Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


bornagainathiest last won the day on February 23

bornagainathiest had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,444 Holy Cow!

About bornagainathiest

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    In a Mirror universe!
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Spelunkering, Micro-Breweries, Steven Erikson, the Ring Cycle (not Wagner, the other one), StarFleet Battles, D.B.A. (Dead Boring Armies) and D.B.M. (Dead Boring Maneuvers) and SETI.
  • More About Me
    ---------------------------------------------------------- # 82

    Well, it looks like I ate the BIG M.A.C.
    If he shows up again, that doesn't mean he escaped.
    All it means is that I DID eat him (and shat him out dead) but he's just too stubborn (and too stoopid) to notice!

    Mister Pappy → bornagainathiest
    Great work exposing Rayskidude. I want to personally say thank you.
    Oct 28 2010 06:18 PM
    It looks like this Lion ate Thumbelina too, but she will NEVER, EVER admit the fact! ;)
    And the troll.. formerly known as JayL! :)
    (Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Pages)
    (Daniel Eisenstein's non-technical explanation of BAO's)
    ------------------------------------------------------ (Eternally-Existing Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe. Linde. 1987) (As above.)
    (From Big Bang Theory to a Theory of a Stationary Universe. Linde, Linde & Mezhlumian. revised 2006)
    (Eternal Inflation, Past and Future. Aguirre. 2007)
    "In particular, I will argue that given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past, and might obey an interesting sort of cosmological time-symmetry."
    (Eternal Observers and Bubble Abundances in the Landscape. Vanchurin & Vilenkin. 2006)
    (Eternal Inflation, Bubble Collisions and the Persistence of Memory. Garriga, Guth & Vilenkin. 2007)
    (Prediction and Explanation in the Multiverse. Garriga & Vilenkin. 2007)
    (Boltzmann brains & the scale-factor cut off measure of the multiverse. De Simone, Guth, Linde, Noorbala, Salem & Vilenkin. 2010)
    (Probabilities in the Inflationary Multiverse. Garriga, Schwartz-Perlov, Vilenkin & Winitzki. 2005)
    (Eternal Inflation, Global Time Cutoff Measures & A probability Paradox. Guth & Vanchurin. 2011.)
    (Inflation Without a Beginning: A Null Boundary Proposal. Aguirre & Gratton. 2003)
    (Steady-State Eternal Inflation. Aguirre & Gratton. 2002) Geosdesically Complete. (Linde) (2008)
    (Determining the Outcome of Cosmic Bubble Collisions in Full General Relativity. Johnson, Peiris & Lehner. revised 2012)
    (Hierarchical Bayesian Detection Algorithm for Early-Universe Relics in the Cosmic Microwave Background. Feeney, Johnson, McEwen, Mortlock & Peiris. 2012)
    ------------------------------------------------------------ (Physicists Linde and Vanchurin Calculate Number of Parallel Universes. 2009) (Understanding Alan Guth's Inflationary Cosmology. 2013) (Eridanus)
    (Simple But Challenging: The Universe According to Planck. 2013)
    ------------------------------------------------------ (Origin of Life) (#39) (#54) (#72) (#84) (#76) (#119 & #120) (#130) (#185 & #186)

    Evidence is not contingent upon an explanation, a valid and plausible explanation is contingent upon evidence however.

    Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Note that to purposely cause disaster is to generate suffering, so translating "ra" as something besides evil just moves the problem a step back without solving it.

    ”Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?” (Lam. 3:38).

    ”...that I may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings” (Jer. 26:3).

    ”...all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin” (Jer. 36:3).

    ”I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts....” (Ezek. 20:25-26).

    ”For thus saith the Lord; as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them” (Jer. 32:42).

    ”...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).

    See also: Jer. 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 19:15, 23:12, 26:13, 26:19, 35:17, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64, Ezek. 6:10, Micah 2:3, 1 Kings 21:29, 2 Chron. 34:24, and 2 Chron. 34:28
    26 May 10, p.30
    --------------------------------------------- #61
    The three main principles upon which modern cosmology is based are:

    1. The universal physics principle – the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen;
    2. The Copernican principle – the Earth is not in a special location within the Universe; and,
    3. The Cosmological principle – at any given time the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic (uniform in all orientations) at large distances.
    "All theories in physics predict some things which are directly amenable to experiment and some which aren't. For example, our theories of the stars predict things one could measure, like how brightly they will shine, and when they're going to go supernova. But they also predict things like the temperature at the center of the star, which we cannot measure directly. We accept these ideas, including their unobservable predictions, because they are the simplest way of explaining the things we can see within a consistent physical theory."
    David Deutsch, 'The Ghost in the Atom' p.84.
    By P.C.W. Davies & J.R. Brown, Cambridge University Press.
    At the beginning of the century many people tried to find a stationary solution of the Einstein equations, with the hope that General Relativity would resolve the inability of Newton’s theory to provide us with a stationary cosmological model. Einstein even introduced the cosmological constant into his theory for this purpose. The non-stationary character of the Big Bang theory advocated by Gamov on the basis of Friedmann cosmological models seemed very unpleasant to many scientists in the fifties. Then, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background turned the situation upside down. Physicists began to treat with contempt any attempts to find stationarity (remember the ‘steady-state’ model). After several decades of the reign of the Big Bang theory, the inflationary scenario appeared, which solved many of the intrinsic problems of the Big Bang cosmology and apparently removed the last doubts concerning its validity. However, it was realized soon afterwards, that inflation is even more dynamic than the old Big Bang theory.
    In inflationary cosmology, in addition to the ordinary classical evolution of the Universe governed by the Einstein
    equation, quantum mechanical evolution proves to be extremely important, being responsible for the large-scale
    structure formation and even for the global structure of the Universe. This quantum mechanical evolution can be
    approximately described by stochastic methods, and some of the solutions of the corresponding stochastic equations
    prove to be stationary! Surprisingly enough, after the dramatic development of the Big Bang theory during the last
    ten years, we are coming now to a new formulation of the stationary cosmology, on a new level of understanding
    and without losing a single achievement of our predecessors. The observable part of the Universe can be very well described by the homogeneous isotropic Big Bang model. However, on extremely large scales (far beyond the visible
    horizon) the Universe is very inhomogeneous. On even larger scales this inhomogeneity produces a kind of fractal
    structure, repeating itself on larger and larger time and length scales. The statistical properties of this structure are what we have found to be stationary.
    Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars (go to PNAS.ORG and search for 'Earth-size'
    True, Hebrew dates to about 900 BC. The Old Testament dates to the Babylonian captivity period or was at least redacted and edited in that period.

    Abram would have spoken a Nilo-Saharan language, he may have been familiar with Kushitic Akkadian of the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley from his childhood, and the Proto-Arabic spoken in Canaan.

    All of the earlier historic material, going back to Adam, would have passed through perhaps many developing languages over long periods of time. Genesis exhibits multiple stories overlaid onto each other.
    Our Cosmic Habitat

    Martin Rees

    Chapter 9 : The First Millisecond

    Page 127

    "An absolute limit to any credible backward extrapolation is set by quantum theory. The key concept of this theory is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, [or uncertainty principle] which tells us that the more accurately you want to locate or localize something, the more energetic are the quanta - the packets of energy - you need. There is a limit when the nergy is so concentrated that it risks imploding into a black hole. This limit is the Planck length: it's value is 10 -33 cm - smaller than a proton by about 19 powers of 10. This miniscule length, divided by the speed of light, defines the smallest measurable time interval, the Planck time, about 10-44 seconds."

    Page 132

    "Within about 10-36 seconds - a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second - a microscopic patch could have inflated large enough to encompass everything we now see, and to establish the fine-tuned balance between gravitational and kinetic energy."

    Page 133

    "Inflation, once started, is likely to overshoot, leading to a flattened domain extending much further than the 10 billion light-year dimensions of our observable universe. The distance to the "edge" could be a number with millions of zeros."

    "In this expanse of space, far beyond the horizon of our observations, the combinatorial possibilities are so immense that close replicas of our Earth and biosphere would surely exist, however improbable life itself may be. Indeed, in a sufficiently colossal cosmos there would, somwhere, be exact replicas not just of our Earth, but of the entire domain (containing billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars) that lies within the range of our telescopes."
    ----------------------------------- (#9, Shernren) B.A.O.s
    ------------------------------------- (Distinguishing between inflationary models using Planck CMB data)
    (Sean Carrol)
    ------------------------------------- (Higgs analog in superconductors)
    Did the universe have a beginning?
    Vilenkin & Mithani, 2012.
    What can the observation of nonzero curvature tell us?

    Alan H. Guth and Yasunori Nomura
    Phys. Rev. D 86, 023534 – Published 30 July 2012
    An ancient extrasolar system with five sub-Earth-size planets
    Guth/Albrecht/Steinhardt/So_Young Pi/Bardeen/Turner
    --------------------------------------------------- Flat Earth Debunked

    (# 177)
    Questions For Christians # 59 (Ficino)
    Christians, What Would Make... # 52 (TrueScotsman)
    Babies are made by God using knitting to put them together (Ps 139:13)
    Gravity works because Jesus holds things together (Col 1:17)
    Germs don't exist. Diseases are caused by demons. (many verses)
    Rainbows are caused by God putting a rainbow in the clouds, not by the refraction of sunlight. (Gen 9:12)
    Eagles catch their young with their wings if they fall out of the nest. (Deut 32:11)
    Bats are birds and not mammals. (Lev 11:13-19)
    Intellectual dishonesty is the classic DNA of the xtian cultist especially of the apologist.

    I would hate a god like you describe. I would hate such a puppet master.
    God expressed more love and compassion than any being in the universe by granting us free will.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Beer. Not just for breakfast - anytime!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,559 profile views
  1. Ironhorse, Repentance is not a work that leads to salvation, even though you are trying to argue that it is. According to your repentance = works doctrine, both John the Baptist and Jesus called people save themselves by doing the work of repentance. Matthew 3 : 1 & 2. In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Matthew 4 : 17. 17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Luke 13 : 1 - 5. Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” According to you, the apostle Peter, said that people could earn the Holy Spirit by the work of repentance. Acts 2 : 38 & 39. 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” According to you, the Gentiles earned salvation through their work of repentance. Acts 11 : 18. 18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.” According to you, the apostle Paul clearly says that the work of repentance earns salvation. 2 Corinthians 7 : 10. 10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. According to you, Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul all agree that repentance is a work that earns salvation.
  2. Ironhorse, Re: # 1. You claim that all a person needs to be saved from sin is to believe that Jesus exists? That they can be ignorant of what sin is, ignorant of their own sin and ignorant of Jesus' role as their savior from the wages of sin? But then you add that a saving faith includes repentance. So, how can they repent and be saved if they don't know what sin is and don't know that they need to repent? You've declared that a saving faith is one of repentance. Therefore, using the logic of your own argument, an unrepentant person who believes in the existence of Jesus CANNOT be saved. Unrepentant belief in Jesus does not save. That's what you wrote. Re: # 2. No. If you need to repent of your sin, then you must know that you need to do this. And you must do it. Therefore, faith alone in the existence of Jesus is NOT a saving faith. (You declared this in your reply.) You do not have to do anything to keep salvation in Christ, that is agreed. But that is not what I asked you. I didn't say anything about keeping salvation. Once again, you've substituted your own wording for mine - and I specifically asked you not to do that. You say that if you are in Christ, nothing can remove you from Christ. That is accepted. But you cannot be in Christ if you haven't repented of your sins. If you don't repent of your sins, then you will be taking your un-forgiven sins INTO Christ. That is an impossibility. You cannot become one with Christ with your burden of sin un-repented and un-forgiven You cannot enter the Kingdom un-forgiven. You cannot be part of the body of Christ because your un-forgiven sins keep you separate from Christ. To use your turn of phrase, you cannot change the direction of your heart unless you know that you need to. But if you are ignorant of your own sin, then you cannot have your heart changed. If God does the changing without your knowledge, then He is saving you without your knowledge. Therefore, you did not turn to Christ - you were turned towards Christ by God. The decision-making wasn't yours at all. Please answer this, Ironhorse. Can a person be saved without them consciously and deliberately knowing that they need to saved and then deciding to be saved?
  3. Now up to ...31,083.
  4. Thanks DB. However, I feel that I should advise you that (just as I predicted it would, years ago) Ironhorse's 'ministry' in Ex-C has devolved largely into a clash of wills between him and us - the Ex-Christians who engage with him. You may not want to wait months and months - because we are still waiting for him to answer questions from last year. He has not yet answered and we will not give up asking him to answer. Thanks, BAA.
  5. As of the time of this posting... 31,080.
  6. Unlike the DarkBishop, I am asking you only about two things, Ironhorse. Just two. Not a full understanding of a religion. Just two things. Not a full understanding of this physical world. Two things. That's all. Two things. Jesus Christ is one thing. The other thing is sin. So that's one thing plus another thing. 1 + 1 = 2 Two things, Ironhorse. Here are my two (2) questions about those two (2) things. Can anyone be a true Christian by 'simply believing in Christ' or must they also believe in the existence of sin? Can anyone be a true Christian by believing in only Christ, yet not believing in sin? Please answer these two questions. Please answer both questions. Please do not answer just one of these two questions. Please do not change these questions in any way. Please do not answer any other questions but these two when you reply to this post. Please do not answer anyone else's questions as if you were answering my two questions. Please do not answer a question or questions of your own making which you might substitute for my two questions. Please do not cite or quote anything from anywhere else when answering my two questions. Please confine yourself to answering only my two questions when you reply to this post. Please answer my two questions honestly. Please do not try to avoid answering my two questions. Please do not attempt to say that you do not understand my two questions. Please do not force me to keep on asking you to answer my two questions. Please do not force me to PM these questions to you. Thanks, BAA.
  7. BAA, please. Remember when you said this? "I could just explain everything that I mean to the Dude, all in one go. But sometimes things are better received if people work them out for themselves. And there's always the possibility that I've messed up. So this is a golden opportunity to have my ideas checked and tested." Isn't that rich? You said that, BAA! Yet you have no ulterior motives in this thread, and it's me that won't come clean with my thoughts and opinions? Ok, whatever. Dude, Here and now I give you my sincere and categorical assurance that the only reason I started this thread was to discover more about your thinking. That has been my consistent line throughout and remains so. You have discovered more about my thinking by posing me questions and getting me to apply my critical thinking skills to points and issues you've raised. Therefore, it's my hope that you will honor this... If you need clarification on anything just ask. ...and clarify (by explaining) these two things. Please explain, in the absence of any supernatural, spiritual, theological or religious thinking or belief on my part and in the context of my evidence-based confidence in the results science can provide, how the word faith can be applied to me. Thank you. Please explain why you're questioning the idea of confidence in evidence in this thread, when you've clearly demonstrated your confidence in evidence 4, 424 times in this forum? That's the number of posts your membership info says you've made here. Every time you've used the facilities of Ex-C you've been making a vote of confidence in the science that makes this forum run. Science that relies on confidence in evidence. Since we both use Ex-C in the same way, I contend that you have already signed up to my p.o.v. about confidence in evidence. Therefore, I'm asking you to clarify and explain to me why you are questioning the role of confidence in scientific evidence - when you clearly have this confidence? Thank you. With thanks, BAA.
  8. Ok Dude, You've raised two points and I will deal with them in reverse order. First, here is what was said about the book of Hebrews. For emphasis, I've highlighted that I was talking about the difference between religion and science. Posted March 16 · Report post On 3/16/2017 at 4:00 AM, duderonomy said: On 3/15/2017 at 4:29 PM, duderonomy said: BAA, You said: "There's one other point lurking within my admission that also deserves mentioning. If we still believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith? By going down the road of putting faith before evidence, we run the risk of following in the footsteps these bozos..." My answer would be if we still believe that Earth is not at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith? Dude, It's different (at least different from Christianity) in this way. Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3 gives the quintessential Christian definition of faith. Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Believers are called to accept things that have zero evidence to validate them. They are even told that they should believe in what they cannot see, in what was not seen by any human eyes and in what cannot be tested or checked in any way. Jesus himself agrees with this evidence-free philosophy of belief, when he speaks to Thomas (the evidence-seeking realist) in John 20 and the apostle John reinforces the point that Christians are blessed if they believe without seeing (evidence). 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Do you see how this is categorically different from the evidence-based philosophy of science, Dude? Christians proceed to believe with zero evidence. Even though science cannot demonstrate anything to a confidence level of 100%, it can still demonstrate some things to a very high level of confidence. And that is why, when it comes to Earth's place in the universe, we have some very good evidence to go on. Therefore, when science says that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that claim can be checked and tested and evaluated on the basis of the evidence. While a purely religious belief about the Earth's location cannot. See the difference? An evidence-free article of religious faith can never be tested. The evidence-rich claims of science can be. Thanks, BAA. Please note that it is the author of the book of Hebrews (and not me) who equates faith with confidence. I do the exact opposite. I illustrate the differences between religion and science in two ways. Firstly, by highlighting how the first relies upon no evidence and the second relies on evidence. Secondly, by highlighting how the claims of the first cannot be tested (if claims are accepted by faith, then there is no evidence to test) but the claims of the second can be. Therefore, in that particular post I only dealt with the differences between science and religion and did not equate them. Despite the fact that both science and religion deal with "things not seen" they do so in totally different ways. The intent and content of my post concerned itself with difference - not similarity and not equality. Thanks, BAA.
  9. I hear you, Witty. It may well be that what I'm good at (logic) isn't very helpful to you. Perhaps you should seek professional help? There's no shame in doing that. What I will say right now though, is this. If Christians are saying that God is doing something NOT prophesied and foretold in scripture, then they are adding to scripture - which is a sin and forbidden by God. Revelation 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. Thanks, BAA.
  10. Concession of your points doesn't equal greater understanding of your position or your thinking, Dude. You don't know the reason why I started this thread? That's odd. In my OP I asked you for your thoughts. In post # 18, in response to you saying that you weren't sure what the point of this thread was, I gave you another explanation and a fully transparent declaration of my intentions. So, after this input from me, you still don't know the reason why I started this thread? My desired outcome? Well, on the basis that you know I'm totally apolitical, that I've declared that I won't touch the subject of global warming and that I simply want to know your thinking about science, what other possible outcome could I desire - other than to know your thinking? But if you believe my desired outcome is something else, then please say what you believe it is. Yes. Please clarify these two things for me, Dude. Please explain, in the absence of any supernatural, spiritual, theological or religious thinking or belief on my part and in the context of my evidence-based confidence in the results science can provide, how the word faith can be applied to me. Thank you. You wrote... We seem to have come to a draw at whether Earth is residing at the center of the universe. You want to argue a preponderance of evidence, but you have no evidence. You have confidence, and you want me to sign on to your confidence and thus to your point of view. Please explain why you're questioning the idea of confidence in evidence in this thread, when you've clearly demonstrated your confidence in evidence 4, 424 times in this forum? That's the number of posts your membership info says you've made here. Every time you've used the facilities of Ex-C you've been making a vote of confidence in the science that makes this forum run. Science that relies on confidence in evidence. Since we both use Ex-C in the same way, I contend that you have already signed up to my p.o.v. about confidence in evidence. Therefore, I'm asking you to clarify and explain to me why you are questioning the role of confidence in scientific evidence - when you clearly have this confidence? Thank you. Finally, you're big enough and smart enough not to be at all injured or insulted by anything I've written in this thread, Dude. Where there's been misunderstanding between us, I've made strenuous efforts to resolve it. When I've taken what you've said the wrong way, I've freely and quickly apologized for doing so. I've also been polite and courteous to you at every turn. Thanks, BAA.
  11. Ironhorse, Thank you for admitting the Christian message isn't as simple as you claimed at the beginning of this thread. There, you wrote that you... 'simply believe in Christ and go from there'. But now you are now saying that the Christian message also requires a belief in... sin. So why didn't you say this 103 days ago, in your opening post? ~ BAA You're putting words into my mouth, Ironhorse. In the above quotation I did not say that the Christian faith is a complicated and confusing endeavor that entails a total understanding of God. I said that your initial claim of the simplicity of Christianity (simply believe in Christ and go from there) isn't as simple as you make out. This 'total understanding of God' schtick is the spin you're trying to put on my argument. Those are words I didn't say, but which you are putting into my mouth. Instead, my argument is that in your OP you claimed that ALL anyone needs to be a Christian is belief in Christ. I love the Christian message for its simplicity. I don’t need a priest, a guru or obey long list of man-made requirements. I simply believe in Christ and go from there. Yet, after persistent questioning (from Dec 30 to Jan 18) about what it is that Jesus came to Earth to save us from, in post # 214 you finally gave an honest answer. "Sin." So, Ironhorse can anyone be a true Christian by 'simply believing in Christ' or must they also believe in the existence of sin? (That's just two things btw. Christ and sin. No need for a total understanding of God.) Please answer. Can anyone be a true Christian by believing in only Christ, yet not believing in sin? Please answer.
  12. DB, Though he's no longer an active member of Ex-C, you may interested in the book by this member. This is the book... Thanks, BAA.
  13. According to that Daily Mail article, trumpet-like sounds have been heard for almost a decade, Witty. So let's see what should have happened when the First trumpet sounded. Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. All the green grass in the world should have been burned up, a third of all the trees and a third of the Earth's surface should have been burned up. Surely this made the news back in 2008/9? Meteorologists should also have reported an unprecedented type of hail, which came down in a mixture of fire and blood. Any news about that? Did it make the front pages anywhere? And after that, when a Second trumpet blast was heard, did these things happen? Revelation 8:8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. No? So a third of the world's oceans didn't change from seawater into blood? And a blazing mountain (an asteroid?) didn't crash into the sea, raising up tsunamis that killed millions? Nor were a third of all the seagoing vessels in the world destroyed? NASA hasn't said anything about that mountain and Lloyds of London haven't reported huge losses of life at sea, have they? What about the Third trumpet-like sound? Revelation 8:10 & 11 10 The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water— 11 the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter. Hmm... a single star fell from the sky, but divided itself into thousands of different parts so that it could affect different rivers and springs, separated by thousands of miles, on different continents? And having done so, many people died from drinking those waters? Doesn't sound much like Chernobyl to me. So, these sounds have been heard in Germany, Austria, Ukraine, Belarus, Montana, Texas and now Nottingham. That's seven trumpet blasts, Witty. So by now we should have seen a third of the day turning dark, all across the world. We should have seen a third of the Moon's surface dramatically changed. We should have seen a third of the stars in the sky turn dark. We should have seen the Sun and the sky darkened by smoke from the Abyss. We should have seen locust-like creatures with poisonous stings afflicting billions of people with terrible suffering. We should have seen a third of the human race destroyed by the plagues of fire, smoke and sulphur coming out of the mouths of horses who have the heads of lions. It's just not stacking up, is it? Thanks, BAA.
  14. Comfortably sure about your faith in Christ, right? But still speculating, guessing and surmising about how Christianity works? Just as much now as nine years ago?
  15. Well, I sincerely sorry that you feel this way, Dude. I can't speak for anyone else in this thread, but as far as I'm concerned, you could solve any misunderstandings or communication problems by being more proactive and less reactive. Instead of leaving us to ask you questions and then glean what your thinking is from your answers, you could simply explain yourself, explain your thinking and explain what your position is. Now, if doing that comes across as something unreasonable to you, then I'm sorry. Quite why such a thing should seem unreasonable (and even objectionable?) to you is beyond me. Forums and threads like this exist for debates and discussions such as this one. Where a two-way flow of information and opinions is both expected and valued. Where all parties are happy to present their arguments and also pleased to outline their positions. If asking for this much from you is too much, then I am both baffled. Thanks, BAA.