thereselittleflower Posted July 18, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.67 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2015 You really haven't got a handle on how evidence works. Evidence is used to prove positive claims. If someone is claimed to be murdered in a particular house, you collect the evidence of the murder, like blood, fingerprints, hair, etc. You have physical evidence that the murder occurred. You don't try to collect evidence to prove a murder didn't happen. In the same way, I don't have to provide evidence to prove a event didn't happen. I don't have to prove that. Anyone claiming that this prophecy was fulfilled say 1500 years ago has the onus to provide the historical evidence to prove that it happened. You don't need evidence for a nonevent. If an Atheist says God doesn't exist, I cannot ask that Atheist to prove the non-existence of God. I cannot ask him for evidence that God does't exist because you cannot prove a negative. You can only prove positive claims. The only thing keeping us from an intelligent discussion is your irrational and fallacious lack of understanding of how evidentiary claims work. You don't know what you're talking about. Actually shiloh, you do both. The side that is defending the defendant does collect evidence that the defendant did not murder someone. In fact law officers have to collect evidence on both sides, such as does the accused have an alibi? And yes you can ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of God. This is asked of them all the time. They can't absolutely prove God's non-existence, all they can do is point to evidence of what they believe points to His non-existence. As far as evidence for your claim here, you could go through Jewish history, the times there have been major events against the kingdom of Israel, and delineate each one and prove that none actually are the fulfillment of this prophecy. This is something someone such as yourself, who claims to know how evidence works, should have been able to determine on your own without someone having to hold your hand. Is it work? Of course it is. But that is how you determine the evidence. Have you ever done anything like that to back up what you claim is true? Or you could cite your sources who have already done so. I've asked you for your sources. Yet you have not in how many posts and threads now, refused to provide either. I can't take anything you say seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted July 18, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.19 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2015 After reading this thread, I have to ask why this has turned into a one way communication? Thereselittleflower, why do you continue to not answer the questions asked you? Right now I am simply seeking to understand the basis of shiloh's and others' claims. I see no real benefit to moving forward in the conversation without that understanding. Yet, by not answering, you very well could be jeopardizing the very thing you are trying to reach, understanding. Understanding comes through two way open communication, not through one sided examination. It is also very self centered. As you are trying to understand others, others are trying to understand you, yet, as you almost demand others to prove their statements, you ignore when others ask for you to provide proof for yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 18, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.67 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2015 After reading this thread, I have to ask why this has turned into a one way communication? Thereselittleflower, why do you continue to not answer the questions asked you? Right now I am simply seeking to understand the basis of shiloh's and others' claims. I see no real benefit to moving forward in the conversation without that understanding. Yet, by not answering, you very well could be jeopardizing the very thing you are trying to reach, understanding. Understanding comes through two way open communication, not through one way closed communication. It is also very self centered. As you are trying to understand others, others are trying to understand you, yet, as you almost demand others to prove their statements, you ignore when others ask for you to provide proof for yours. I agree with you. There needs to be open communication and that needs to be both ways. Unfortunately, every time I have tried to do so with Shiloh, I have been treated to scorn and ridicule, my intelligence has been repeatedly demeaned, etc. When I am confronted with such behavior, I will seek to try to understand where someone such as shiloh is coming from, even though they have been absolutely rude, mean and hateful in their responses. And I will try to be kind to them. But I won't open up to someone such as he until they show me they are willing to leave the hateful rhetoric behind. And so I have tried, probably beyond good reason, to give him that opening. If he refuses to take it, then I can do nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 No, in a court, the defense discredits the evidence that is being used. The defense and the prosecution both operate from the same evidence, but the job of the defense is to discredit the claim that the evidence proves guilt. You cannot prove a negative, which is why in a court of law, the defense doesn't have the burden of proof, only the prosecution. The defense doesn't prove innocence. The job of the defense is just to prove that the evidence and the claims of the prosecution do not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone were to claim that the miraculous events of Ezekiel 38 and 39 were actual historical events I would ask them for their evidence to that claim. No one needs to ask for evidence if no claim of historicity is attested. If no claim of historicity is made, then it follows that the event is not historical, and most reasonable and rational people would accept that. what you're are apparently unable to grasp is that it isn't a matter of simply going through Jewish history. There is no historical account of this event in the history of any of the nations said to be participating in the invasion of Israel. So, I can be completely confident that it has never happened. And most reasonable and rational people would be equally as confident. I will say that wish it had happened in history. I wish I could find it fulfilled because Israel survives that invasion because God supernaturally rescues Israel from that invading armies and slaughters that army on the mountains of Israel. So I wish it had happened. It would prove how much God loves and Israel and how stupid anti-Zionism is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Hateful rhetoric = Not letting her get way with her anti-Semitic lies about Israel and calling out anti-Semitism for what it is, racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 18, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.67 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2015 Shiloh, before you even get to court, law enforcement must investigate for evidence both of one's innocence and one's guilt. How would Ezekiel 38 having happened in history prove how stupid anti-zionism is? Would you explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 18, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.67 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2015 Hateful rhetoric = Not letting her get way with her anti-Semitic lies about Israel and calling out anti-Semitism for what it is, racism. And see OneLight? This is a vicious attack on the character of another. It's libel, defamation - false accusations against the character of another. Simply because someone doesn't agree with him. This is part of what I have been enduring in all my conversations with him. There can be no genuine two way discussion when someone engages in such behavior towards others. Yet still I try to understand him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 It proves that God fights for Israel and since God has promised that Israel would never cease being a nation from before him, Ezekiel 38 and 39 would prove that an unchanging God loves that nation now and supports it now just as he always has. But on the same line of thought, if it is future, which it is, it proves that God fights for Israel and that God is on Israel's side against her enemies and will destroy the nations that attempt to dismantle Israel. Past or future, God loves Israel with an eternal love and that puts anti-Zionism at enmity with God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 You post lies and libels against Israel. You cite your sources from websites run by anti-Semites who support the destruction of Israel. Your sources are some of the most vile anti-Israel sites on the internet. If I were trying to speak out against the Civil Rights Movement and I was quoting from and pasting articles from KKK websites, what conclusion would people draw about me???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 18, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.67 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2015 It proves that God fights for Israel and since God has promised that Israel would never cease being a nation from before him, Ezekiel 38 and 39 would prove that an unchanging God loves that nation now and supports it now just as he always has. But on the same line of thought, if it is future, which it is, it proves that God fights for Israel and that God is on Israel's side against her enemies and will destroy the nations that attempt to dismantle Israel. Past or future. God loves Israel with an eternal love and that puts anti-Zionism at enmity with God. Shiloh, who has denied God has fought for Israel? God said in the Old Testament Israel is the apple of His eye. What does that have to do with being against a secular political movement/power with roots in communism and marxism, you call anti-zionism? Why do you insist on conflating a SECULAR political movement today, known as 'political zionism' which is communist/marxist in its origiens and philosophy, with God? How is being against a secular political movement and ideology that has its roots in communism and marxism, the same thing as being against God? How does that make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts