The Instigator
Albert
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Aceviper2011
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,790 times Debate No: 28739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (62)
Votes (2)

 

Albert

Pro

I'm For - Book of Daniel speaks of events which 90% have already occurred. Jesus did refer to the book and Daniel, but my position is that the majority has already been fulfilled.

Against - Will need to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to 'apocalyptic' events, which would refers to future (aka 2012+ events).

Rules, if my opponent agrees should help the debate run easier.

-Short factual replies, if something takes an essay to say, it may lose it's meaning.
-If a prophecy has already come to pass, it cannot be used continually to fit an idea.
-Preferably an opponent which is interested in the subject.
-Every point must be answered or clearly noted if the opponent or I wish a direct reply ie - 1)... a)... *....

My opening statement.
Book of Daniel reads much like a text book, which slowly reveals visions, concepts, timeline and explanation for each vision and it's meaning. A book which which teach's the reader from start to finish, and allows a clear understanding of each vision, and what's implying/suggesting.

I see this in practice in chapter 4, where the Kings dream is shown, then Daniel explains, and also fulfilled. Then chapter 7:9 vision shown, 7:15 explained. Again chapter 8:1 vision, 8:15 explained. But what's interesting to note at 8:17 Gabriel says "Son of Man, understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

1) If the explanation given to Daniel is that his vision is for the "time of the end" and that vision which is Persia's defeat to Alexander the Great, how can this vision be used again for end time anti-Christ times?

2) Also it's clear the term "end time" isnt always for anti-Christ times.

3) I would like my opponent to show the first vision which can be directly linked to apocalyptic era.
Aceviper2011

Con

For the first round I will do acceptance, to be honest with you I really do not know why I took this debate, but I. Thank you for this debate.

As I can see pro is for the book of Daniel in the bible which prophecies the "end of the world/end of times" adjacent basically to revelations. 90% of the visions already came true through the book of Daniel.

Since I am Con I have to show you logical proof about how your wrong.

Ok I am gladly to accept this debate, this should be interesting, which I my self believe in GOD, but as for religion and the bible there are so many contradictions.

Since I gladly accepted this debate I will give you the opportunity to go first providing evidence, and proof that this 90% already came true.

So will my opponent please begin showing logical proof and evidence on this book about the events occurring to the end of time came true like this 90% that already happen that was foreseen.

you may begin to post your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Albert

Pro

Thankyou for taking the debate.

As ive explained in my opening post about how Daniel is a self explained book, which teaches readers to understand visions and there interpretations. It becomes easier to fit timelines with visions, and specific kings and kingdoms together.

One such example is Daniel chapter 8, Ram and the Goat. The angel clearly explained the Ram is Persia and the Goat is Greece. Then when placing Daniel chapter 7 into a timeline format, we see the start of one kingdom to the next in historical order. Babylonian - Persia - Greece - Roman. So when we look closer at what physical characteristic the Ram and Goat have, the power of the prophetic words become clear.

The Goat flew with great haste without touching it's feet on the ground from the west and attacked the Ram. The Goat had only one very large and powerful horn (which the angel said is a king) who would trample Persia into the dust. This king couldnt be stopped and ruled with power. Later the great horn broke off and 4 grew in it's place, which in history we know these are the four powerful kings which took a slice of Alexander the Greats Kingdom.

the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, the Seleucid Empire in the east, the Kingdom of Pergamon in Asia Minor, and Macedon.
These four kingdoms was in the Hellenistic timeline. During this time wars were made against one of the four kings who wanted to reunite the four kingdoms and rule again like Alexander did. What's interesting about this timeline of events and the book and Daniel chapter 11, is how accurate they are. When looking into the King of the North and South, the closer people follow exactly what Daniel wrote about his visions from God, the more historically accurate they are.

If you were to do a simple study of chapter 11 using historical facts, then even someone who doesnt believe in the bible would be amazed at how accurate chapter 11 is.

Since this is a 5 round debate, ill stop hear and see what details Con has to offer.
Aceviper2011

Con

Well since I have three more rounds to wait to post my arguement, I would need for my opponent to first show us true honest proof that, These visions and Prophesies are honestly coming true, last time I heard, even Nostrodamus failed, so did the Mayans. Then after this next round and my opponent shows true evidence that the visions and all that are true and real. then I will post my true arguement. but we would all love to see the honest proof not just cause a book told us, because from what people said about a calender about end of times it was false, and from books and these visions of nostradumas about the end of times his also failed. Now Give us hard evidence that this won't fail either, and proof that it will happen. Without the proof and hard evidence and not only religious facts but also scientific fact that it will happen or its all true the book of daniel. Then your arguement is excluded and only a theory, not a fact.
Debate Round No. 2
Albert

Pro

Addressing the debate guidelines:
It would seem my opponent has failed to understand my simple guidelines in this debate. First of all, ive noted THREE points in which he should start to address. Ive made it very clear that if we desire our points to be debated, we should make it very clear what they are. As ive listed THREE and he has yet to list any at all, only a comment asking me to go first, when i already have, then it seems i cannot find anything he's to offer.
I could be a simply mind game to him, but as of yet ive got nothing to defend.

Since this isnt about the debate topic, rather about the guidelines of the debate itself, i shall label them using alphabetical rather then numerical so it's easier for others and ourselves to see.

A) This isnt a debate about the existence of factual prophecy in history, this is about WHEN they HAVE occurred.
B) This is a debate that prophetic visions and word from the Lord ARE real.
C) As in the title of the debate -
Against - Will need to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to 'apocalyptic' events, which would refers to future (aka 2012+ events).
D) Also since i made it clear that using logic based words and reasoning is key, yet he enforces hardcore proof, I shall accept and now write a 8,000 worded reply.

---
Debate topics -
Since ive been giving nothing to work with, apart from AceViper2011 stating that prophecy doesn't exist, i cannot continue the actual debate. Therefore, i can respectfully wait for him to look at my three opening statement in which he should address.

1) If the explanation given to Daniel is that his vision is for the "time of the end" and that vision which is Persia's defeat to Alexander the Great, how can this vision be used again for end time anti-Christ times?

2) Also it's clear the term "end time" isnt always for anti-Christ times.

3) I would like my opponent to show the first vision which can be directly linked to apocalyptic era.

---
External view on the debate -

Since AceViper2011 decided to change the debate into something else, i shall ask him to address a few questions and topics to disprove his idea that prophecy doesn't, and cannot exist.

Prophecy into todays wording is more like 'future telling' but from the bible it's far more then that. If we were to future tell that a bird was to fall from the sky, it's very general, but the bible is far more complex. In biblical future telling we have detailed specific events based within a very tightly marked area which cannot be generalized.

For example, God said the king of GREECE will attack the king of PERSIA. This isnt generalized future telling such as a bird falling from the sky. Also the fact the type of king and ruler of Greece is mentioned, also the fall of the king and the extremely detailed mention of how many kingdoms will be left after the first king is also mentioned.

You mentioned Nostradamus. Something interesting to note, is how extremely general and vague his words are compared to Daniel.
Example, 9/11 is foretold as

Volcanic fire from the center of the earth
will cause trembling around the new city:
Two great rocks will make war for a long time.
Then Arethusa will redden a new river.

or Hitler, where Hister is a reference to the Danube river.

In the place very near not far from Venus,
The two greatest ones of Asia and of Africa,
From the Rhine and Hister they will be said to have come,
Cries, tears at Malta and the Ligurian side.

Few interesting additions I will mention. Hilter, like Alexander the Great were great rulers. Yet from the bible we're given very clear references, and even a reference in how the Alexander will progress.

-The angel named Greece and Persia
-He's said to "trample the king of Persia" and no one will save him.
-The horn will become very great
-At the height of it's power it will be broken off, and four new horns shall arise in it's place.

Nostradamus can -never- be considered to resemble biblical prophecy. Further more, biblical prophecy in the Old Testament is always based around one specific around on earth, Israel - so the case of generalization is further reduced.

If we continue.
Daniel chapter 11:6 -
6 After some years, they(King of the North and South) will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power[a] will not last. In those days she will be betrayed, together with her royal escort and her father[b] and the one who supported her.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(Seleucid_queen)

Chapter 11:7
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

(copy from the link above)
**Due to a falling out at the Seleucid court, his eldest sister Berenice Phernophorus-
was murdered along with her infant son. In response Ptolemy III invaded Syria.[6] During this war, the Third Syrian War,
**he occupied Antioch and even reached Babylon.[7] In exchange for a peace in 241 BC, Ptolemy was awarded new territories on the northern coast of Syria, including Seleucia Pieria, the port of Antioch. The Ptolemaic kingdom reached the height of its power.

Chapter 11:19-21
These next three are highly detailed, and cannot be generalized at all. In summary it speaks about three kings, back-to-back, and very risky thing for any fortune teller to predict, yet God through Daniel does.

verse 19 King 1 - dies suddenly- Antiochus III

verse 20 King 2: Kingdom is in debt and immediately sends out tax collectors, but he will die not of anger or battle (aka assassination) - Seleucus IV Philopater

verse 21 - 33 King 3: A vial man shall rise and take power without honor of royalty, and shall win great war against the King of the South and persecute the Jews heavily.

Antiochus IV: Took power before his allotted time, it was his elder brother who should have taken the throne, not him - which lines with Daniel correctly. He also removed the current High Priest Onias III and replaced him with Joshua, who changed his name to Jason. Later he invaded Egypt and won great battles which resulted in the height of the Kingdoms power. He ruled Egypt as mentioned in Daniel.

19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue.

To simply say these 'future telling' words are based of chance and fluke, may i remind you of something a maths teaches us. A number which has 10 to the power 60 zeros before it, such as 0.00001 etc, is considered absoult zero. Meaning, that even though it's still holds numeric value, the value is so small it's considered absolute, as in, ZERO, and no more. Or, 0% chance.

So when a man named Peter W. Stoner wrote Science Speaks, and explained how the chance of Jesus fulfilling biblical prophecy is 1 chance to 10 to the power 17. Which is the same chance as the state of Texas covered with so many gold coins it's 3 feet up to your knees, that you have one chance to pick that one single coin first time over the entire state of Texas!
You have to conclude, that biblical prophecy is FAR difference then any Nostradamus, or any chance based general comment of 'future telling.'

http://www.amazon.com...

--
I'm still waiting for his reply about my three questions and for him to directly approach the debate.
Aceviper2011

Con

I want to apoligize to my opponent for not making an arguement right away, for I had to see if my opponent can clearly give the evidence I asked for, to show us his claims on the book of Daniel from the bible being in a true format to make his prophecies true according to the writings from the bible itself. Before I began my argument on this matter, I think I would like to clear somethings up with my opponent and the voters.

1) My opponent said next to the letter A.) "This is not about the existance of the factural prophecy in history, this is about WHEN they HAVE occured". When I read that I asked myself how can anyone give such evidence if this debate is not about the existance of factural prophecy in history, but yet still ask WHEN they HAVE occured, from what I get from this statement alone is that my opponent also seems like he disagrees with the book of Daniel. He doesn't want the existance or facts for this prophecy in history, but he wants to know when they have occured, so in the long run my opponent not only bascially spoke that he himself find or may find this book false from what i understand, not only that he doesn't not know the true meaning or understand fully his own arguements of this topic.
2) In the section B) my opponent then pointed out "This is a debate that prophetic visions and word from the lord ARE real. So when my opponent state what this debate is truely about I question his attentions towards the topic on the book of Daniel, first i want to give a definition about prophetic visions before I continue saying what i wanted to say. Well there are clearly no definition appointed to prophetic visions, but there is another word used to describe prophetic visions that word is called from the dictionary Prevision: which means like he stated prophetic vision (as in a dream) also another definition: The power to foresee the future. Before i can continue to say anything about this let me get to the 3rd note my opponent wrote about which is letter c).
3) In section C) my opponent then asked me to provide strong relation to directly link Daniels to "APOCAYLPTIC" events (aka 2012-continued).

Time to clear this all up for everyone even for me to undersand more clearly on what my opponent is truely debating.
1) my opponent topic is Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0. which he is pro (for)
2) then my opponent said "if the explanation given to Daniel is that his vision is for the "time of the end" and that vision which is persia's defeat to Alexander the Great, how can this vision be used again for "end of time" anti-christ times?" then clearly does not tell his voters and opponent an explanation or any points or reply to this question I ask him now so he can reply in the next round, what visions can be used again for "end of time" anti-christ times, like what is my opponent truely replying or trying to say about Daniels prophecy.
3) my opponent then states which leaves me blank which he stated "also it's clear the term "end time" isnt always for anti-christ. Again i say were does that leave us to even know what he truely trying to say about this debate or what are you applying.
4) Then my opponent ask me to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to "apocaylptic" events (aka 2012-?) well im CON (against), so why would I provide my viewers and opponent links from the book of daniel to connect it to the apocaylyptic events, when my opponent needs to provide us with direct links about it since he is PRO(for) and I am CON(against).

Well I have tried to explain what prophecy meant, and my opponent clearly tried to debunk my definition in his 3rd round arguement. My opponent stated to me that prophecy in the bible is different and more complex meaning then, how we use prophecy today. Then my opponent said after he basically said that "in biblical "future telling" we have detailed specific events based within a very tight marked area which cannot be generalized". Well future telling is the same as future telling, there is no difference. As for the tightly marked events and times well, we still do not know as a society when all the books of the bible was truely written, if it was before or after all events. So what I got from what my opponent said which was prophecy is future telling but not future telling, meaning he really does not know his own debate, or anything he is applying with his arguement but just copy and paste text from the internet with out explanations on what he means.
This also goes with the end of times anti-christ text he wrote, a basically it is, but then it is not.

Before any one gets more confused I would like to turn this debate back over to my opponent, give him to clearly read my arguement. I as CON (against) this cannot even post an aruguement with out PRO (for) giving reasons or answering his own questions and reason why. not just copy and past but give reason to why my opponent thinks the book of daniel prophecied the "end of times" anti-christ times. also provide his own direct links to the apopcaylipse era for today untill the future. My oponent is once again Pro for this I am against this I am CON against this, I shouldnt have to educate my opponent on why daniel prophecy is connected and all that he ask from me, my opponent should be the one to give reasons and explanations and views and proof on how it is connected its not the CONS job to answer A PROs Question, if i answer that question ill be taking basically PROS side which i fail to do.

Again i ask my opponent to read what i just got done saying in this round carefully so my opponent can see where i am coming from on why i said what i sad. I do apoligize to my viewers and my opponent sincerly for not posting up an arguement against my opponent for as you can see what i pointed out we need clearity and no head games from my opponent. So i beg my opponent to clearly read over my posting about three times and his arguements over to understand were I am coming from before posting his next arguement.

Now i will wait and see if my opponent changes anything and understood what i was trying to get acrossed to him in this posting.

I hope my viewers truely reads this closely with his previous posts before making an actual vote. And my viewers to also try and see where i was coming from and what i have spotted in his arguements that left huge gabs with his debate and his position and views and explanations on his behave of the debate.

again i apoligize but i have to turn the debate to you now to rethink and reread and clearly understand were i am coming from before i can post another arguement. cant wait to see what happens in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Albert

Pro

When reading round three ive only found three main points, since many points stem from one another, thus making seven points much smaller.

RE: 1, 2, 3
It appears Aceviper2011 is still on the path that i must first prove that prophecy is real, and i should first show that visions from Daniel have occurred. I have shown linked, and my personal study towards the topic, without him replying to -any-.
His core reply comes from the fact that I should be posting first that prophecy is real, before i can even begin to link Daniel into any timeline. Yet when looking at my debate from the beginning, it's clear the role of Con is to debate the place in time of when they have occurred, yet Aceviper2011 is keen on sitting on the fence waiting for me to feed him ammunition. This isnt the natural of the debate that ive set out, nor is it the way ive forced my opponent to behave.

The line in which ive spoken is that God is real, his words are factual and can be traced by history, in which ive outlined the way in which God's word is vastly different to that of human visions (aka Nostradamus).
I showed how different God's word is to Nostradamus, yet AceViper2011 has decided not to input anything towards it. I didnt make clear points towards Nostradamus to make my opponent reply, since this isnt the debate. But if he wish's to ignore everything i say, ill gladly make everything a point to ask him to reply.

Ill repeat again, it appears AceViper2011 has a distorted understanding of this debate, or that - my words and statements are a contraction. The way i used "WHEN they HAVE" occurred seems to be the major one. I personally cannot understand what his point is at all, since this statement isnt contradicting or refuting anything ive said.
It only makes sense that this comment makes him think he has to admit that prophecy is real to continue this debate...in which this IS the case.

His role as Con (as ive stated) is to prove when they have occurred, or that they're linked to apocalyptic times. If he decides this isnt what he's debating, then this debate ends right now, and Aceviper2011 should be more careful when taking a debate in which he doesnt actually believe in his position.

RE: 4 ~ So why would I provide my viewers and opponent links from the book of Daniel to connect it to the apocalyptic events, when my opponent needs to provide us with direct links about it since he is PRO(for) and I am CON(against).
Because as Con, your role is to debate WHEN they HAVE occurred, or when they WILL occur in the future, aka apocalyptic.

Comments I shall address.

Aceviper2011 said -Well I have tried to explain what prophecy meant, and my opponent clearly tried to debunk my definition in his 3rd round argument.

-My reply: I didnt try to debunk your statement, i didnt have to, since you showed no evidence or facts at all. All you said was -
"These visions and Prophesies are honestly coming true, last time I heard, even Nostradamus failed, so did the Mayans. "
I did actually show factual logical reasons which ive clearly shown are vastly different from Nostradamus etc. Ive shown how detailed they are compared to vague statements from Nostradamus.
Since you didnt reply to my counter argument, i shall conclude you dont wish to press your statement anymore.

Aceviper2011 said -My opponent stated to me that prophecy in the bible is different and more complex meaning then, how we use prophecy today. Then my opponent said after he basically said that "in biblical "future telling" we have detailed specific events based within a very tight marked area which cannot be generalized".Well future telling is the same as future telling, there is no difference.

-My reply: Yes, there is. Telling someone a bird shall fall from the sky, isnt the same as saying God told me my alphabetical soup shall teach me french for the next 24 days. One is very vague, one is very specific. Both referring to as future telling, but very different, such as calling a fishing ship a boat, and calling a oil tanker a boat. Same same! You say. We'll if this is your logic, we shall have a very childish debate.

Aceviper2011 said-As for the tightly marked events and times well, we still do not know as a society when all the books of the bible was truly written, if it was before or after all events.

-My reply: First of all, you showed no facts or proof, yet you continually say im not showing proof. Please be consistent with your demands and statements.

Secondly, i have no obligation to defend fact-less statement, but for the sake of it, i shall explain the errors in your generalized lacking logic towards the topic.

Your statement is very common, in which you claim that Daniel could have been written after these events occurred, which would disprove predictive prophecy. I shall reply and say- Provide me evidence that your statement is true, because noone has been able to. It's theory, not fact. The Maccabees theory is behind it, in which no evidence is found to support it.

Aceviper2011 said-... or anything he is applying with his argument but just copy and paste text from the internet with out explanations on what he means.

-My reply: At least a copy link from a website which provides proof that im not talking hot air is provided for readers.

---

Ending comments for Round 4.

I ask AceViper2011 to be more constant with his requests in terms of evidence and understanding of this debate. I urge him to overlook the current debate for Cons position.
If this isnt his belief, then this should end, or, if he just wants to debate a very small detail, i find it a waste of time. If ive shown logical reasoning towards all of his points, yet he isnt willing to cross check himself, but rather keep beating on about the nature of the debate - then his time isnt well spend in this debate.

Essentially, he's debating himself atm, since he is struggling to understanding is position as Con, which means he'll most defiantly lose this vote.

Aceviper2011 is very keen on showing my 'apparent' lack of understand of my own debate - however this isnt the case. I shall give you an example of your role as Con.

Go check some prophetic readings about Daniel, and check out how many think the King of the North is Russia. Yet i'm debating that the King of the North has already occurred. This is merely an example, but use it if you wish.
--

So far i do not count any new points from Aceviper2011, in Round 4 ive replied to his statement that my three points are a contraction of this debate.
Aceviper2011

Con

My opponent still does not understand the meaning of CON and PRO, my opponent thinks CON is against and for this debate. Last time i check in all my debates I had, CON was against the PRO, So as my opponent stated he is CON and I am PRO but yet he is listed on PRO and I listed as CON. PRO is for the book and when they have occured, CON is against that. my opponent clearly needs to see that his views and positions need to be properly stated if he is PRO or CON not CON ON PRO and PRO ON CON.

ALSO AS PRO YOU ARE FOR THIS BOOK AND BELIEVE IN THE PROPHECIES, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT GAVE ME THE DEFINITION OF PROPHECY IN THE BIBLE. YOU FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PRO SIDE MEANING YOU DO NOT KNOW TRUELLY WHAT YOUR DOING, IF YOUR TAKING PRO YOUR FOR IT, IF YOUR AGAINST IT YOU SHOULD OF SAID YOUR CON BEFORE ENTERING YOUR OWN DEBATE.

I seen your debate history, you tried this debate before, with the same exact beginning you know why the opponent never reply to your debate about this the first time, because you do not understand your own debate or your POSITION ABOUT PRO( MEANING YOUR FOR THE BOOK OF DANIEL, MEANING YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT THE PROPHECY IS TRUE AND LEADING UP TO THE END OF DAYS BASICALLY, THAT YOUR SUPPOSE TO SHOW PROOF OF WHEN THEY HAVE OCCURED, OR WHEN THEY WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. NOT THE CON THE CON IS AGAINST THAT, THATS WHY CON SAYS AGAINST AND PRO SAYS FOR IT. if you was against it as you say you would of choosen con. NOT LET THE CON DO ALL THE WORK FOR BOTH SIDES. YOUR STRICTLY FOR IT, YOU PROVIDE US THE WHEN THEY HAVE OCCURED, AND HOW IT WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE FUTURE. meaning when you say that your saying prophecy is foretelling the future.

now that i hopefully got your attention voters look at this debate on which he is presenting, he says he is against the book but yet sided with pro, he tried to manipulate the con side which is against the topic to becoming the pro. he has broken the websites obvious guidlines, he has given no true arguement on his side just what wikipedia said with no knowledge for his views strictly all copy and paste. with nothing to fall on or explanations on why he is PRO AND IS FOR THIS.

Since he said copy and paste is something as evidence then if he says its ok then ill debunk the book of daniel using true facts, since he still hasnt posted his position as pro instead of pro thinking hes against clearly can not understand what PRO TRUELY means that means for, so heres websites links my opponent just like he left us confused on his position and what his true position is will now be shown the same treatment and thats debunking the book of daniel. ill post the websites under as sources. I will then see what my opponent says about my proof since clearly my opponent just wants to use copy and paste as his proof for positions we will not know of his intentions.

NOTE TAKE SOME TIME TO READ THESE WEBSITES LIKE I HAVE.
you cant change pro to con and con to pro you should of truely thought about what position you really wanted before you posted the debate. so as we all understand you lost since basically there is no pro i sure do not believe the book of daniel is accurate and is leading to the worlds doom. as for prophecies its the same it means previsions, previsions are forseeing the future, look at revelations in the bible, none of it occured so its forseeing the future, so its predicting the future. foretold.

heres your truth on the book of daniel. my arguement which you will find in these websites and state and get it in your head, your PRO, your not against, im CON im against, look at your picture it says PRO my says AGAINST so you better start doing research and providing us with evidence about WHEN THEY HAVE OCCURED, OR WHEN THEY WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, AKA END OF TIME. ALSO START PROVIDING US HOW THESE PROPHECIES ARE TRUE AND HOW THEY ARE AFFECTING US NOW THATS LEADING US TO THESE END OF TIMES EVENTS.

IF YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE US YOUR POSITION AS PRO BEING NOT AGIANST IT SINCE YOU ARE NOT CON, I AM CON THEN YOU HAVE A DEBATE THAT IS POINTLESS ON YOUR PART. LOOK AT THE OBVIOUSE DEFINITION OF PRO AND CON.

here is two websites of arguement that CON IS SUPPOSE TO DO BE AGAINST THE PRO, before i leave my opponent to view and read these websites voters please take a look at the usernames on top of the screen, my opponent username albert is pro. my username is aceviper2011 is con. now i politely ask my opponent as i am calm now to review and read the two websites he has two days to do this in so please kindly take the time to review and read these two websites to study them click on any links or anything. then come up with a PRO arguement not a CONS arguement for i am con and you are pro and the facts and truth shows in the username boxes with green and red words with your name above pro and my name above con.

website links: below
http://www.infidels.org...
http://www.harvardhouse.com...


Debate Round No. 4
Albert

Pro

You have not addressed any points ive replied, nor have you made any points apart from disputing your own position.

I have GIVEN you the position in the opening title.

(CON) Against- Will need to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to 'apocalyptic' events, which would refers to future (aka 2012+ events).

5) This is YOUR position i have listed in which you are to debate. If a title called Chickens in KFC is listed, and i say im (PRO) For the use of chickens in KFC, and (CON) should list why we cannot use ducks, then these are the guidelines to the debate. If you say Dogs are good pets it's not the same debate, and your debating against yourself.

6) Noone has changed Pro to Con or Con to Pro. Ive never changed my position once, yet you haven't once addressed the topic your suppose to debate!

7) You havent listed any replies to my explanations of difference between the Bible and Nostradamus, and you've continued to alter your debate without any consistency.

8) Furthermore, the reference between the Bible and Nostradamus isnt a relative issue, yet ive replied to it, and you cannot even counter debate it! What a waste of time and effort. At least if your going to make a side debate inside my debate, at least debate it!

Your last post contained no points or valued arguments for this debate, I see nothing i need to discuss at this time.
Aceviper2011

Con

your whole debate is a flaw set up for you to automatically win. That is why that one guy didn't even take the debate after he seen what its about. YOUR MANIPULATING THE CON TO BE FOR PRO. NO MATTER WHAT ID BE AGREEING WITH YOU.

I HOPE MY VIEWERS CAN SEE THE MANIPULATION OF CONS POSITION IN ANY DEBATE, TELLING CON HE HAS TO SHOW PROOF OF THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL IS REAL KNOWING CON IS AGAINST NOT FOR IT.

AS FOR A POSTING ARGUEMENT MY OPONENT STILL FAILED TO REASLIZE YOU CANNOT TELL CON TO ALSO AGREE WITH A PRO POSITION. DEBATING IS EITHER YOUR FOR IT OR AGIANST IT. MY OPPONENT ASKED THE CON IN THIS DEBATE TO BASICALLY SHOW PROOF THAT PRO IS RIGHT. MAKING IT A WIN WIN FOR PRO.

As my arguements they have provided proof that prophecy is the same in the bible and outside the bible. making nostrodamus and the bible prophecy of daniel basically the same meaning foretelling the future, which he failed to prove other wise. I have proven a CONS POSITION ON THIS DEBATE AND THATS THE POSITION TO BE LIKE ALL CONS IN DEBATES TO BE AGAINST THE TOPIC OF PRO NOT JOIN AND GIVE THE PROS ARGUEMENT FOR HIM.

My opponent clearly couldnt defend the pro position himself and wanted con to do pros work for him, for that is manipulation, and making this a one sided only debate. Meaning no matter what con has to prove pros points for his position. contradicting no matter who done this debate cons views.

viewers PRO will repost this debate again with the same rules, he did it before and even the guy realise that after he ask pro whats the question, pro couldnt even answer whats the question. making the debate onesided which making it only benificial to a pros view.

just like how religion forces beliefs in people, he trying to force his own believe through this debate topic. by saying pro is pro and con is pro. he even said it himself. when he clearly does not know that pro is for so you provide the evidence of the questions asking, and con is against it and he proves you wrong. but what pro wanted was for con to prove that its real, as well as pro proves its real. as for the kfc thing that has nothing to do with this debate its inrelivant and off the records.

VOTERS RECONIGZE IF YOU WILL THE FALSE AND FAILURE OF MY OPPONENT AND HIS VIEWS FOR HE HAS PROVEN NOTHING TO ME NEITHER YOU. HE HAS FAILED TO KEEP THE DEBATE A DEBATE, BUT WANTED IT TO BE A BASICALLY FORUM WE WOULD TALK ABOUT ON COMMENTS. HE FAILED TO RECOGNIZE WHAT PRO IS SUPPOSE TO DO AND PROS RESPONSIBILITIES IN A DEBATE, NOT HAVE CON DO THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PRO SO HE CAN WIN IN THE END. HE SAYS IN A COMMENT THAT HE ONLY WANTED TO DO THIS DEBATE TO SEE IF HE RIGHTS KNOWING THAT CON MEANS AGAINST BUT MISUSING CON TO ONLY MAKE HIM RIGHT INSTEAD OF HIMSELF.

We know as you read and as the guidlines were THE CONS position couldnt be argued with out siding with PRO, so as my debate and as i tried to post an arguement which i have in somewhat of a way I only needed to do what CON IS SUPPOSE TO DO AND WE KNOW WHAT THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS, TO BE AGAINST PRO.

So since my opponent still did not post a PRO arguement, as the CONS position the arguements I had posted for a true CONS position on any debate I shall extend the arguements I had made in my earlier arguements, that truely is CONS responsibility and that is BE AGAINST MY OPPONENT, NOT SIDE WITH MY OPPONENT TO MAKE HIM RIGHT BUT WRONG IN ANY DEBATE. WHAT A CON POSITION SHOULD TRUELY BE AS IT ALWAYS HAD BEEN AND THAT IS TO GO AGAINST, NOT HELPING, NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION THAT PRO IS SUPPOSE TO DO THEMSELVES, BUT TO BE AGAINST THE TOPIC, TO BE AGAINST THE RIGHT OR WRONG. NOT HELP THE RIGHT OR WRONG.

JUST LIKE PRO THERE FOR THE TOPICS THEY PROVE FACTS, EVIDENCE, PROOF, TO MAKE IT BELIEVABLE NOT TRY AND FORCE THE CON TO DO THE PROS WORK.

IN THE END IF THE PRO ASK FOR THE CONS HELP TO MAKE PRO POINTS OF A DEBATE THEN THE DEBATE IS TRUELY NOT A DEBATE AT ALL. AND SINCE PRO COULDNT MAKE A TRUE CHOICE ON WHAT SIDE AND COULDNT EVEN DEFEND HIS POSITION ON PRO AS A TRUE PRO POSITION THAT SHOULD GIVE HIM A LOSS TO THIS DEBATE.

thank you for this chance to debate this topic as the con against and i want to thank the viewers for taking the time to read and try to understanding were i am coming from on this and my text.
Debate Round No. 5
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Thankyou Aceviper2011
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
thank you for accepting now i shall use the time i have to post my arguement with no flaws in my post when you found some flaws in my comment. thank you for the acceptance. and i wish you good luck and this time it will be different you will see.

good luck albert
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Sure, ill accept
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
RE: death of Jesus only once. I didnt say Jesus wont come back a second time. I said he doesnt die over and over every year.

RE: When Lucifer was made he had free will. Remember, Lucifer was the first creation to sin, not Adam. This is found in Isaiah. Soon as Adam and Eve were made, they had free will.

RE: I see your point, but i see a problem with your point as well. Does something that is eternal need a house to live in? Or a heaven to live in?

RE: God didnt create evil in Lucifer, Lucifer had the desire to glorify himself, and soon as he did he fell. God didnt create or allow evil in his Holy place.

RE: Is the sun darkness?
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
since he is himself. since there is only god all power there is no way for him to be forgiven since god the one who created jesus not jesus created god, jesus in the bible forgives those of gods image sins never said forgave gods sins for even creating evil breaking his own philosophy, since he knows the future why did he allow it, if the bible stated he was pure of love no hate, and hated evil. but yet god creates everything according to the bible so he created evil, knowing what it can do. then according to the bible whoever has evil in the mind committed evil in there hearts. and since god created jesus for to die for our sins. according to the bible not gods sins but only his people making god can never get forgivness meaning as creator of all evil and good should truely be in hell for knowing, thinking before all even happen. free will or not. cause god had the will to say no but its all in the bible. all the rules and regulations which you should know since you read the bible and study it theres the answer to your last paragraph.

so albert will you take my challenge to you after showing you my knowledge. i would be honor to debate you, and be an honor for you to accept my challenge.

ill let you choose ive proven to you how it will be different, ive proven knowledge. so may you take my challenge on this
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
when you say jesus dies every year is false then you just basically shown me a flaw, meaning jesus only died once from what you said he only died once ok let me shed some of my background I went to a christian church, believes in god in jesus, every year we celebrated the birth and the death of jesus, so in terms in reality once you die you die you cant return. since its false like you said right, so if you say that then there is no second coming of jesus. remember your words, and its not only in the catholics beliefs also in the christianity believes.

when you speak that god is eternal, which god in the bible gave us the chance to live eternal lives according to the bible but eve ate from the fruit of life. giving us death, convinced by a serpent, to eat the fruit. thats when god gave us free will, but how can he give us free will if it wasn't given untill after the fruit was eaten from the tree. So there was no free will in heaven when lucifer was in heaven.

god created heaven right, how can god create heaven if god was in heaven already. gen. i believe said and there god created the heavens, how can god create heaven if god was in heaven already. but yet also god knows all right, so why did god allow evil in heaven if he knew of evil before evil began, doesnt that make god evil for thinking evil.

also god said whoever thinks of evil committed evil in there hearts. so back to my top point if god knows the future according to the bible then why did he allow evil if evil hadnt begin. so he knew of all evil but yet visualized it created it, making him have evil in his heart according to his own words then that contradicts the bible of god being pure. when he the creator of everything he truely created evil. so then that makes a huge whole in the bible. of what is truely right and what was truely wrong,

was god truely evil, or purely god, for then it is said that who does evil gets casted to hell. unless who accepts god, but yet god cant accept himself
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
since he is himself. since there is only god all power there is no way for him to be forgiven since god the one who created jesus not jesus created god, jesus in the bible forgives those of gods image sins never said forgave gods sins for even creating evil breaking his own philosophy, since he knows the future why did he allow it, if the bible stated he was pure of love no hate, and hated evil. but yet god creates everything according to the bible so he created evil, knowing what it can do. then according to the bible whoever has evil in the mind committed evil in there hearts. and since god created jesus for to die for our sins. according to the bible not gods sins but only his people making god can never get forgivness meaning as creator of all evil and good should truely be in hell for knowing, thinking before all even happen. free will or not. cause god had the will to say no but its all in the bible. all the rules and regulations which you should know since you read the bible and study it
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Got a few typos in my reply

-Last paragraph
Good question, but God never let evil dwell or grow in heaven - it's said "he wanted his own glory, and ***like*** (not light) a flash of lighting he was cast down." Which means, as soon as evil was in heaven, evil was kicked out instantly.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
when you say jesus dies every year is false then you just basically shown me a flaw, meaning jesus only died once from what you said he only died once ok let me shed some of my background I went to a christian church, believes in god in jesus, every year we celebrated the birth and the death of jesus, so in terms in reality once you die you die you cant return. since its false like you said right, so if you say that then there is no second coming of jesus. remember your words, and its not only in the catholics beliefs also in the christianity believes.

when you speak that god is eternal, which god in the bible gave us the chance to live eternal lives according to the bible but eve ate from the fruit of life. giving us death, convinced by a serpent, to eat the fruit. thats when god gave us free will, but how can he give us free will if it wasn't given untill after the fruit was eaten from the tree. So there was no free will in heaven when lucifer was in heaven.

god created heaven right, how can god create heaven if god was in heaven already. gen. i believe said and there god created the heavens, how can god create heaven if god was in heaven already. but yet also god knows all right, so why did god allow evil in heaven if he knew of evil before evil began, doesnt that make god evil for thinking evil.

also god said whoever thinks of evil committed evil in there hearts. so back to my top point if god knows the future according to the bible then why did he allow evil if evil hadnt begin. so he knew of all evil but yet visualized it created it, making him have evil in his heart according to his own words then that contradicts the bible of god being pure. when he the creator of everything he truely created evil. so then that makes a huge whole in the bible. of what is truely right and what was truely wrong,

was god truely evil, or purely god, for then it is said that who does evil gets casted to hell. unless who accepts god, but yet god cant accept himself
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Ive answered 4 Paragraphs Aceviper2011.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
AlbertAceviper2011Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter devient.genie.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
AlbertAceviper2011Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: religious beliefs are the most ridiculous things a human can do to their minds :)