ten chapters.

​

How can this not be food for thought? What are the implications of this major downside of the gospels? It takes a certain level of bravery—frankly, curiosity and courage are required—to examine everything that Jesus taught. This book is designed to help with that adventure.

---

Drawing from the three reviews of the book (each rating it with 5 stars):

quote:

---

This lucid, insightful, and concise book takes a unique approach to the problem of Christian faith. Biblical scholar David Madison approaches the reader in a spirit of empathy and generosity but also uncompromising honesty. More specifically, he approaches Christian readers on their own turf. In the first ten chapters he assumes, for the sake of argument, that the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels are accurate representations of his teachings. If we accept this premise, is Jesus truly the greatest teacher of all time? Do his words really match the image of the loving Savior we were told about as children in Vacation Bible School? The answers will shock a great many Christians who have never read the New Testament completely, carefully, and honestly.

​

Some of these teachings are merely strange, unwise, or hopelessly impractical, like the admonition never to refuse anyone who asks you for a loan, the advice to ignore the basic human needs of food and clothing, or appeals to magical thinking. Others, however, are truly shocking and disturbing for anyone who believes in a Jesus of unconditional love and forgiveness. For example, Jesus teaches that we cannot be his followers unless we hate our closest family members, suggests that we should value devotion to him above life itself, and threatens eternal torture for anyone who fails to acknowledge his divinity and worship him. These are the Bible verses that seldom appear in Sunday School lessons or preachers’ sermons, yet they are the purported words of the Messiah. Madison tells of one devout believer who accused him of lying when he quoted Luke 14:26 for her. She simply refused to accept that Jesus could have said those words, though they were there in her own copy of the Bible.

​

---

​

Of course, many Christians are so deeply committed to their faith that nothing will shake the scales from their eyes, and Madison obviously understands this. But he also knows, from his own experience, that there are intellectually honest Christians who struggle with doubt and that a deep, open-minded study of Scripture only makes the problem worse. This book is ideal for people who are on that difficult path. It takes courage to seek truth, wherever that journey leads, but this book will help.

​

---

​

David Madison does a masterful job of setting up a monumental scare for Christian believers. Most of those folk, as I did when I was one, put blinders on and scurry right past certain bothersome passages of the New Testament (“I hope this isn’t what I think it is, so I’m not going to deal with it”), or ornately twist them around into something they aren’t (“If I can ignore what it seems to say and decide it says this, then I won’t be bothered by it”). If we must believe what Jesus said is “good” and “right,” then we have to find a way to make ourselves believe it. But Madison won’t let us do that. He makes it clear: This is what it says! This is what it means! This can’t be denied! Some of Jesus’s teachings are perplexing. Some alarming. Some repulsive, even. How ya gonna deal with that?

​

---

​

While the book contains an excellent summary of counter-apologetics to Christian dogma, its main value is that it forces the reader to objectively look at the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. Should one be able to read it without focusing on WHO said it but instead on WHAT is said, the only reasonable conclusion is that the words are consistent with a dangerous religious cult of misguided humans and not an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity.

---

Could you please be specific about just what "Trade War against China" you are talking about. And what you mean by "initiated"?Trump is infamous for making big announcements and then never following through, or else completely reversing himself when he thought nobody was looking. For example, after suddenly pulling out of Syria and abandoning our Kurdish allies to be slaughtered by the Turks (sound anything like current accusations against Biden?), Trump announced sweeping sanctions against Turkey, but then he sent in Pence to negotiate with Erdogan and ended up lifting all the sanctions and giving him everything he wanted (typical of Trump's "deal making" when he cannot bully the other guy).Over and over again, Trump would make public announcements first reviling China and then praising China, back and forth. Indeed, Obama had been negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement which would have formed a trade alliance with several Pacific Rim countries that would have also cut out China, thus placing China at a trade disadvantage.One of the first things that Trump did when he took office was to pull the USA out of the TPP, thus doing China a huge favor. With Trump doing China favors like that and praising them (punctuated by public accusations with virtually nothing behind them), why would China have felt the need to unleash a biological weapon? Plus, if they had decided on such an action, they would have done a far better job of deploying that weapon.I assume that you will bring up the tariffs that Trump imposed on China. I also assume that your sources will have repeated Trump's claims of China having paid us billions of dollars through those tariffs. Is that the case? Do we need to discuss yet again just what tariffs are and how they work? And who actually pays them?

SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS????? Stop evading the question!Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you?Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating. 
Now, answer my question/request! What possible significance can teh presence of that recently formed C-14 have on radiocarbon dating?In order to answer that, you need to understand what radiocarbon dating is based on and what it depends on. You claim to know that, so demonstrate your knowledge!If you have no clue, then simply admit it and allow yourself to learn something for a change.Otherwise, you are lying not only to us, but also to yourself. Do you really believe that lying is the Christian thing to do?

There are very good reasons why we no longer base money on gold. Do some basic research.For one thing, there's only a limited amount of gold, so countries end up in a game of trying to get other countries' gold away from them. In that game, we would want to keep other countries, especially our competitors, from getting their damned dirty paws off on our currency since they could then use that to take away some of our gold (exchanging promissary notes, which is what paper money is, for the gold behind it). The most common and widely used US currency is the thousand dollar bill, which is almost exclusively being held overseas by wealthy foreigners as easily transportable cash (should they need to suddenly bug out).In addition, if we were to move to make our money inaccessible to other countries in order to protect our gold, then that would devalue the US dollar, making our money worth less, which is not a good thing.And what FDR realized in the Great Depression (which I seem to recall is when we went off the Gold Standard) was that since we have a limited amount of gold, then that also limits what we can do as a country to get ourselves out of serious difficulties (such as the Great Depression).And finally, if owning gold is such a wonderful solution, then why are they working so hard and spending so much money for commercials to sell you gold? Why aren't they just hoarding it all for themselves if it's so wonderful and all that?

So then still completely incapable of answer a simple question like "what do you think evolution is and how do you think it works", you continue to try in vain to baffle us with pure bullshit. So sadly typical. Yep, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy yet again:

quote

---

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred. This fallacy is the philosophical or rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which is the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

​

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the side of a barn, then paints a shooting target centered on the tightest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

---

So decades and even a over a century after the alleged facts, early Christians busy creating the mythos of their new god decide to make him fulfill Old Testament "prophesies" by retconning his story accordingly. And of course since many/most of them weren't Jewish, they didn't even understand most of those "prophesies" ("Christians don't know how to read the Bible." -- Jewish character in Mein Bester Feind). Just like that Texas sharpshooter, they created the targets after the fact in order to make it look like they had hit the mark.There are several criteria for an actual successful prediction, none of which are met by such Christian claims of "fulfilled prophesy."Yet again you need to SHOW US that those claims are legitimate and not just simply more of your standard BS. That's not how probability works. Probability ranges from zero (impossible) to one (dead certainty), inclusive. Probability can never be greater than one, let alone your "10¹⁷".So does this mean that you were unable to understand what your "friend" was telling you -- why does this sound like yet another urban legend? -- or that he doesn't know what he is talking about despite your story that he teaches this stuff on the university level?ABE:
And out of curiosity, even though you are too clueless to be able to understand the question let alone try to answer it, how did your friend determine the probability of a single prophesy being fulfilled? I mean how precisely did he arrive at that single probability? What assumptions with associated numbers did he studiously use?I very strongly suspect that he just pulled a number out of his ass, like something around 1/133 (ie, P = 0.0075) which raised to the 8th power would give us: P(8 independent prophecies) = P⁸ = 0.00000000000000001 (AKA 10^(-17), which is your 1/10¹⁷).IOW, his "calculated probability of a single fulfilled prophesy" is nothing be a SWAG, some wild ass guess that he pulled out of his ass! And since you constantly consume apologist bullshit, the terroir of his claim tasted so familiar that you just gobbled it up. 
And, of course yet again, you will not answer any of our questions but rather simply spew even more BS nonsense.So sadly typical.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

Complete and utter blithering nonsense! His objective was to calculate the probability of eight predictions being fulfilled. That objective depended on determining the probability of a single prediction being fulfilled. In order to make that determination, he had to have based his MATH on SOMETHING!According to you, he didn't even base it on jack-shit! You fucking idiot!Are you really such an idiot that you cannot understand a very simple mathematical concept? Calculating the probability of an event happening requires the creation of a mathematical model of that event!Are you really such a complete idiot that you cannot understand that very simple fact?What is the probability that you will either fail to understand or willfully refuse to understand any of this? Very rapidly approaching 100%, dead certainty. But I'm going to explain it anyway because others reading this might learn something, even though you work so hard to prevent yourself from learning anything. IOW, I know full well that I am yet again casting pearls before a swine.Games of chance are events that are fairly easy to model because they are well defined; eg:

• An American-style roulette wheel has 38 slots: 36 numbered 1 through 36 and two more which are marked double-zero and triple-zero. Half the numbered slots are red and the other half black -- double-zero and triple-zero are green.
  ​
  All bets are based solely on the numbered slots with the two zero slots biasing the odds in the house's favor. Bets can be for an individual number or on a grouping of the numbers; eg, black/red, even/odd, high/low/middle range, column.
  ​
  The payoff for a bet is based on its probability of occurring (not including the biasing of the zero slots); eg:
  • P(any single number) = 1/38 ≈ 1/36, so payoff is 36 to 1.
  • P(a particular column) = 12/38 ≈ 1/3, so payoff is 3 to 1.
  • P(1-12, 13-24, or 25-36) = 12/38 ≈ 1/3, so payoff is 3 to 1.
  • P(red or black) = 18/38 ≈ 1/2, so payoff is 2 to 1.
  • P(even or odd) = 18/38 ≈ 1/2, so payoff is 2 to 1.
  An illustration of how the zero slots bias the game in favor of the house, consider single-number bets. The house will have to pay out once every 38 spins, but only pays out 36:1, so the house gets 38 chips and pays back 36 ending up with a 2 chip profit. The house always wins.
  ​
• In games involving six-sided dice (numbers 1-6 on each side), each roll of the dice is an individual independent event. So what is the probability of rolling a particular number?
  • Using one die, the probability of rolling any particular number, 1-6, is one in six, 1/6.
  • Using two dice, there are 36 possible outcomes producing a number from 2 to 12. Some of those numbers are more likely than others. Reminding you that there are 36 possible outcomes, multiple ones of which can produce the same number:
    • only one way to roll a 2 or 12, so their probability is 1/36.
    • 2 ways to roll a 3 or an 11, so their probability is 2/36 = 1/18.
    • 3 ways to roll a 4 or a 10, so their probability is 3/36 = 1/12.
    • 4 ways to roll a 5 or a 9, so their probability is 4/36 = 1/9.
    • 5 ways to roll a 6 or a 8, so their probability is 5/36.
    • 6 ways to roll a 7, so its probability is 6/36 = 1/6.
• Card games are the same, but too complicate for the scope of this reply. The point with them is that you have (assuming standard deck of playing cards, a California prayerbook (my winning answer in a Trivial Pursuit tournament against my minister's team), with no jokers):
  • There's one chance in 52 of drawing dealt a particular card.
  • There's 1 in 4 chance of drawing a particular suit.
  • There's 1 in 13 chance of drawing a particular number (including ace or a face card).
  The probability of any particular poker hand can be calculated from there, though you also need to keep track of the depletion of the cards already drawn from the pool of cards (eg, first card dealt means a 51-card deck, second card makes it 50, etc, plus there are fewer of what you've drawn to now draw from).

Yet another example of the need for a proper math model is my MONKEY program which I created circa 1990 from my software specification derived from Richard Dawkins' WEASEL in Chapter 3, "Accumulating Small Changes", of The Blind Watchmaker -- on a site which collected WEASEL programs, mine was deemed most true to the original.Selecting the right math model was the entire idea behind WEASEL, because creationists are infamous for always using bogus probability models. Their single-step selection has absolutely nothing to do with reality, with how life works, and hence with how evolution works! Plus the creationist "model" is abysmally bad. The proper math model to model how life works is cumulative selection which is based on how life works -- duh? And in WEASEL's (and MONKEY's) task it would take creationism's single-step selection quadrillions of years for a hyper-supercomputer to gain just a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, evolution's cumulative selection accomplishes in seconds, every time without fail. That is why the correct math model is of the utmost importance in any calculation of probabilities.BTW, don't rely on Dembski and Royal Truman's bullshit lies about WEASEL. 
The objective in this evolution is to demonstrate that in order to calculate the probability of an event one must develop a mathematical model of that event! Hopefully a proper one!So the question to you was what your "math expert's" math model was for a single fulfilled Bible prophecy. Why a math model? Because he intended to use it to perform math with! No math model, no math! Duh?So then JUST WHAT THE HELL DID HE BASE HIS PROBABILITY CALCULATIONS ON?wickless, you fucking idiot! Or should that be uttely ignorant swine since I'm about to cast some more pearls before you?A probability of 10¹⁷? Even after I had already told you that a probability can be no greater than ONE? You're like Trump and his MAGAts: we think that they couldn't possibly sink any lower and yet they eagerly dig away! As you yourself keep doing.Again, it is impossible for a probability to be greater than one. 10¹⁷ is extremely greater than one, like by a factor of 10¹⁷. Duh????If that professor is really saying that, then having him teach probability at a university is a criminal act that must be stopped immediately! Rather, I would assume that you are just incapable to understanding what he had told you. Or else you are deliberately lying yet again!We already know all too well that you're a fucking idiot. We would rather not realize the same of him. Just as there is no mistake that other religions also record the fulfillment of their prophecies. What makes your false claims worth more than theirs?Anybody could claim fulfilled prophecy, so how is anybody to tell when it's true? Those claims would need to be tested. But how? You would need to establish some kind of reliable criteria for verifying such claims.Have you done that, applied reliable criteria for verifying those "fulfilled prophecies"? No, I didn't think so. But I have seen several treatments of such testing. Your claims of fulfilled prophecy are all bullshit.So here's the most likely scenario I'm seeing: Here are commonly known historical reconstructions, though most don't know them as such. I seem to recall it was Washington Irving (author of "The Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hallow who in the early 1800's had written stories about our Founding Fathers and early presidents. George Washington's "I cannot tell a lie, ... I chopped down that cherry tree.", etc. Then later stories of Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary feats of honesty, etc.Any reliable criteria for testing claims of fulfilled prophecy must be able to detect and deal with that kind of falsifying historical reconstruction. The exact kind that early Christian writings are rife for.So what happens when actually reliable criteria are used to test your claims of fulfilled prophecy? They do not fare well.Your "fulfilled prophecies" are not an asset, but rather yet another problem that you need to solve.Please attend to them appropriately. For a change. No, you fucking lying sack of liquid crap! You were posted an endless stream of lies about evolution and we kept trying in vain (solely because of your fucking intransigence) to get you to tell us just what the fuck you're talking about! A vital part of which was what your particular misunderstanding of evolution is. Unless we know what total bullshit you base your "conclusions" about evolution is, we have no hope of ever understanding you, let alone try to correct you.You know full well what our questions are. Just answer the fucking questions!
​ So then you are not of Animalia? WHAT KIND OF ENTITY ARE YOU? Something cybernetic (in which case your software is really screwed up)? Not primate? Not mammal? Not amniote? Not tetrapod? Not chordate (vertebrate)? Not animalia? Just what the fuck are you? if none of those?Or do you just have your head wedged firmly up your ass ... yet again?

Edited by dwise1, : slight correction of the omission of a number

As already pointed out, what you say of what that math professor had claimed is completely stupid nonsense based on extreme ignorance of basic mathematics. Are you the stupid ignoramus here or is it that other guy whom you claim to teach this subject professionally in a state university? I most sincerely hope that it is not him.Besides the glaringly obvious ignorance that probability cannot be greater than 1.0 (AKA "dead certainty" ... and nothing could be more probable than that), there is also the question of what he based his determination of the probability of one prophecy being fulfilled. Somehow he seems to have arrived at a probability of about 1/133 which is 0.0075 (or 0.75%). But how? What did he base his math model on? Because without a math model you cannot determine a probability. No math model for one prophecy being fulfilled means no probability could have been determined. Duh?? ABE:
I did offer an answer to how the professor had come up with that probability. Did he tell you? 
Of course, there is so very much more involved that just coming up with a math model. First and foremost is the need for proper criteria to determine whether a prophecy has in fact been fulfilled. Or even whether it's even actually a prophecy.In this video, Aron Ra discusses this problem giving many examples of false "fulfilled prophecies" that "true Christians" continue to claim despite their having been refuted a thousand times already (actually, this video is the first use of PRATT that I've seen outside of this forum): These criteria have been discussed elsewhere and I'm no expert, but I do know at least this much:

• A proper prophecy must be a clear and unambiguous statement. Specific locations. Specific time frames. Specific individuals involved. Vague hand-waving like "there will be wars and rumors of wars" just simply does not cut it.
  ​
• It cannot be so ambiguous as to be open to a plethora of different interpretations, such that one could force it into an event that it. That includes the tendency to take statements that clearly apply to an entire nation as actually applying to an individual.
  ​
• The prophecy must actually exist. There are several for which the prophecy itself no longer exists, assuming it ever did; eg, they moved to Nazareth to fulfill "he shall be called a Nazarene" despite there being no such prophecy to be found, plus the earliest historical reference to Nazareth dates from 221 CE.
  ​
• It must be an actual prophecy. Aron Ra cites David's songs which are not deemed to be prophetic.
  ​
• Failed prophecies must also be taken into account. Including failed prophesies which "true Christians" try to claim to be fulfilled.
  ​
• The fulfillment must be real and verifiable.
  ​
  For example, I could claim that I can successfully predict the winning PowerBall numbers. To prove that I can, I will post the winning numbers after they have been posted. Would you believe in my incredible powers of prophecy? Of course not!
  ​
  Even worse, I could make up claims about one Captain (Acting Major) William Martin including an entire military career, school records, and a love letter from his girlfriend whose photo is also planted on his body. Operation Mincemeat.
  ​
  In the biblical case, you have some figure that everybody is worshipping so they make up stories about him, stories of how he fulfilled certain prophecies. They didn't even have to be deliberate in their falsification, since the same thing happens all the time as legend grows around leading figures like urban legends.
  ​
  So how can you tell the difference between falsified legendary BS and the real thing?

That should be enough to get some meaningful discussion started.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

I think what is going on with the_wickless_one is that he has no clue what that prof was trying to demonstrate: So the prof's point would not have been how probable it would be for a prediction to be fulfilled, but rather how the probability of multiple predictions all coming true shrinks rapidly as the number of those predictions increase.A realistic math model for arriving at the probability of a single prediction would be extremely difficult to construct. Therefore, I have no doubt that the prof just pulled a number out of his ... hat. That is a perfectly valid thing to do when you are just trying to demonstrate the effects of multiple events.However, a probability of about 1/133 seems to be far too high for such an event. It would make sense for him to have a favorite magic number (like 42 for those of my generation -- Share and enjoy!). Perhaps that find structure constant is his favorite magic number.Of course, that completely begs the other question of whether those "prophecies" even qualify as legitimate prophecies. Or even qualify as having been legitimately fulfilled and not just faked -- eg, my successful prediction of last Saturday's lottery numbers would only count if I had written them down before last Saturday's draw and not the day after.Aron Ra discusses this in his YouTube video, Unfulfilling Prophecy , which I so generously embedded in my Message 731 for wickless' benefit.

So in other words, theists insist that they are playing with loaded dice, so normal math no longer applies.This is also one of the reasons why mixing gods with science doesn't work. What science discovers must hold true regardless of one's gods. If you mix certain chemicals together under a certain set of conditions, then the resultant reaction(s) must not depend on which god you offered which particular prayer (up to and most definitely including the "correct" sect's prescribed number of fingers to be used in that invocation's prescribed hand gesture -- see Раскол). IOW, when you bake a cake, it should not depend on your gods. But once you insist on including gods and religious intervention into science, you screw everything up. Science sees that there are things in the physical universe that we can depend on; religion insists that the universe is chaotic, inconsistent, and capricious. Because he is typical and even archetypical of "true Christians". Dishonest hypocrites who know no lie too audacious nor dirty trick too low and underhanded to ever pass up.He has done nothing here except to spout one lie after another and to do everything possible to avoid any and all attempts at discussion. There are still so many questions that he has yet to answer, including why he claims that trace C-14 recently formed in subterranean formations through local radiation sources is supposed to have anything to do with radiocarbon dating methods which only uses atmospheric C-14.He needs to stop running away and start to engage in discussion. Of course, his evil theology will not allow that. 
ABE:IOW, we need to urge candle2, eWolf, Mike-the-Whizzer, etc, to become honest.Since all the evidence we have observed demonstrates conclusively that there is no such thing as an honest creationist, then we have almost no hope of succees. But we must still make the effort nonetheless.It's been said that one should not try to teach a pig to sing: you will never succeed and, beside, it annoys the pig.It has also been said that sometimes annoying the pig is the objective of that evolution.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

A good quote I heard which I cannot verify because Hulu won't let me view past episodes of The Orville:

quote

---

"Religion is so confusing and hard to understand."

​

"That's how priests stay in business."

---

Season 3, Episode 2, "Shadow Realms", dropped on Hulu on June 9, 2022:

quote

---

As the crew of the Orville undergoes diplomatic negotiations with the Krill to access a previously unknown region of space, Claire reunites with her ex-husband Vice Admiral Paul Christie, who happens to be her former mentor and the chief diplomat assigned to their mission. Meanwhile, despite warnings from the Krill, the crew undertake an exploration mission in the uncharted Kalarr Expanse that is supposedly inhabited by demons. During their exploration, the Orville encounters a giant, seemingly abandoned space station. Paul is infected by spores, which causes him to mutate into an alien creature that infects several of the other crew by altering their DNA. Claire and the crew manage to force the former Paul and the other mutated crew to leave by threatening to release a synthetic virus. Following the showdown, Claire and Isaac begin repairing their relationship.

---

For some reason, Hulu will only let me rewatch the third episode.The scene is where they are discussing the Krill's warnings of demons, CAPT Mercer says that he'd tried to study the Krill religion but found it confusing, to which VADM Christie marked that up to job security for priests.

In the matter of what we must require of claims of fulfilled prophecy, I listed in Message 726 (to which this is a reply since candle2 is conspicuously MIA) some of those requirements as I recalled from Aron Ra's video, Unfulfilling Prophecy .One that I had left out is the requirement that the "prophecy" not being about something that had already happened before the writing down of the "prophecy". Though it looks like I did touch on that point with: Just now watching Viced Rhino's new video ( Atheists Admit Secrets That Atheists Never Admit!!! -- video refused to embed). Circa 36:00 he mentions that there are books of prophecy in the Bible that we can date by when the prophecies go from being accurate to being wrong. That would mean that the book was written around the time that it went from being accurate to being wrong. No, he didn't give examples here because that was an aside from critiquing a fundamentalist video misrepresenting atheists.ABE:
Makes me feel like Jesus in the story of the parables where he tells the crowd the stories (as parables in order to keep anyone from understanding what he's saying), but then he has to pull his disciples off to the side afterwards to explain everything to them.The reason why those books of prophecy Viced Rhino is talking about start off with accurate prophecies and then the prophecies all go wrong is simple: the earlier prophecies are all retrodictions, things that had already happened. Once it got to things that had not yet happened, none of the prediction got it right.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

Edited by dwise1, .

Edited by dwise1, .

Belated thanks (sorry about that).The Hulu GUI for Roku finally started working right. GUIs can be so messy to try to use at times, but I guess that's why they're called that.

Well, he is a voice actor after all, along with wearing several other hats. Though in his live performances that I've seen and can think of (eg, The Orville, A Million Ways to Die in the West), he has done so with only one voice as far as I could tell.Have you been watching The Orville? Arguably, it was the best Star Trek for quite a while -- I'm positive that they use the background music from Star Trek TNG. I feel that this last season, the third, has been more serious in tone with less of the Family Guy type humor of the previous seasons.Though I noticed in a scene of a Krill bridge over the viewscreen were words in the Krill language, but it looked like "OOD DOO" (the first was the mirror image of the second). I assume that it was a play on when Mercer and Gordon learn about the Krill god, Avis, and Gordon joked "He's Number Two so he tries harder" (from the car rental commercials). "Number Two", "DOO DOO". BTW, the Krill are extremely religious, which is what makes them so extremely and violently xenophobic, wanting to kill all other space-faring species, especially humans.Now myself in a discussion is another case, especially as I slip into the character of the type of person whose position I'm presenting. When I retired, one co-worker remarked that she was going to miss all the voices. Speaking of voice actors, Nancy Cartwright does the voices for seven of the characters on The Simpsons, most notably Bart Simpson ("He's an underachiever and proud of it.").Here is one in which she does all seven voices in less than 40 seconds: And in another video, the first one of these that I saw, she meets a fan in the wild. At first he's thinking, "Hey, that's a pretty good impression", but then the look on his face as he starts to realize that he really is talking with Bart Simpson. I'm posting the URL because this video is yet another one that refused to embed: Thirteen-year-old Boy meets Bart Simpson Not sure what that's about.This is a YouTube search page of various of her videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nancy+cartwr...

So you're still unrepentantly lying about evolution. And I'd bet that you are still lying about radiocarbon dating too. Just as you've been lying about everything else, most recently by repeating GQP lies (GQP is the GOP/QAnon hybrid trying to destroy America). For that matter, you have lied so constantly here that nobody can believe a word you say.Could you please specify which god it is that you worship and can serve only through lies?

Edited by dwise1, : added specification of latest lies