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
Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt ( Adam ) and a human rib ( Eve ) ? If not why give credence to this equally ludicrous origin of humanity ?
Following biblical tradition, have paleontologists discovered any human skeletons of "pre-flood" era that would verify the people were living hundreds and hundreds of years ( ie, Methuselah, 900+ years ) as part of their typical life span ? Any forensic discoveries that have verified this utterly biblical assertion ?
It is difficult to do when one hasn't been given evidence.
"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
No problem.
History actually stands against you.
The empires fell but God had nothing to do with their fall. Where was the "stone uncut by human hands" that struck the statue? Oh wait...God's obfuscations to cover for the acts of man, right? Why do you insist on giving God credit for stuff he didn't do?
As for the predictions, a keen student of history can predict the fall of an empire. Or do you really think Babylon was the first empire to fall in human history?
My cards have been on the table while you've been busy marking yours. I gave you a viable interpretation. Others have done the same. You've ignored them and gone on with your interpretation because you don't like the others. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
You can see God's prints all over Daniel? That's not hard to believe. You just need to be more careful handling things with ink on your fingers.
I don't have to prove your position wrong to question it (though as I said I gave you a viable interpretation). If you and your magic man can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe you need to re-evaluate the magic.
"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
The evidence shows the god was either bi-polar or schizophrenic constantly changing his covenants and expectations.
Which is no surprise, considering the origin of the stories is from men,
Seeing rationality in the explanations and stories of one group or culture in ancient times that lacked considerable knowledge of science, the real world, and attributing that what they did not understand to an unseen god indicates you really don't care what is real and what is not. You are most welcome to think the spoon is real.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
gramps......on what scriptural basis do you include only nations of Western Europe? The Roman Empire covered a good deal more territory than is occupied by ten contemporary nations.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
I asked you earlier do you consider the writings of scripture to be true unless proven to be not true and you said:
by no means..........if I did, then the standard atheist "fairies at the bottom of the garden'' jibe, would be justified
However, you continue to puzzle piece fit to justify the beliefs you hold. Such as your claim of prophecies you listed.
If you looked at this in a neutral position you should have taken each OT reference and dissected them listing the possibilities and motivations for the writing. Instead, you proceed to take the hearsay claim from the NT to show it fulfilled the supposed claim.
In many cases the puzzle piece fitting used writing alleged to be David from Psalms that had no relationship at all to any prophecy or messiah expectations. Yet instead of addressing why this had anything to do with a messiah claim, you ignore the questioning of using the prayers/rants/complaints of the writer to his god.
A former priest and fairly famous writer, James Carroll who wrote the book "Constantine's Sword" explains in this book how such things could have happened to create the puzzle piece fitting you so hold dear. Refer to chapter 12 of this book, pp122-134. He calls what occurred after the execution of Jesus by the Romans as a "Healing Circle". What he says is the group was likely in hiding afraid that they too what be executed and in total shock, as the man they thought was the mashiach had been killed. They no doubt consulted scriptures and found things that to them was, "oh look, this is just like Jesus" and so it develops into "history remembered".
You OTOH aren't in need of consoling yourself on the sudden loss of a friend and loved one you thought was the mashiach. You can examine how these supposed prophecies including the highly inappropriate claims of prophecies in the writings of Psalms and see it in the open without puzzle piece fitting. That you don't says, that you really do not consider scripture as you claimed and consider it all to be true unless otherwise proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
With that in mind, we will beat each other senseless from our both very different perspectives and never change the understanding of the other.
As I have said, you can think you are eating steak if you want and think the spoon is real. No, problem at all, feel free it's your 70+ years you will devote, not mine.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
so the events in Daniel occurred even earlier than the predictions written about it? Not possible.
Of course, there is also the problem of the book being put together in the late 2nd century (sorry, I can't help your stance against scholarly consensus) but having various authors. Perhaps Daniels stuff come from his time - the prophesies came later from other hands. That also allows for prophecies after the fact - which is my main contention.
"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
which history ?..... please give examples
your evidence is?
Acts 4:11
He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. '
Acts 4:10-12 (in Context)
1 Peter 2:6
For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
1 Peter 2:5-7
Luke 20:18
Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
Luke 20:17-19 (in Context)
even empires as yet unheard of!!!!!
where?....you've spent all your time trying to diss the real one.
except that your "interpretation" doesn't correspond with the text.
there was a point at which I thought you were above all this 'sky-fairy' bilge.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
which all goes to prove you can't follow evidence when it's stuffed right in front of you.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Funny that, neither you or gramps have come up with a counter, merely insisting that your own interpretation is the best.
You do realize you contradicted yourself, right? Saying I provided no interpretation while saying my interpretation was wrong. never mind, maybe you don't.
You want me to be above "God as sky-fairy"? Prove he's something else. Your descriptions and definitions for him forbid another interpretation.
How about this one instead? Prove that your God is not a construction of the human imagination or start worshipping people. Don't worship the creation, worship the creator. You folk are fond of saying it - just not doing 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
And you don't like evidence that might make you think outside of your interpretation. Why does that scare you so?
"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
Your still just blogging. A few individual kingdoms have been thrown out, but nothing cohesive that makes any sense. Specifically I have challenged YOU to put forth a set of kingdoms that YOU believe can match the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 7. If you believe you already gave me this reference the quote. You say I just ignore kingdoms suggested, I won't ignore the ones you give me now. I am not limiting the possibilities to just the Mediterranean or Europe, you choose. Not only the whole world, but beyond if you please. Now answer my challenge or admit defeat. Show your cards.
Sorry to get so "testy" but you know how all this "farting around" gets on my nerves.
Excellent point JC,
Since Gramps started this thread as "A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths" Proving his god is not a human construct would seem to be the #1 item on his list. That would seem to be the most important thing that Gramps and Freeminer should do. As the other discussions have developed into "I know it's true, it is, it is", because that is my interpretation and we are saying no. it's not, show me the proof and only more interpretation is given, not proof, these discussion will never progress from a deadlock.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
You must be blind. I am proving that God is not a human construct. If God can look into the future than He certainly can not be a human construct. I have shown specifically that the powers shown in Daniel 7 came true just as they were predicted to. This being written in the 3rd century BC could not have been known without divine revelation. I have not said "I know it's true, it is, it is", I have proved it is backed by irrefutable history.
I stopped short with Rome and the breakup of Rome since there was so much crap being thrown around. That is far enough to prove that God is the author of Daniel. Now I have challenged the assertions that there are many interpretations that can fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one.
I have made the challenge to either prove my interpretation does not work, or show me one that does. You can not. That is why all you can do is "fart around". Once again. Put up or Shut up.
the word we use for "puzzle piece" is "exegesis"
were you about to claim a "neutral position"?
the term we use for "hearsay" is "divinely inspired".........and as already pointed out, "eyewitness" is the appropriate word. The reason we haven't come up with alternative rational explanations is simply:
a] there aren't any
b] that was your job.
Jesus didn't have control over whether his clothes were shared out or whether his bones were broken or whether he was ''pierced' or whether he would be buried in a rich man's tomb...... no doubt you'll come up with alternatives.
In many cases the puzzle piece fitting used writing alleged to be David from Psalms that had no relationship at all to any prophecy or messiah expectations. Yet instead of addressing why this had anything to do with a messiah claim, you ignore the questioning of using the prayers/rants/complaints of the writer to his god.
¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
because David wasn't "begotten" perhaps?!
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee
obviously this is the story of, 'King David visits the charity shop!
21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
perhaps David's wine cellar's a bit depleted!
aah! so that's why they thought martyrdom was worthwhile!
which did you have in mind? What d'you mean by 'inappropriate'?
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
And you haven't proved that your god can look into the future. You simply believe that he can. The basis of your belief is an interpretation long after the fact that "God really meant this one empire when he said <x>"
By claiming that interpretations other than your own you consider "crap", you've shown yourself incapable of doing other than ignoring opposing views. I have "put up" as have others. Your reasoning for dismissing them is "Well, they can't be right because...they just CAN'T".
God wrote Daniel? You'd think he'd have the testicular fortitude to stand by his words instead of couching it in symbolism. They haven't come true as a new empire has not reformed as you claim. The EU (the countries you are touting as the reformed Roman Empire) is not an empire. It's not even an impressive trade union as there are much stronger ones out there. Personally, I'm waiting for these "predictions" to be re-interpreted and moved to Asia. china and Japan are easily more bad-ass in commerce than the EU. China also has its own nukes.
"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
Your interpretations of symbolism and allegorical texts, from long ago with translational issues with puzzle piece fitting is not anyway proving your god is not a human construct.
You start with "prove my interpretation does not work". This means it is conjecture and has no basis only "your interpretation".
Prove it, not with assertions of what you think was meant in the text, actual proof. Or do you not have any?
The problem with ancient texts is translation and understanding. What you are doing is "puzzle piece fitting", as was mentioned by James Carroll in "Constantine's Sword" in regard to the "healing circle". All you are showing is you can take vague descriptions which have no names associated with them and bang them into a puzzle to build your constructed proof or interpretation.
This is no different than the Hindus that have equally unsubstantiated texts that are unproveable:
The Hindus also have ancient texts such as the Rig Veda and the Mahabharata. In the Mahahharata it appears there was a war using advanced technology.
see this for a discussion of the Mahabharata - http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/article:alien-presence-during-mahabharata which has a supposed war between 2 advanced groups.
Rig Vida translations - http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/rigintro.asp
Maharharata translation - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm
Summary - http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/files/xeno.mahabsynop.htm
Many have tried to show the Hindu texts have basis in the same manner which you try to show symbolic text from the OT means this or that. It is but conjecture and so are your interpretations.
Because you have a belief the Jesus came to save you and me and died for our sins you seem willing to go to no end to show it has some basis. You are dismissive of possibilities that will disrupt your view and interpretations, such as issues in regards to the Persians and Nabonidus. Opinions are not proof and so far all you have is opinions.
The possibility that Daniel was written in the late 2nd century BCE after all the events that occured is extremely probable. Coupled with the point in 4 Esdras that Ezra rewrote all of the ancient scripture with supposed inspiration from the god (see 4 Esdras 14 -
21: For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.
22: But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.
23: And he answered me, saying, Go thy way, gather the people together, and say unto them, that they seek thee not for forty days.
24: But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly;
25: And come hither, and I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out, till the things be performed which thou shalt begin to write.
26: And when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou shew secretly to the wise: to morrow this hour shalt thou begin to write.
According to this Ezra rewrote or wrote the 1st 5 books attributed to Moses.
See also Nehemiah 8:17 "17 The whole company that had returned from exile built booths and lived in them. From the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Israelites had not celebrated it like this. And their joy was very great."
So what this says is "Sukkot" had never been celebrated, until after Ezra had rewritten the Torah.
See also - http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-wrote-bible.html
Considering all of this, it is upon you to prove as asked, that your god is not a human construct.
Opinions and interpretations using translations of dubious accuracy and symbolisim is not proof.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Temper tantrum.
I am not advocating science. I am just asking to use proper definitions for science and not science.
If there will be a strogn evidence that the theory of evolution does not work, then scientists will move over to a new theory.
Now, how about you? What if we find out there were no Jesus? Would you move to another religion??? If not, then any religious "thoery" including creationism is not scientific by definition.
Also, I AM NOT SAYING THAT CREATIONISM IS WRONG. I AM SAYING IT IS NOT SCIENCE. If it is science, you should be prepared to change religion.
I call it slamming square pegs in round holes.
Putting words in my mouth now are you?
definition - hearsay-dictionary.com
hear·say
/ˈhɪərˌseɪ/ [heer-sey]
–noun
1.unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective
3.of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.
Origin:
1525–35; orig. in phrase by hear say, trans. of MF par ouïr dire
—Synonyms
1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
definition eyewitness =
eye·wit·ness
noun \ˈī-ˈwit-nəs\
Definition of EYEWITNESS
: one who sees an occurrence or an object; especially : one who gives a report on what he or she has seen
The problem I have with considering anything written in the writing called the Gospels as an "eyewitness" account is the lack of verification, the annonymous nature of the writing, the lack of an actual copy of the original writing, the conflict between the writing of the various Gospels, and unrealistic events claimed in such writing.
Next, Luke and Mark were not "eyewitnesses" even by the Church's claims.
Whether the writers of Matthew and John were "eyewitnesses" can't be shown to be true.
a) there are always alternative explanations.
b)It's not my claim to prove that your God, prophecies and claims are real, it's your place to do that.
definition - dictionary.com - divinely
di·vine
/dɪˈvaɪn/ [dih-vahyn] adjective, -vin·er, -vin·est, noun, verb, -vined, -vin·ing.
–adjective
1.of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
6.Informal . extremely good; unusually lovely: He has the most divine tenor voice.
7.being a god; being God: a divine person.
8.of superhuman or surpassing excellence: Beauty is divine.
9.Obsolete . of or pertaining to divinity or theology.
–noun
10.a theologian; scholar in religion.
11.a priest or member of the clergy.
12.the Divine,
a.God.
b.( sometimes lowercase ) the spiritual aspect of humans; the group of attributes and qualities of humankind regarded as godly or godlike.
–verb (used with object)
13.to discover or declare (something obscure or in the future) by divination; prophesy.
14.to discover (water, metal, etc.) by means of a divining rod.
15.to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.
16.Archaic . to portend.
–verb (used without object)
17.to use or practice divination; prophesy.
18.to have perception by intuition or insight; conjecture.
Origin:
1275–1325; ME < L dīvīnus, equiv. to dīv ( us ) god + -īnus -ine1 ; r. ME devin ( e ) < OF devin < L, as above
—Related forms
di·vin·a·ble, adjective
di·vine·ly, adverb
di·vine·ness, noun
half-di·vine, adjective
half-di·vine·ly, adverb
pre·di·vin·a·ble, adjective
pseu·do·di·vine, adjective
sub·di·vine, adjective
sub·di·vine·ly, adverb
sub·di·vine·ness, noun
su·per·di·vine, adjective
un·di·vin·a·ble, adjective
un·di·vined, adjective
un·di·vin·ing, adjective
—Synonyms
13, 17. foretell, predict, foresee, forecast. 15, 18. discern, understand.
—Antonyms
5. worldly, mundane.
definition dictionary.com - inspired
in·spired
/ɪnˈspaɪərd/ [in-spahyuhrd]
–adjective
1.aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something, by or as if by supernatural or divine influence: an inspired poet.
2.resulting from such inspiration: an inspired poem; an inspired plan.
3.inhaled: inspired air.
So, to show prophecy, one goes through a book and finds anything that has clothes being taken, bones broken, stabbing with a spear, or burial in a rich man's tomb and claim that it is a prophecy.
Clothes taken - Ezekiel 16:39 -"Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare."
Since Yahshua was stripped and left naked to die on the cross, this verse is clearly prophecy.
bones broken - Lamentations 3::4- "He has made my skin and my flesh grow old and has broken my bones."
Jesus' bones weren't broken but the other 2 executed had their legs broken so this verse is clearly prophecy.
stabbed with a spear - Numbers 25:8 - "and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman's body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped;"
An Israelite was run through with a spear so this is clear prophecy that Yahshua would be as well.
buried in a rich man's tomb - 2 Chron 16:14 -"They buried him in the tomb that he had cut out for himself in the City of David. They laid him on a bier covered with spices and various blended perfumes, and they made a huge fire in his honor."
Asa was buried in a rich man's or kingly tomb with spices and perfume so it was foretold here that Jesus would be as well.
I think I get the hang of this prophecy thing now, find anything with a word or two and then construe it to be a prophecy with something else in the future from the writing but in our own past.
David was so wonderful many who knew him found themselves in an early grave. Clearly the way to win hearts and minds.
So it's up to you to prove exactly who was executed for belief in the Jesus as the messiah and who executed the supposed early disciples. Clearly many Jews are executed for rebellion against Rome, so you must show that these disciple Jews if executed were executed only for Jesus belief and not for rebellion against Rome as thousands of Jews were.
Inappropriate definition =
: not appropriate : unsuitable — in·ap·pro·pri·ate·ly adverb— in·ap·pro·pri·ate·ness noun For Example: A quote that is claimed to be prophecy pulled from Psalms written by David allegedly should be understood in context of the chapter in which it was located. In addition, if a time period can be associated with the writing or events, it should be taken into account as well. Pulling a sentence out of context from David's supposed writing in Psalms, someone who was never claimed to be a prophet even in the Hebrew Bible and calling it prophecy is a bit of a stretch and excessive grasping for anything to attempt to cram into the puzzle.One can find a sentence here and there and paste it all together to prove any claim you'd like. You should go into politics.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
so you admit to not being neutral but think that others should be?!
It only seems fair that we should examine your 'alternative' interpretation.
you are deluded.........your eternal welfare is not my responsibility.......I've already more than done my job. The Bible says you must prove God for yourself.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
nope, just asking questions you have no answer for.
point out where I've misdefined it.
such as? What do you mean by "does not work".........irrational speculation can be piled up endlessly. Great swathes of sedimentary layers across whole continents are termed "local floods" by evolutionists..........that's the level of your rationality!
you live in a bubble of your own making in which you isolate "science" and delude yourself that it covers the whole of human experience..........it doesn't come close. If it did, you would be chemically determined and I'd be certainly wasting my time instead of just probably.
why should it be ?.......the idea is based on the flawed presupposition that empiricism is the only sort of truth when any half educated person knows it isn't even truth.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
it's a question of rationality..........nothing else.......where is this "evidence" of an alternative interpretation?
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Again, that's been given. I'm too ill to reinvent the wheel for you yet again.
Rationality would not hold the position that God himself wrote the book (as Gramster does). it would also hold off for evidence that would incontrovertibly point to God. As long as other explanations exist and make sense, why jump straight to a deity?
"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 KINGDOM
so we all agreed on the first kingdom.
SECOND KINGDOM
gramps then said:
you then said:
you also said:
so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!
Daniel says:
where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is?
Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:
these were:
1] Cambyses 530-522 BC
2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC
3] Darius 1 522-486 BC
4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.
gramps said:
you said:
Daniel says:
where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is?
Furthermore Daniel 11 say:
ie. Alexander the Great.
then Daniel 11 says:
the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west.
the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC. The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.
the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.
His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.
The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.
the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.
he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands - Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at Magnesia in Asia Minor in 190 BC. Stumble and fall - Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.
His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed - Seleucus was the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus.
Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus, later to become Demetrius I, was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest, Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor 181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.
Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.
Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.
Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes.
those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.
but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!
FOURTH KINGDOM
gramps said:
you said:
so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:
Daniel says:
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
you are clearly in a world of your own..........we've seen zilch evidence of anything from you. Atheists assume rationality like a fish assumes water.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
firstly, they haven't all occurred, secondly, I've already demonstrated via the Septuagint that it isn't even a vague possibility.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
I never even hinted that some empire called EU was the next great empire to follow the Roman Empire. I don't even believe that. Once again you are arguing with something I never said. I pointed out from historical evidence that there were 10 kingdoms specifically referred to that arouse from the remnants of the Roman Empire. Three of these were wiped out as predicted. The other seven are still with us today as predicted. If you are looking for a great empire that followed Rome you haven't read the text very well.
As for considering other interpretations "crap", I'm still waiting for one. You don't have one. That's why you're still stalling.
As for God not having the "testicular fortitude" not to use symbolic language, I already addressed that. He had the wisdom to use symbolism. It is YOU that lack the "testicular fortitude" to actually address these prophecies. That is why you are stalling. So let's have it WEASEL BOY!
The only kingdoms or powers I see mentioned here are China and Japan. If these are the countries in your interpretation you will need to explain.
So PLEASE QUIT STALLING AND ACTUALLY PUT UP! If there are "other interpretations" that can fit the prophecies in Daniel 7 let's have one. There are none. So either put up or admit defeat.
You should definitely go into politics, you have the right personality.
The correct method to use is the standard Faux News line-
"Some people say....."
Preaching will not get you any reply.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Then where is the question mark?
lol
Or is it because you are already convinced that your questions cannot be answered? I think specialists in psychiatry can help me to find a medical term for this.
You attempt to explain physical world and phenomena by idealistic concepts. It may work only if you confine your conclusions to poetry or something alike.
By "does not work" I mean there is material evidence that contradicts the theory. Then we need a new theory. Is it too difficult for you to understand?
So, please answer my simple question: is there ANYTHING that would lead you to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist? Yes or no?
I suggest you re-read your posts before posting. I don't understand what you are talking about. Your English is too bad.
BTW,
Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?
*[start lesson]*
Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.
Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.
You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.
You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.
In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*
My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.
As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp
The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.
However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE
____________________________________________________________
"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 already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.
Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Oh you kindhearted man. Thank you for stooping down to enlighten the wicked and degenerate infidels here at RRS. ( I never realized that simply bickering with atheists on a message board constituted fulfilling your Christian duty, though. )
I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.
Possibly.
However, that's not what freeminer is doing.
Personally, I think "lack of belief in any gods" precludes "I'm a Christian but I still have questions".
I realize that Christianity doesn't like people asking questions but I wouldn't kick people out if they did. Shame on you if you would.
"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
Let's consider what Freeminer has said in this thread for example:
This would suggest he's not one.
Seems to be taking a side here.
It seems he considers the Bible to have 'signs' where 'we may discern the times'. That sounds a bit theistic to me.
OK, this is admission to believing in a god.
What more is needed to reclassify him???
He believes Jesus established the "kingdom of god"
Does this sound like an atheist??
He believes in prophets and prophecies. He believes the Bible predicts what people will say. He believes the current signs are of the latter days.
Is this the views of an atheist???
He claims Daniel is a prophet.
He considers the fear of god to be the beginning of knowledge.
He claims the ministry of Jesus brought in the kingdom of god and it was all foretold.
Does Freeminer need to be baptized on You Tube and post a link to be reclassified to a Theist or what???
There's a lot more he has posted that shows he is a theist.
If he is not a theist and is an atheist he is a Troll.
One last quote.
Please reclassify Freeminer.
Luminon got changed for his woo-woo spiritual ideas, this one has expressed his beliefs in a god in many places.
Thanks.
____________________________________________________________
"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 don't know, pjts.
There's something kind of refreshing about him posting his crap and having a badge that screams "I'M A LIAR" while he does it.
Well, it gives me a good laugh anyway. Especially when he insists on keeping 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
In fairness though, Lumionon argued and whined and still was labeled a theist though he believes in woo-woo not a god.
Though I see your point, his badge says, I don't believe in no god, yet he posts beliefs in one.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
hmm... Maybe Lumi should get a woo-woo badge. Perhaps we need more options.
"doing my job"..........when you call a plumber, is he "stooping down to enlighten you"? What oddly perverted thought forms you trail around. Jesus commissioned his people to preach the gospel, to inform and seek to convince. You "bicker" if you want to.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
you can always tell when you nail an atheist because he starts whining about irrelevancies, trying to create diversions and looking for an escape route!
Does this mean we won't be treated to your own paradigms backed by "evidence"? What a shame! I'm sure gramps was looking forward to it as much as I was.
the other thing the atheist does is to flail around using terms like "goat herders", "insignificant", "bronze age" "ignorant" and "illiterate".........in short, they suddenly develop an inexplicable enthusiasm for demonstrating their own ignorance of history! You probably haven't noticed, but the world doesn't currently regard Israel as "an insignificant country"! This is just as well since it is presently engaged in an attempt [as prophesied - I can give references] to "divide the land". This process has implications because unfortunately God has a territorial side to him and has voiced certain objections which those purporting to do it don't appear to have noticed.
ok, we could take a serious look at the "scam" hypothesis, since the OT is claimed to be the history of the Jewish nation. Let's start by establishing the detail of your idea. Are you saying Jews have no genuine history at all or that only 'bits' are true? I think we need you to delineate "the scam" before we start. Presumably Moses is your prime suspect..........it would be good to nail him because Jesus said, "if you don't believe the words of Moses, how will you believe my words?" Presumably Joshua and all the subsequent judges of Israel were in on this as well ! So they were all liars to a man, whether or not they were Levites and had anything to gain! So, huge swathes [at least] of Jewish history are fabrication and they couldn't find one honest cove [like your good self] to challenge the deluded nation! Please set out your argument.
you see?..........I just knew the word "ignorance" would crop up before very long! It would appear that Daniel evinced certain administrative skills since he was apparently trusted in this role. A reasonable inference would be that he possessed an average or above level of intelligence. "Ignorance" is about knowledge. The theme of the book is that God gave Daniel certain knowledge which we wouldn't possess otherwise. The claim is that it does indeed encompass more than the immediate events around Babylon; that it covers events up to the present day and beyond which affect all mankind. I thought it was the very scope claimed which is at the heart of your objection!
ah! "ancient"..........yes, I forgot that.......yes, along with "fable"... ....that's another. Atheists seem to exist on a diet of cliches. I thought the purpose of the exercise was, by the application of the "rationality" so much vaunted on this site, to elucidate who is being "scammed" and by whom. However, such reasoning powers as you possessed appear to have formed a gelatinous blob on the floor.
did you know that the last words of every deluded fool disappearing into Hell are, "I consider"? I think both you and I would be unable to prove the precise extent of Daniel's geographical knowledge. My own opinion, based on a Biblical take on anthropology, is that knowledge was far more extensive than is given credit for. However, you appear not to have grasped the nature of the book. Firstly, the Biblical claim is not that these are Daniel's ideas but were given by God. You might at least have the sense to assess it on the basis of the actual claim it makes rather than claims you make up for it. Secondly, the prophecies were, as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel. I'm sorry that it doesn't fulfill your appetite for things Chinese but that's because China doesn't have a role until the 'last days' and we haven't got there yet.
we await the elucidation of your "scam" case. The vastness of the earth is indeed included.
yes, that'll be the one leg then. Can we deal with the fourth kingdom now?
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
crumbs!!!!!............ d'you mean the label 'atheist' is synonymous with 'liar'?!
..........you'll get kicked out mate!
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
yep, I can do pedantry too - an implied question, like a rhetorical one, won't have one.
be my guest.
kill two birds with one stone and get yourself diagnosed at the same time.
please give examples.
A man has a theory that there are fairies at the bottom of his garden. He has no material evidence which contradicts it. Thus his theory holds good.
no
"thoery".....is spelt: t-h-e-o-r-y. Strong........is spelt: s-t-r-o-n-g and in English, in this context we would say,"if evolution were to be", not, "if evolution will be"...........but I'm sure your Spanish is better than mine!
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Now you're bickering over having been shown to be bickering.
Keep it up, even with my "oddly perverted thought forms" I can tell that you are genuinely concerned with my soul, although based upon the passive-aggressive tone of some of your comments I haven't been able to figure out whether you actually want it to go to Heaven or prefer it to burn in Hell.
I did not ask what humans were constituted of but how they were created. You reject "atheistic" evolution as scientifically invalid and instead prefer your supernatural creation scenario.
Were Adam and Eve really magically created ( as adults ) by the intervening hand of God ? And you can prove this, how ? I suspect that scientific evidence in support of this theory is hard to come by.
I'm still interested in seeing scientific evidence ( link ? ) that verifies that antediluvian humans frequently lived 700, 800, or almost a thousand years before dying.
When the badge is attached to an obvious Christian, yes it implies that you (and you alone) are lying. But I think you understand that - your conscience is just seared to it.
I'm glad you dig the joke - either you're a poe and a good one or you just dig lying for Jesus. That's Ok - the creator of your religion was good at it also.
"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