You are confusing two different books. The final book of the New Testament is the Book of Revelation, which is different from the Old Testament book of Daniel. Revelation is not part of the Jewish Scriptures (none of the New Testament is), although Daniel is. Daniel includes prophecies that are typically thought to refer to events that occurred before the birth of Jesus (although not according to dispensationalists), while the prophecies in Revelation are for different events.

I'm not claiming these passages are crap, but that the dispensational theology used by evangelical Christians to interpret the end-times prophecies in the Bible is crap. These Christians interpret the Bible in a very fanciful way, claiming that they can identify very vague prophetic passages with specific current events, such as the formation of the UN. Their arguments for these interpretations are crappy.

As for Catholics, they are the largest Christian denomination in the US. Your girlfriend is wrong, they are not Satanists, but just an older version of Christianity from the Protestant versions.

There are other options beyond the three you list. There are also Orthodox Christians, which is a very old and traditional version of Christianity, and mainline Protestant Christians such as Episcopalian or Presbyterians, which are non-fundamentalist versions of Protestantism.

Yes I am far from an expert on this.
Actually I had a huge argument with a friend about this very topic.
He wouldnt believe, that this is, what people actually believe in. (including his sister, who is deep into the church)

I didnt believe her that much, although she meant the Vatican.
The largest denomination in the US is protestants according to wikipedia.
"The United States has the largest Christian population in the world and, more specifically, the largest Protestant population in the world, with nearly 205 million Christians and, as of 2019, over 141 million people affiliated with Protestant churches.

All Protestant denominations accounted for 48.5% of the population, making Protestantism the most prevelant form of Christianity in the country and the majority religion in general in the United States, while the Catholic Church by itself, at 22.7%, is the largest individual denomination.[10] The nation's second-largest church and the single largest Protestant denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention.[11] Among Eastern Christian denominations, there are several Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, with just below 1 million adherents in the US, or 0.4% of the total population.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ..._United_States

Although, it doesnt really matter which group is more to me they are all christians.

Yeah I forgot the orthodox christians.

I think I get what you are basically saying. I cant confirm nor deny it and will have to do more research on that. As I dont know what i.e. catholics believe in. It seems to me they are using the same bible.

"Protestants" isn't a denomination, but rather a group of different denominations united by a common history and theological beliefs. A denomination (roughly) refers to a group of churches united under a common organizational structure and theology. All Catholics are under the organization structure ultimately headed by the Pope. That is the largest denomination in the US at 71 million. The second largest denomination is the Southern Baptists at 14 million, which is headed by the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of this is listed in what you quote, but you seem unclear on it.

Yes my bad, thank you.
I just wanted to establish that 141M people in the US isnt just some "spin off" of the church with fancy interpretations.

141M out of 328M total, that is almost half of the population affiliated with the protestant church.

Will do some research or maybe lagtight can shed some light on this.

I have to agree with you that some interpretations, as you mentioned the formation of the UNO etc. , seem very far fetched if not crazy.

I wonder why Jesus didn't further the prophecy and give us Putin's name? I mean that would surely inspire faith. Could it be because the omniscient one didn't know it, had no clue about it ... like he had no clue about microorganisms, what causes rainbows, DNA, other galaxies, etc.? Is there just a chance this is the reason?

There is literally NOBODY in the 2+2 Forums that I respect more than you. Your posts are almost invariably respectful, thorough, logical, factually accurate, clear, and on point. I know that you value very highly truth, ethics and your fellow human beings.

From the perspective of my Christian worldview, I believe that you value all of these things because you in your heart of hearts know that all people are made in the image of God. You know people aren't merely bags of chemicals. You value your friends, loved ones and many others in spite of your professed worldview of Naturalism. In every post, you demonstrate for all to see a commitment to truth and goodness and respect. Truth and goodness and respect are religious concepts. You know that the "from the goo to the zoo to you" paradigm can't get you to love. Love isn't reducible to the mere interaction of matter in motion. You, me and EVERYONE is saturated almost every waking moment of the transcendence of all that we hold dear as humans.

I'm under the weather again (big surprise ), so I'll have to rest a bit before I can say more.

If I was god, and I wanted people to believe in me instead of going to hell, I would provide a prophecy such as the aforementioned, naming the microorganisms that cause certain diseases, provide the DNA sequence of Jesus centuries before he was born, the exact date of Israel reforming, etc. For some unfathomable reason this, or nothing like it, was done. Hmm. I might have to suspect that the information failed to materialize ahead of time for a very mundane reason. They (to the extent "they" even existed) had no clue. Of course god is free to play coy and then send people to hell, and even call this love, but that hardly seems benevolent.

It’s clear by now that you are stuck in hell, and love has nothing to do with it. Your activity on this forum is one long, continuous screech from the underworld. When are you going to start being truthful with yourself?

Any post beginning with "If I was god...", when placed between two slices of bread, is virtually guaranteed to produce a baloney sandwich.

Thank you sharing, Oscar Meyer.

I earlier mentioned that Original Position is a poster on 2+2 that I believe is "the nuts" (so to speak).

At the other extreme, in my opinion, is FellaGaga.

I would put myself kinda smack dab in the middle of those two.

Aggressive or destructive behavior is sometimes just that, but FellaGaga is beyond that. There is self sabotage involved in which a suppressed part of his psyche wants him to get exposed to his conscience in a way that corners himself into a humility and vulnerability that is being resisted. He needs to surrender to it.

Yes, he has a grudge against Christianity but that isn’t the only reason why he keeps coming back here to bang his head against the wall and piss all over the floor.

God doesn't hide His existence from anyone. Romans 1 & 2 teach us that everyone is aware of God's existence by way of His Creation and by way of our knowledge of right and wrong. Romans 1 teaches that we suppress our knowledge of God through our unrighteousness. One can't suppress what one doesn't already possess.

Having said that, if you are aware that you have sinned against the Holy God, and earnestly desire to "escape the wrath to come", then Christ will make Himself known to you and will provide for you the only means of escaping God's wrath.



Agreed.

Man is supposed to be tested
If everyone knew for a fact there was a God then what would be the purpose

Picking this up from the other thread:
You have an explanation that is consistent with your worldview. Someone else can have an entirely different explanation that is consistent with their worldview.

Both these explanations could be sufficient explanations for an actual prophecy, but they are not necessary explanations (I think you understand the difference). In which case we don't have anything better than "cool story bro" in either case, neither leads you to the worldview without begging the question.

Out of interest, what are your top three best supported prophecies?

One of the most suspicious aspects of faith-based positions is that when the truth of the matter is available to someone, it is too late. e.g. if indeed we found ourselves at the Pearly Gates (TM) after death, that would be a great time to accept that truth, but according to the theology, that moment is already too late.


Feel better.

Of what?
If there was a god, and everyone knew it for a fact, why would that be 'bad' (or choose your own descriptor)?

Nobody gets the Good News too late.

Hide and seek is an infantile game. God doesn't need to hide to implement his plan. Satan knew he existed (in the story), didn't have to rely on faith, and was still free to follow or rebel. We don't need the hide and seek faith game ... unless we are using "faith as the good" because there is simply no other way to believe it. It's a trick. It's a con.

The way fundamentalists react to legitimate debate on here is anything but Christlike. Insult the guy, say he isn't worth the discourse, etc. That's anti-Christian, and therefore, kind of anti-Christ.

Here's the bottom line of it: "I'm better than you because I'm in the true religion." And that's a cult. Every time.

Other than myself, who else in this Forum would you classify as a "Fundamentalist"?

I never insult anyone who is at least attempting to engage the subject matter in a serious manner. I plead guilty to insulting trolls from time to time.

I do not, nor have I EVER, claimed to be "better" than anyone in this Forum. Why are you literally making things up?
I'll say it for the record: I am better than NOBODY. "I am just a beggar showing other beggars where to find bread."

I'm not sure
My working theory is fate needs to be tested and there needs to be some evil to make others good

Interesting theory.

Kinda like a fish doesn't know it is in water until it somehow is removed from the water.

If there was no such thing as light, there would be no concepts of light or darkness.

Ever read the novel Flatland?

Cheers.

There are two different issues here that you need to keep separate that I don't think you are.

First, like many Christians you believe that non-Christians in some sense actually do know that God exists, and that non-believers are in a state of rebellion towards God rather than a honest and true skepticism towards God's existence when they deny His existence. Thus, "sincere" atheists are lying to themselves on some level about their lack of belief, even if not exactly on purpose. The evidence for God's existence is actually extremely clear and it is the sin nature of these atheists that causes them to look away and claim "not enough evidence," not just a disinterested search for the truth (I will briefly pause here to note the similar structure to postmodern criticisms of science and liberalism).

However, it is crucial to note that this is a psychological claim about atheists, not a philosophical claim about atheism. This is the claim that atheists, the actual people who claim to not believe in god, are wrong about their own introspective analysis of their own beliefs, that in fact humans can't help but believe in God. But this claim does not imply that atheism as an intellectual construct somehow implies that God exists. Rather, this is a claim about human nature, that we should be viewed as fallen people with a sin nature infecting our minds and inclining us to away from what is right and godly.

On the other hand, atheism as an intellectual construct generally rejects this view of human nature. Thus, even if Christians are in fact correct about human nature and atheists actually do know in some sense that God exists, that wouldn't mean that God's existence is somehow an intellectual implication of atheism. It is accepted, among Christians as well as atheists, that human psychology is different than logic. Describing how humans think is not a logical proof.

So when you say atheists who are moral are doing so because of religious precepts, while that might be true as a psychological matter, it doesn't demonstrate anything about either atheism or physicalism as theories of the world. This is where you fail to demonstrate your claim. I have repeatedly and at length demonstrated moral theories logically compatible with both atheism and physicalism. Regardless of whether it is psychologically possible for humans to be motivated by these moral theories, their logical compatibility are sufficient to demonstrate the compatibility of atheism/physicalism and morality philosophically.