Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
Seriously? You want "someone" who has read the book to "provide the basis" for a discussion? Why don't you do it? You are the one who knows what that means. What does it mean?
Uh...wait...have you been throwing rocks at The Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn all this time having never read it? That could certainly generate what you call "banter over presumptions".
Maybe reading the book is all the "basis" necessary? If not, it would certainly be a good place to start.
Nell
|
I did ultimately listen to the audio file as requested a year or so ago and it did not provide anything that was reasonably sound relative to making the kind of claims about the God of the Bible. Now you want me to read the book? You come and insist that this is important, but won't defend it?
You aren't defending it. Just saying it is so. Just like before.
So saying that I'm throwing rocks without information is simply wrong. If I manage to take the time to read it and disagree, then what? Another book? Another writer?
So far, you and others have not actually provided anything but a claim that the way that the founding fathers created the nation confers upon it benefits and blessings similar to those that were conferred on Israel in the OT. Nothing that makes it sound or reasonable to accept. Just statements that it is true.
Sounds like banter over presumptions at this point. You've given no reason to accept the premise, or enough of such premise to make reading Cahn's book worthy of consideration. You want us to take you seriously but are unwilling to seriously provide more than "it is in the book." This book is not the Bible so you need to provide a reason to read it. More than just an emotional appeal and wishful thinking. And that is all that it appears to be based on what I understand of the promises to Israel and God's dealings with them.
I didn't sign up for the book of the month club and I choose my reading (and spending on reading) a little more selectively than simply to become sure that what I already think is true. If you think I am wrong, provide something more. Don't assume that I am closed. My current position is not my original position. My positions are capable of change. I don't just want to disprove. I want to understand more than the rhetoric that has been bandied about here.
But refusing to acually join a discussion on the meat of the subject suggests something. Not sure what. But it does make the subject less appealing. Yet letting it run without comment seems unacceptable. Claiming that the US had the blessing of God in the past because of the founding fathers or whatever is hollow without a reason to accept it as true. As was pointed out a year ago, their sins were overlooked and now the sins of sinners who don't claim to be Christians are trotted out as a reason to lose this asserted blessing.
Funny that we have not really had any worse time of things than much of the rest of the world.