Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths
Offline Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.
Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!
If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.
Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi fellow rationalists and friendly rational responders,
It's been a long time since I visited your site, but the friendly email said there were "a few theists worth responding to", so I thought I should drop in a and check them out. And so I found the Gramster.
To you atheistic rationalists, I thought I'd just let you know that I am another theist who agrees substantially with the Granster's propositions, e.g.
"Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe." "Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible." "myth #2. That faith is believing something without, or regardless of evidence. Faith is just the opposite. It is a loving, trust relationship built on evidence and experience." To the rationalist Gramster: G'day bro'! Having said that, please all carry on as you were. Best wishes.
- Login to post comments
Offline gramster wrote:To give a short answer to Cowles claim that the final judgment is not in place, I will shortly show that the final judgment is indeed in place.
When you do so please cite Cowles claim (at least the page) with your refutation.
gramster wrote:First, however, I will give answer to your previous question about "Spiritual Israel", as this is relevant to the latter prophecies in Daniel.
The answer to the question who is a Jew? can be answered in the following texts.
Luke 3:8, "don't say we have Abraham as our father, for I say to you, God is able to of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham". Here Jesus is making it plain that being a child of Abraham (Jew) is not merely a genetic heritage. It involves something more.
I was hoping for something out of Hebrew scripture but instead you pick out one of the Sci-Fi NT gospels attributed by tradition to a guy named Luke. Luke who has some credibility issues I've mentioned which you should have recalled from our discussion in regard to Paul never met the character called Yahshua bar Joseph. Anything Luke claims is 3rd, 4th or 5th hand. Whether a guy named Yahshua actually said this or if it was a composite from multiple sources is subject to question. Are you sure you want to start such a disruptive side trip at this point in questioning the authenticity of Luke, whether he actually had crib notes from one of the disciples, whether there were disciples, whether Jesus existed, and whether Yahshua said anything at all that was documented?
gramster wrote:John 8:39, "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said unto them, if ye were Abraham's seed ye would do the works of Abraham". Here Jesus gives more "clues" of what it takes to be a true child of Abraham (Jew).
See my comments in regard to Luke. John, whoever he was, disciple or not wrote a very different version of events from the hand me down writing of the guy called Luke. Do you really want to go there now?
gramster wrote:Gal 3:6,7, "Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham". Here Paul is expounding upon just what it takes to be a true Jew. It is not a "birthright", it is what is in the heart.
Gal 3:29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise". Here Paul makes it plain that believing in the Jewish Messiah makes one a true Jew (spiritually speaking).
And then you present quotes from the supposed writing of Paul the Mythmaker. Did you somehow forget what I think of my namesake? I thought I was fairly clear on what I thought of him. Do you need another side trip on this as well?
gramster wrote:The Christian is therefore spiritually, according to the scriptures, a genuine Jew. I am just as much a Jew as was Daniel. I am according to the bible one of "his (Daniels) people".
Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the prophecies in the old testament (including Daniel), may refer to me and other Christians. This may include any time and any place depending on the context of the text.
Since I don't accept any of your "scriptures" you referenced try again as it is not reasonable to make such a conclusion at all.
Google "what is a Jew" and see what you get.
I well realize that you do not accept hardly any of the NT, and buy into Maccoby the true myth maker. We have already gone over that. You also don't accept Daniel as authentic. Or for that matter much of the OT. So if we throw out the whole bible, than what do we have left. Oh, that's right we still have Google.
I am a Christian, and like Cowles, I accept the NT as inspired scripture in spite of all the speculation and "dust" thrown in the air trying to discredit it.
Therefore, like Cowles, I will use ALL scripture, and in so doing, in the end, will show a great deal of biblical unity and consistency, in spite of all the "perceived" inconsistencies previously alleged.
No, I do not intend to go back over that ground again at this time. Nice try.
Now let's get back to the topic at hand.
- Login to post comments
Hammered indeed! Just to be clear, Cowles also relies heavily on "terminus a quo" to try to rule out the Roman Theory. I do not have a problem with the text making it clear that the 4th power would be judged or destroyed before the setting up of the kingdom of God. I also believe that. Where we disagree is when this takes place, at the time of Christ's 1st coming, or the end of the world.
What we will see as we go along is that the only interpretation left standing will have Rome being clearly revealed as the 4th kingdom. I only have a couple more points to make on Daniel 2 as it only sets the stage for later chapters.
Before you get into "when the kingdom of Gos was set up" don't you have to get to if "the kingdom of God was set up"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
There is one more point that doesn't seem to fit well with either the Grecian Theory, or the 2nd Century BC Theory.
Daniel 2:43 As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
Sure there were intermarriages, but this seems to portray repeated, failed attempts in uniting the powers. This is not what I see very clearly in the Seleucid kingdom. It was very prevalent in the nations of early Europe.
I'm sure that you will be able to hammer this one in somehow, so I will go on to Chapter 7 which is much more detailed.
It also jumps Rome, doesn't it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I don't see how this "jumps Rome". The legs represent the mighty Roman Empire, and the feet and toes represent the what followed the break of this power. All this fits perfectly with the text.
Except that the Roman empire existed for quite some time after the "break" you believe happened. The post-Alexandrian period also fits this.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
First I would like to suggest that Daniel 7 is a closer look at the powers portrayed in Daniel 2. It also parallels the powers in chapter 8 with the exception that Babylon is left out in 8. Let's take a brief look.
Chapter 2 - Head of Gold - Babylon
Chapter 7 - Lion w/eagles wings - Babylon
Chapter 2 - Chest and Arms - Media and Persia
Chapter 7 - Bear raised up on one side w/3 ribs in mouth - Media and Persia
Chapter 8 - Ram w/two horns, one larger - Media and Persia (as stated by the text)
Chapter 2 - Belly and Thighs - "Greece"
Chapter 7 - Leopard w/4 wings and 4 heads - "Greece"
Chapter 8 - Goat w/notable horn that was broken than 4 horns emerged - "Greece" (as stated by the text)
To this point there is general agreement among most scholars. There are some exceptions as JPTS previously pointed out. He proposed that the chest and arms in ch2, and the bear in ch7 referred to just Media.
Than that would make the belly and thighs in ch 2 Persia, and the Leopard in ch 7 Persia. The next power to come on the scene than would be the "Grecian kingdom", or Alexander the Great.
I already stated my reasons for rejecting this interpretation so I will be brief on this.
First, Media did not follow the fall of Babylon as a kingdom. They existed pretty much at the same time and ended about the same time.
Second, the author of Daniel appears to view "Medo-Persia" as a single inter related power. Not as two distinct powers.
Third, this view does not fit well into the symbolism of the beasts involved. Especially the leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings. The leopard is an obvious parallel to the goat in chapter 8 and a perfect match. It does not make sense to try to make it something else.
This does not however, rule out a 2nd century BC writer quite yet.
That brings us down to the powers that are in greatest dispute.
Yes, history doesn't have a tendency to follow nice, clean, straight lines. What I don't see in the Post Alexandrian Period is a substantial amount of failed attempts to unite through intermarriage. There may be some remote examples, but not anything that would seem to match the description of the text.
The history of modern Europe is noted for these failed attempts.
The first power in dispute for us to examine is the 4th power mentioned in Daniel 2 and 7.
Daniel 7:7, "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns".
Daniel 2:40, "And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these".
This 4th power is described as dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong. One would expect that it would be a greater power than the other beasts it is being compared to. One would look for a kingdom following the "Grecian Empire" that was greater and more powerful.
This fits the Mighty Roman Empire remarkably well. It does not do a very good job of describing the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria following the death of Alexander. Yes, they were substantial kingdoms, and lasted in some form for quite a few years, but they could hardly be seen as exceedingly great and powerful in comparison to the preceding kingdoms.
Even though this seems to be a pretty poor fit I will consider it a possibility remote, and move on.
Now I will point out what seems to me to be a pretty significant problem with the "Grecian Theory". That is that the 4th beast represents Egypt and Syria after the death of Alexander.
The leopard with 4 heads already embodies these powers. Being a 4 headed beast it would best symbolize the four divisions of Alexanders empire.
The 4th beast in Daniel 7 breaks and stamps in pieces the leopard with four heads. Is this not than, if it is Egypt and Syria, a kingdom attacking and destroying itself? Hmmm. This seems to be a problem for Cowles, as well as for a 2nd century BC writer. A beast or kingdom can hardly be its own successor.
There was continous consistent intermarriage between the kingdoms that comprised the former empire of Alexander in efforts to insure treaties, peace and goals. This was especially true of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. See historians of the time period. Why do you say that political marriages did not occur, what is your source material?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I did not say they did not occur. What I don't see is a pattern of repeatedly failed attempts to unite the kingdoms through intermarriage. A clear pattern of this is obvious in early modern Europe.
The Leopard is Alexander's kingdom represented.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the 4th beast stamps in pieces the Leopard?
Daniel 7 NIV - 7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns."
This does not indicate the 4th beast does this to the Leopard at all. Please explain yourself.
But then:
See Cowles pp342-343; Cowles makes it clear here that the 4th beast "is not seen as great and terrible relatively to the whole world, and certainly not relatively to the great European world, onward to the end of time, and quite apart from any bearing on the Jews while they were the visible church and kingdom of god; but is seen as terrible to the Jews mainly, and to them before the kingdom of god was taken from them and given to the gentiles...."
And - "This would make that power specifically formidable to the Jews..."
p 343 - Cowles takes the position here that v9-11 refer to the destruction of the 4th beast and his horns - "The general final judgment is not in place here." ..."Is not indicated by anything said in context..." an allusion to God's providential judgments upon guilty nations is in place here.." and '..individuals will be judged at the end of this world and punished or rewarded in the next; but nations can only be punished in time, only in this world, for the sufficient reason that they exist as nations only here."
Further views of Cowles are explained in meticulous detail on p 344-347 which are in major opposition to you and you have made absolutely no comment in their regard or merits. You make the statement only that Cowles has a problem in the regard to the 4th beast yet you sidestep all of his points by ignoring them all.
p344 - "Hence if this judgment falls on the 4th beast and his horns it must be in this world.." and "but further, the distinctive characteristics of the final judgment are not here."
So both Cowles view and the 2nd century writing still have no issue.
But here exposed is a major interpretation error on your part where you somehow think the 4th beast is destroying the Leopard in Daniel 7. I await your explanation.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
What exactly do you mean by early modern Europe? The 16th century? The 19th century? The 20th?
Is the pattern clear to you because you have found many historical references that have survived the centuries, which is not surprising if you are discussing a period after the 16th century? And were these attempts in Europe really much different than ancient attempts to gain coexistance by marriage?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Yes, in a sense the leopard is Alexander the Great. But the 4 heads would not portray just Alexander very well. This symbol better represents Alexanders divided kingdom after his death. That would include Pergamum, Macedon, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and the Seleucid Empire. All of which were pretty much over by 100 BC with a few fragments of some remaining for a short while.
All four of these kingdoms eventually fell under Roman control. Daniel 7:23, speaking of the 4th beast, "it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces". This is referred to as a 4th beast. Not a continuation of the third beast. It devours everything, including the leopard.
If the text had two of the heads becoming great, than the analogy would fit the Grecian Theory. But it didn't. The 4th beast is a 4th beast, not the third beast pt 2. That just doesn't make sense. You are still having a beast succeed itself.
This is the kind of "puzzle fitting" one has to do to make this interpretation fit. And the pieces don't match.
No, your pieces don't match and neither does your disregard for what was in the text and what was not in the text.
Again see Cowles pp 353-372 who in meticulous detail explains why the 4th beast is the Seleucid Kingdom and why Antiochus IV is the little horn. He also dissects and destroys your Roman theory as well. You should actually read these pages and stop ignoring his points. All in all Cowles gives excellent reasons except of course his view Daniel in the 6th century wrote it and the KOG is brought in by the supposed Messiah Yahshua bar Joseph.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
To give a short answer to Cowles claim that the final judgment is not in place, I will shortly show that the final judgment is indeed in place.
First, however, I will give answer to your previous question about "Spiritual Israel", as this is relevant to the latter prophecies in Daniel.
The answer to the question who is a Jew? can be answered in the following texts.
Luke 3:8, "don't say we have Abraham as our father, for I say to you, God is able to of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham". Here Jesus is making it plain that being a child of Abraham (Jew) is not merely a genetic heritage. It involves something more.
John 8:39, "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said unto them, if ye were Abraham's seed ye would do the works of Abraham". Here Jesus gives more "clues" of what it takes to be a true child of Abraham (Jew).
Gal 3:6,7, "Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham". Here Paul is expounding upon just what it takes to be a true Jew. It is not a "birthright", it is what is in the heart.
Gal 3:29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise". Here Paul makes it plain that believing in the Jewish Messiah makes one a true Jew (spiritually speaking).
The Christian is therefore spiritually, according to the scriptures, a genuine Jew. I am just as much a Jew as was Daniel. I am according to the bible one of "his (Daniels) people".
Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the prophecies in the old testament (including Daniel), may refer to me and other Christians. This may include any time and any place depending on the context of the text.
When you do so please cite Cowles claim (at least the page) with your refutation.
I was hoping for something out of Hebrew scripture but instead you pick out one of the Sci-Fi NT gospels attributed by tradition to a guy named Luke. Luke who has some credibility issues I've mentioned which you should have recalled from our discussion in regard to Paul never met the character called Yahshua bar Joseph. Anything Luke claims is 3rd, 4th or 5th hand. Whether a guy named Yahshua actually said this or if it was a composite from multiple sources is subject to question. Are you sure you want to start such a disruptive side trip at this point in questioning the authenticity of Luke, whether he actually had crib notes from one of the disciples, whether there were disciples, whether Jesus existed, and whether Yahshua said anything at all that was documented?
See my comments in regard to Luke. John, whoever he was, disciple or not wrote a very different version of events from the hand me down writing of the guy called Luke. Do you really want to go there now?
And then you present quotes from the supposed writing of Paul the Mythmaker. Did you somehow forget what I think of my namesake? I thought I was fairly clear on what I thought of him. Do you need another side trip on this as well?
Since I don't accept any of your "scriptures" you referenced try again as it is not reasonable to make such a conclusion at all.
Google "what is a Jew" and see what you get.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.