The movement causing a wall to ultimately fall down does make sense in theory, and I believed that it made sense from the onset. However I was more interested in why they were specifically told to march around the walls "once a day for 6 days and 7 times on the seventh day." I can't figure any particular significance in that, save the fact perhaps that there are 7 days in a present day week (whether or not that was the case at the time). Regardless though, it could not in theory be determined prematurely that the wall would fall exactly after the marches on the 7th day, and not before or after, or not at all. The idea that it did just happen to fall as God determined that it would is extremely farfetched, and it honestly blows my mind that there are people out there who take this and other biblical prophecies as anything more than just a coincidence or a metaphor.

As for thinking critically, they certainly didn’t appear to value rationality over emotion or to hold out for evidence the way we do now

This was likely because people in those days wanted something or someone to believe in, and to present a rational argument about anything would essentially destroy the ability they had to hope or believe in what they had previously been told.

Of course I don't know if that is actually the case, or if people in those days were just really so simple-minded that they would trust and believe in anything without giving it a second thought, but I certainly don't doubt this either as education was far less prevalent and those who did question or challenge things were often ridiculed or shunned by society (like Columbus, for instance).

In fairness, Jews basically only follow the old testament, and Jesus (CHRIST) does not appear until the new testament. I have also been to a number of (Christ)ian churches that only have copies of the new testament, and even our local dollar store sells the new testament without the old testament. Ask yourself why this is the case.

I have never been to any type of church other than a Christian church, primarily because every one of the dozen or so churches that probably exist within a 50 mile radius of here are likely of a Christian denomination with the exception of one Jewish synagogue that I know of but have never been to. But every one that I have been to that had copies of the Bible either had he old and new testament, or either just the new testament. In other words, Christians are clearly not all about the old testament in the way that Jews are, for example, and you are making a generalization about Christians and the old testament that applies less to them than it does perhaps to any other religion.

Keep in mind that the "blind obedience" that is present throughout the old testament does not present itself in the new testament, and that Jesus actually existed and this is rarely debated by anyone, whereas God's existence is almost always debated by different people of all faiths and religions.

I actually don't even care if theists are set firmly on their own set of beliefs, but why should it be wrong for others to have an adverse opinion, especially when their opinion has very strong merit when compared to what may as well be no more than a simple faith in the existence of a spiritual being?

I feel like theists feel threatened on some level perhaps because they know deep down that God is only a matter of faith, so they get defensive when someone presents any argument to the contrary.

After the recent pogrom this thread seems unfair.

As long as those who participated did not have a deliberate Calvinist mindset going into it (and assuming that you are not referring specifically to a riot against Jews), then it should not be unfair. I have to assume that you are not specifically referring to Jews, since I can't identify a RECENT pogrom that has taken place with Jews as the main target, but I doubt if anyone involved in any protest that happened recently was specifically thinking "it's OK for me to commit these violent acts because I still have faith in God, which means that I will be saved no matter what." In fact the truth is likely that none of the protesters were giving a second thought to the religious implications that their actions may or may not have had. I mean let's be honest.

It doesn't even necessitate that the originator believes in the god either, look at scientology. L Ron Hubbard must have known he was making it all up on some level, even if he claimed it was revelation, and yet people still believe in it. It doesn't even necessitate that the originator intended for others to believe in it. — Kenosha Kid

My belief or non-belief in the invisible spirit would not change the fact that it didn't exist though. You are assuming that this is a hypothetical scenario and that I am simply pretending that a spirit exists to prove a point, while all along knowing that it does not exist. But assuming that this was not the case, and that rather I actually did believe that the spirit does exist, it still would not exist regardless, just as the premise of Scientology would be as false as it is now, even if it was fully believed and trusted by L. Ron Hubbard. So that hindsight is irrelevant in this case.

I said ALMOST indisputable, because there is nothing at all that can be proven with 100 percent accuracy by anyone, and I also know that there are people who will disagree with me for whatever reason or who will otherwise say that I am speaking too matter-of-factly, for instance implying that my explanation is indisputable without any doubt at all. I have had people do this kind of thing on other posts, so for the most part I have tried to be extremely careful how I word things as much as I can; however there is not much room to negotiate with a binary statement such as this.

As for the "known fact," I will refer you to this wikipedia article which gives multiple examples of times throughout history where different theistic groups have used the idea of a "god" who is said to exist in the sky, to give meaning to the unexplained.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_father

Of course nothing that any person can or will ever say is known to be true with 100 percent certainty, but what I am considering is that so many different people/groups of people created the exact same concept of their respective God(s) existing as a spirit in the sky, and to that extent we can assume that they more or less accepted that unexplained things were being caused by an unseen spirit whom they believed existed. Again, this cannot be proven, which is another reason why I only said it is ALMOST indisputable, but there is also nothing that can be proven as true with 100 percent accuracy. You are only ever relying on (strong) evidence to determine what the most likely concept or idea may have been, as I am in this case.

But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate.
— BBQueue

Read that back a couple of times...

But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make.
— BBQueue

Could not allowing oneself to believe in determinism alter one's decisions in any way? Or does it only work the other way around, as you stated. — Key

I am not disputing any of what you have said, but none of this or any of what Christian2017 said has anything to do with my original post. I feel like no one can dispute my original argument, and therefore they are changing the subject or avoiding it completely. It's ok if you don't want to accept that my argument is true, but at least acknowledge it.

If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate). — christian2017

I don't entirely believe that fate determines our actions, simply because it is said that we have the ability to choose and to make choices. I agree that we may not always be conscious or aware of what we are doing at any given time, for example if I move my foot without realizing it or thinking about it, but very often we are forced to become aware of our actions, such as when making decisions or performing very specific tasks. Moreover, it is primarily in cases of decision-making that we become the most self-aware and have a conscious ability to choose, even in spite of of actions that we don't think about but that we are taking subconsciously outside of the decision-making process. But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. For instance a person doesn't choose to do something without being aware that they are making a choice, or what the choice is.

I also don't believe that so many decisions would be stressful or difficult to make if we actually knew in hindsight that the decision was determined by fate, so the fact that we still have to make decisions and often don't know what to decide is another indication that the decision is not predetermined. But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make.

The Bible is clear "Once Saved, Always Saved". John 15, John 3, Psalm 23, book of James, book of Romans among others. If Jesus Christ thought i was going to do something to lose my salvation in 10 years he would kill me today. When the horse gets a broken leg, the farmer takes it around back behind the barn and shoots it.

Jesus Christ can predict 100% of everything.

This is a religious post about christianity by a christian so i'm authorized to post scripture.

Exactly, which is why you don't or technically should not have to go to church to be considered a Christian or to be saved. So the pastor's logic actually goes against what is in the Bible.

I honestly think that to find any biblical prophecy that fits ALL of the suggested criteria would be extremely extraordinary, and therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that there isn't a prophecy to be found that is verifiable by those criteria.

There could be something that fits most of the criteria, but also doesn't fit one crucial rule, and therefore can't be verified, so by that logic you definitely are not going to find anything substantial. But at the same time we would have no rules to decide how valid a prophecy is, if it was not for that list of criteria, and we would just have people on here saying "this is in the Bible, so it means that prophecy came true," while failing to acknowledge that events in the Bible could be exaggerated extremely and even skewed to fit predictions that were made in a former prophecy. I just know that there are those types of people on this forum though, which is why I mentioned the criteria in the first place.

Jesus prophesied that "the poor you will always have with you". That may have been more of an indictment than a prophecy, but it seems to have come true.

Because that is not something extraordinary or profound and is fairly ambiguous as opposed to something specific that is nonetheless tangible. The "poor", for instance could refer to anyone that you want, and the definition could change to fit your preferences. Also it is fairly unlikely that anyone would doubt the consistent presence of the poor, so it isn't particularly unique prophecy and therefore it is unsurprising that it came true. Basically anyone could have made the same prophecy years ago and it would be believed,as it is fairly obvious.

I'm asking because the Bible would otherwise be inherently flawed or just predetermined based on what was known at certain points in history. I don't believe that anyone in the New Testament or those who wrote it was alive at the same time as anyone involved with the Old Testament, for instance, so it can't be effectively said that the New Testament was not framed at least in part as a fruition of some Old Testament prophecies, even if this means that the New Testament writings don't entirely agree with what actually happened or what may have happened in reality.

For instance some of the actions of Jesus could be exaggerated in the New Testament to agree with depictions in Isaiah chapter 53, and I would bet hands down that this is true to an extent unless you can point to something specific that is written about Jesus that disagrees with something in Isaiah 53.

There could of course be things that neither agree nor disagree with Isaiah 53, but for example there isn't anything in the New Testament that specifically depicts Jesus to look or act different than what was phrophesized. Rather the subject of Jesus physical appearance appears to be all but avoided in the book of Matthew, and his behavior is never mentioned as specifically as what was prophesized, but his actions are really only described in terms of helping others or performing miracles.

So it sounds like they were purposely vague in the New Testament about whether Jesus fit the prophecy in Isaiah 53, which I would ultimately take to mean that he probably did not fit the prophecy entirely, if at all. But I suppose it is easy to convince yourself of something if you say or write it in a way that sounds like what you want it to be.

I imagine that it's highly debatable whether or not that's close to how the concept of God originated. I agree that mystical experiences often lead people to contrive their own religions, like Ontophilism, for instance. :joke: Our natural desire for meaning is insatiable

I think what I have described is really the only thing that makes sense though, because it actually could be the case without question. For instance when atheists insist that God does not exist, not only is this debatable, but it is also an unknown, as in they only believe that God does not exist, but they cannot know this for sure. Moreover, the "God" that does not exist could also be the same God that is a matter of what I have described. That is, people long ago developed the concept of God to define a spiritual presence that they likely felt and wanted to give meaning to it.

Not only is my description highly plausible, but it would also mean that "God" is indeed no more than the identity given to the spiritual being whose presence was felt by people long ago, and thus would essentially negate the argument of atheists and theists that God does or does not exist, since "God" would in essence only be the name given to a spiritual presence that was felt. Thus, God exists in that aspect, but would otherwise not exist.

If a theist were to simply BELIEVE that God exists, that belief would be without a strong argument, since there is no evidence to support a mere belief, and a belief is disputable by nature.