Posts by Matijevic

38

Covid-19 death rate

by BourneIdentity in

worldwide numbers – 13%.

deaths: 359,791. recovered: 2,399,247. active cases 3,044,378. we need to throw out the active cases in our calculations, as we don’t know if those people will survive or die.

deaths + recovered is 2,759,038. deaths/deaths + recovered = death rate.. 359,791/2,759,038 = 13%.

BourneIdentity

I am impressed with your disrespect! Enjoy, you have support, but obviously you can not do better! So, no need to talk with you or your buddies! My question was addresed to people who realize something is wrong...

38

Covid-19 death rate

by BourneIdentity in

worldwide numbers – 13%.

deaths: 359,791. recovered: 2,399,247. active cases 3,044,378. we need to throw out the active cases in our calculations, as we don’t know if those people will survive or die.

deaths + recovered is 2,759,038. deaths/deaths + recovered = death rate.. 359,791/2,759,038 = 13%.

Matijevic

BourneIdentity

Interesting answer in which you do not believe! Obviously you love to ridicule anyone who does not share your worldview, but this does not change fact that you offered zero proof against so called conspiracy theory! If mocking and poisening the well are all arguments you can offer, enjoy in your cleverness with the people like you! I hope you can better!

38

Covid-19 death rate

by BourneIdentity in

worldwide numbers – 13%.

deaths: 359,791. recovered: 2,399,247. active cases 3,044,378. we need to throw out the active cases in our calculations, as we don’t know if those people will survive or die.

deaths + recovered is 2,759,038. deaths/deaths + recovered = death rate.. 359,791/2,759,038 = 13%.

Matijevic

I see that some on this forum agree with me that measures against covid 19 are way more harmful than virus itself! Any thoughts why world governments imposed such measures?

38

Covid-19 death rate

by BourneIdentity in

worldwide numbers – 13%.

deaths: 359,791. recovered: 2,399,247. active cases 3,044,378. we need to throw out the active cases in our calculations, as we don’t know if those people will survive or die.

deaths + recovered is 2,759,038. deaths/deaths + recovered = death rate.. 359,791/2,759,038 = 13%.

Matijevic

https://www.globalresearch.ca/howard-zucker-scarlet-letter/5713887

52

Ruin those Ruining th Earth

by peacefulpete in

it has been mentioned before but since we have been discussing environmental issues on another thread, i thought it might be timely to discuss rev 11:18 which has recently become a popular text for those christians concerned about environmental threats of pollution and climate change.

is this passage being interpreted correctly?

did the writer somehow anticipate the modern environmental situation, or did he intend something more in keeping with the bible's general concerns of morality and sin?.

Matijevic

I gave you like Diogenesister, nice example of misusing the Bible. However, I am confused. Is this comment related to me, if it is, why?

52

Ruin those Ruining th Earth

by peacefulpete in

it has been mentioned before but since we have been discussing environmental issues on another thread, i thought it might be timely to discuss rev 11:18 which has recently become a popular text for those christians concerned about environmental threats of pollution and climate change.

is this passage being interpreted correctly?

did the writer somehow anticipate the modern environmental situation, or did he intend something more in keeping with the bible's general concerns of morality and sin?.

Matijevic

Pete, promoter of naturalistic worldview offered three lines of evidence supporting idea of moral corruption in Rev 11:18.

1 "First, the Greek for "ruin" is diaphtheirai it is defined as "morally corrupt, defile, destroy" and is used numerous times in the NT and in the Greek translations of OT." Reply from Christian standpoint is:diaphtheirai is used six (maybe, big maybe seven)times in entire NT.Even anti theists must admit that at least four times it refers to physical corruption! So, statistically, physical corruption is the most probable choice.

2 So the Greek can mean "destroy those who are corrupting the earth" which would be perfectly consistent with the general message of the authors of the Bible... Reply from Christian standpoint is:Yes, it could be antanaclasis, but statistics again is not on your side. ( unless you are claiming than antanaclasis is used in more than 50% cases throughout the Bible or NT, so every time we find repeated verb or noun in the same sentence or verse, we should assume it is antanaclasis? )

The entire book of revelation directs the writer's anger at religious and political enemies for their moral/religious corruption. Never once does it mention environmental crimes...

Reply:Every biblical prophet was concerned about moral corruption, but they were worried about physical corruption too! Murder was and is a great sin.Even unnecessary chopping of a tree was rebuked in the Bible! Was/were Johnny(s) an exception? Look at Rev 9:21; 21:8 and 22:15. It is interesting (my view) to consider the meaning of the wrath (orgizō) in Rev 12:17. Context associate it with killing intensions. The same noun is found, supvise, supvise, in Rev 11:18! Yes, environmental crimes are not mentioned, shrewd choice of words, but I think it is ok to add physical corruption of flora and fauna on the list of the environmental crimes!

Secondly, does the context help? Yes, rev 19:1,2 says:He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication...

Here in the context of Revelation the word clearly supports the meaning of people morally ruining or corrupting the earth...

Reply:Rev 19:2 has two variants. 1 ἔφθειρεν the best choice, supported by most manuscripts.The word is not the same, but is related to διαφθείρω, because moral and physical corruption goes hand in hand! It occurs 8 times, and at least 6 times it refers to moral corruption 2 διεφθειρε less probable original verb, but it does not help you either, cause verb is in aorist, past tense, which means job is done!...Like I said time is coming when moral corruption will reach its peak. i do not say that every person on this planet will be evil, but sharp distinction between good and bad persons will exist. All good men will be immune to moral corruption. Everyone prone to the corruption will be corrupt, this is the meaning of ripe harvest and grapes. (rev 14:14-20) On the other hand, rev 11:18 informs us that physical corruption will not reach its peak, because good men are also prone to it! it will be scary, like Luke 21:25,26 mention, but chosen ones, the ones immune to moral corruption will survive. https://clicknupload.org/8j872gadrw6f So, context does not support naturalistic worldview, it creates problem, notable contradiction. It is better without antanaclasis.

3 Third, are there parallels outside Revelation? Yes, many. In those usages a variety of shades of meaning is meant, consistent with the definition above. For example 1 Tim 6:5

Reply:Moral corruption occurs in 1 Tim 6: 5 and this is the only indisputable place in NT!

A notable parallel in application among them is Gen 6:11 (LXX) which gives as justification for killing everyone in a flood:

11 But the earth was corrupted before God, and the earth was filled with iniquity.

Reply:The word is καταφθείρω not diaphtheirai.I wonder why καταφθείρω appears invariably through Genesis? In all five places, flood is associated with καταφθείρω, not diaphtheirai, not even once! In all five places, moral and physical corruption reach its peak. Earth is/will be filled with violence or water, there is no space for additional flooding or corruption! Unlike the flood, there is space for additional corruption in Rev 11:18, and God will stop it before it reaches its peak! Again, this corruption can not be moral, cause Rev 19:2 and 14:15-18 reveal that there will be no space for additional moral corruption! So, the best and only candidate should be physical corruption!

52

Ruin those Ruining th Earth

by peacefulpete in

it has been mentioned before but since we have been discussing environmental issues on another thread, i thought it might be timely to discuss rev 11:18 which has recently become a popular text for those christians concerned about environmental threats of pollution and climate change.

is this passage being interpreted correctly?

did the writer somehow anticipate the modern environmental situation, or did he intend something more in keeping with the bible's general concerns of morality and sin?.

Matijevic

Yes Pete, sometimes too much can be lost in translation, so it is good thing to look at original language, or at least to check other, better translations. Island man, I disagree. It makes sense to segregate polluters. Think about Matthew 5:5 and Isaiah 45:18? Is it a small thing to nullify Jehovah’s intention? It does not matter whether meek ones, servants of the God, will lost their inheritance? For anti theists it really does not matter, but you are here to prove validity of your worldview. Of course, physical corrupters are also the ones who support polluters. (psalm 50:18,21;Rev 18:4) Genesis 6 is nice example against your interpretation, it can be seen when we go deeper than anthi theism would allow us.First, the word is καταφθείρω not diaphtheirai. I know it does not matter to you, for you even tâmı̂yd and zebach are the same, cause it must be in order to prove that Daniel 8 and 9 ch refer to the same event. But, I wonder why καταφθείρω appears invariably through Genesis? In all five places, flood is associated with καταφθείρω, not diaphtheirai, not even once! In all five places, moral and physical corruption reach its peak. Earth is/will be filled with violence or water, there is no space for additional flooding or corruption! Unlike the flood, there is space for additional corruption in Rev 11:18, and God will stop it before it reaches its peak! Again, this corruption can not be moral, cause Rev 19:2 and 14:15-18 reveal that there will be no space for additional moral corruption!So, the best and only candidate should be physical corruption!John did not call it pollution, I think it is obvious why, but we know now what kind of physical corruption he was alluded to, and probably he was not aware of it! Unlike the flood,physical corruption is mentioned first, and unlike the flood, physical corruption is utilized to save the earth! Thus, there is a contrast between the flood and armageddon. In the light of Gen 8:21,22 it is quite expected!I hope it is time to end this discussion. in a few days I will summarize arguments from both sides!

52

Ruin those Ruining th Earth

by peacefulpete in

it has been mentioned before but since we have been discussing environmental issues on another thread, i thought it might be timely to discuss rev 11:18 which has recently become a popular text for those christians concerned about environmental threats of pollution and climate change.

is this passage being interpreted correctly?

did the writer somehow anticipate the modern environmental situation, or did he intend something more in keeping with the bible's general concerns of morality and sin?.

Matijevic

peacefulpete

I am not sure what kind of accusation you are talking about? Was it personal or did he attack yours cherished beliefs? Yes, miracle is not offensive word for Christian ears and you could use it. It is acceptable for atheists too, as you admit, when you wrote objectively=from atheistic perspective! Nice to hear you are standing behind your comment. So, Bible is filled with magic and contradictions, but you as atheist do not think it is full of crap? Reasonable and objective people should not believe that Jesus ever lived, so Christians and every person who do not believe that Jesus is fiction, according to your definition are... This is scholarship or extreme atheism? Your comment about positive side of Christianity shows that you have found nothing inherently good in it! So say it, openly, I was not wrong about you! Correct me if I am wrong, but you were Witness, and not an ordinary, when you wrote this! Can I call it hypocrisy? 1 Cor 3 : 16,17 is an interesting piece of evidence. It could be antanaclasis, and maybe I was overreacting when I tried to negate even the possibility of antanaclasis in rev 11:18. But , possibility and plausibility are different things! On the other hand it is possible, even probable, that there is no antanaclasis in 1 Cor 3 : 16,17 . When I read it, John 2 : 19 came to my mind. Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” I found that temple and body occur only in two places: John 2 : 21 and 1 Cor 6:19, a verse related to 1 Cor 3 : 16. Also, check out 1 Cor 3 : 18,19 a and 1 Cor 2 :7, 8. I do not have time, at the moment, for deeper analysis! " In previous posts I answered your comment with another hoping you would see the distinction you are drawing was artificial and not idiomatically required. " If you refer to my persistence that it is not possible when moral corruption reach its peak to advance moral corruption further, I am standing behind my comment. It is illogical, there will be no place for moral corruption to spread!

52

Ruin those Ruining th Earth

by peacefulpete in

it has been mentioned before but since we have been discussing environmental issues on another thread, i thought it might be timely to discuss rev 11:18 which has recently become a popular text for those christians concerned about environmental threats of pollution and climate change.

is this passage being interpreted correctly?

did the writer somehow anticipate the modern environmental situation, or did he intend something more in keeping with the bible's general concerns of morality and sin?.

Matijevic

I would really be happy to say I am wrong, I misjudged you Pete, but some facts do not allow me to say it! I already pointed out to John the elder and John the presbyter.... There is no scholarship in it, this is how uninformed anti theists spoke about the Bible. I checked some of yours previous posts. I must admit you are not so insolent like your buddies, but your despise can be felt! Here it is: " Equating Holocaust "denial" with literary criticism of a story filled with magic and contradictions is just inappropriate and inflammatory... Jesus as historical person not only has neither but does have all the hallmarks of allegory and fiction and reasonable objective people should assume this to be the case unless significant evidence directs otherwise. " I used italics and bold letters to emphasize interesting parts. Please, explain yourself! Did you ever discuss about positive side of Christianity? Did you ever told your buddies not to offend religious feelings of Christians? You were JW for some years, you should know that the Bible many times say do NOT be afraid? I would give you some quotes, but I think you would not read it! Why did you conclude that my faith merely consist of fear? The fact ( It is possible that no one put my interpretation in written form or that the letter was lost) no one before me did not interpret that text the way I am, is a slam dunk from atheistic point of view. But, from believers point of view, it could be confirmation of Daniel 12:4! Why are you insisting on intent of the author? I already explained it! Pete, do not play games! Your English is better, cause my native language is Serbian, but I understand everything you write! I do not know why 1 Tim 6: 5 should be more relevant that rev 8 :9? Statistically, physical corruption occurs more times in Revelation and in Greek Scriptures than moral one! Physical one occurs in Luke 12 :33, 2 Cor 4 :16, Rev 8 :9 and at least once (your view) in 11 :18! Moral one occurs in 1 Tim 6: 5 and this is the only indisputable place in NT! It is incorrect to cite rev 19 :2, cause the most probable word is φθείρω. You should not use rev 11:18 either, cause there is no solid evidence for antanaclasis (you are silent at the moment about the challenge), and context speaks against it, unless you can not accept even the slightest possibility that Bible does not contradict itself, or at least Revelation! in that case, I can not play this game. Rules are on your side and I can not win! However, I could comfort myself that everything was done in reasonable objective manner from atheistic point of view! https://clicknupload.org/8j872gadrw6f

52

Ruin those Ruining th Earth

by peacefulpete in

it has been mentioned before but since we have been discussing environmental issues on another thread, i thought it might be timely to discuss rev 11:18 which has recently become a popular text for those christians concerned about environmental threats of pollution and climate change.

is this passage being interpreted correctly?

did the writer somehow anticipate the modern environmental situation, or did he intend something more in keeping with the bible's general concerns of morality and sin?.

Matijevic

I do not want to provoke anyone, but I feel these verses are so appropriate and I can not help it. Many will blame me for self-righteousness, but servant of God can not avoid it! The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. (1Cor 2:14,15).This is my experience! I think that many on this site are more intelligent than me, but I can underdstand them and they can not understand me! Pete, from your point of view, point of person who despise the Bible, God and true Christians, it is so understandable to say I am making an overly literal distinction! Bible is full of crap, and you do not care about some inconvenient details, unless they can support your opinion!But, you want to convince other people who still have some sort of faith to discard it! So, you must consider their point of view! There are people who think Bible is word of God, that prophets received supernatural visions and were enticed to write things they did not understand!It is totally irrelevant whether Johnny B goode could have comprehend environmental challenges we face! Every iota in the word of God is important, cause it could contain some valuable information!You said that religious moralist (true Christian) do not care whether the person recycle or not. I disagree. Motif is very important!If that person recycle because he/she cares about living world and other human beings, it is relevant for God of the Bible! Read these verses please: De 20:19,20; 22:6,7,10;Proverbs 12:10... That is why I said that moral and physical corruption go hand in hand. Immoral person do not care about living world and other humans, it cares about money. Rich, anti christian people are responsible for devastation of the fair world, and they want to put a blame on overpopulation! Like I said time is coming when moral corruption will reach its peak. i do not say that every person on this planet will be evil, but sharp distinction between good and bad persons will exist. All good men will be immune to moral corruption. Everyone prone to the corruption will be corrupt, this is the meaning of ripe harvest and grapes. (rev 14:14-20) On the other hand, rev 11:18 informs us that physical corruption will not reach its peak, because good men are also prone to it! it will be scary, like Luke 21:25,26 mention, but chosen ones, the ones immune to moral corruption will survive. https://clicknupload.org/d8v50rksqg85 Pete, I am glad that you admit strength of my argument about rev 8:9, and that it is inappropriate/without any solid foundation to apply antanaclasis to rev 11:18. However, I do expect (not glad about it) some poisoning of the well, if someone would give me just one like!