Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

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.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:grampa

gramster wrote:

grampa wrote:

Playing Dodge Ball Again. I asked a simple question. You dodged it and made an unproven statement. A half truth if you please.

grandpa}

I would like to know what power you personally would list as the next successive to "Rome". You don't like mine, but have not come up with an alternative that you think works better.

You are semi-correct in your allegation. However, that was an age of united church/state powers. The church often controlled the people and their governments with near absolute power. The "apostate" church emerged dominant for centuries over vast teritories in the region.

Also you did not give a reference as to where in Daniel you read that this power was an "imperial power". Please provide this to support your claim.

Since this church/state power that existed following the fall of Rome persecuted and murdered Christians by the millions it would likely be included in prophecies about events affecting "God's people" down to the end of time.


Still waiting for your answer. [/quote wrote:

 

gadfly wrote:

You asked a question in response to a question I didn't ask. I don't feel a need to answer straw men.

I don't think there is a fitting successor to the Roman Empire in the prophecy because I don't think the passages are prophecy.  I don't need to jam the popes into a situation where they don't belong.  Why are you placing them in a prophecy when the supposed prophet knew nothing of them? Oh yeah..."interpretations change to fit what the interpreter needs.

This is just you backpedaling from a position you held until you were shown it to be untenable. 

Christians murdering Christians is also not as much of a problem for me as it is for you. Thought you guys were on the same team - you worship the same God.

grandpa wrote:

First of all, there is no problem with a "prophet" naming a power  they know nothing of. That's what makes it "prophecy".

Second, you are still playing dodge ball. If you were to name a successor to "Rome", just what government, empire, or power would you name?

If you are going to disagree with the power I name, you need to have a better alternative.

I think you are just stalling, and hoping someone will come to your rescue.

gadfly wrote:

As soon as you name a power that succeeded Rome in the sense that the passage in Daniel meant (The prior powers were military and imperial. No reason to imply the power was ecumenical or financial - that's just you swinging that sledgehammer around. ) I'll dispute it with you - the Popes held no power in the sense that the prophecy states. Then again, it is prophecy and it can mean what you want it to mean.

Quit making it so damned easy. I don't have to name a successor to make your prophecy fit to tell you that your prophecy is bunk - I'm not doing your homework for you. 

gramster who doesn't know what question he asks wrote:

If it is "so damned easy" than why do you have so much trouble answering my question? If a power (like Rome) was not succeeded by another military or imperial power, than a true and correct prophecy would not prophecy one. If instead it were broken up into separate governments, and the only significant unified power were to be ecuminical or financial than a correct prophecy would indicate this.

Sorry you can't handle the fact the The Roman Empire was not conquered by another great empire. That's just history as the prophecy accurately predicted.

I still believe you are just stalling hoping that PJTS or someone else will come to your rescue and bail you out on this one.

Man Up! and learn to fight your own battles.

 

Still making it too damned easy. Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say that Papal Rome is the empire that succeeded the Roman Empire. Now you say that no empire succeeded Rome.

Make up your mind please. Put the sledgehammer down and back away. It's hard to answer your question when you keep vacillating.

If we are playing dodge ball you need to stop - you've been hit in the head way too many times.

 

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 If you want other empires,

 If you want other empires, OK.

The Franks, the Goths, the dynasties that were set up during the Byzantine empire's decline, the Ottomans.

Do I think any of them fit your prophecy? They fit your prophecy at least as well as you think the popes do. 

You just need it to be Rome so badly that you will make the interpretation fit. How many heads have you put on that sledgehammer?

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:If a power

gramster wrote:

If a power (like Rome) was not succeeded by another military or imperial power, than a true and correct prophecy would not prophecy one. If instead it were broken up into separate governments, and the only significant unified power were to be ecuminical or financial than a correct prophecy would indicate this.

Sorry you can't handle the fact the The Roman Empire was not conquered by another great empire. That's just history as the prophecy accurately predicted.

Actually, the Roman Empire, Eastern part was conquered by another great power, the Ottoman Turks technically.

The empire abandoned the Western part and concentrated only in the East. They considered themselves to be Rome. See Warren Treadgold " A History of the Byzantine State and Society". The name Byzantine Empire was not used by them as they considered themselves Rome.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Well, at least you can give your views without them being deleted or banned, can't you Gramps?

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ rio...~... My beliefs do not come from some kind of SEE. Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience. Which you dismiss at your own peril.

......~ rip   ..... ~

Do you have a research study to support your claim that most Christians believe based upon study, reason, and validated personal experience?

Most Catholics do a minimal amount of this based on my personal experiences  and they are the largest group of"Christians" or they claim to be "Christians" anyway, though you may see Catholics as the servants of Satan.

Personal experiences can be interesting, mine suggest far different than your conclusions though. Perilous? Hmm!

....~ rip ~ ......

Yes, I have also noticed that Catholics often do a minimal of this. As also many protestants. There are also many Christians who "study and reason" daily throughout their lives. There are also many Atheists who do no study into this at all. I would not want to paint any of these groups with a wide brush as you tend to do.

pjts wrote:

I asked you for a research study to support your claim that " Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience." and instead you say I paint them with a wide brush.

In your statement above, you alleged that in your own experience most Catholics/Christians "do a minimal amount of this" (based on your personal experience).

I have not seen any research study to back up your statement. You gave your "opinion" based upon your "observation", and I gave mine. Now you are asking for a research study on "my observations". Sorry, nobody has ever done any extensive research into "the observations of old gramps".

Maybe you have one on the observations of "Paul John the Skeptic".

Sometimes you just out do yourself. You never cease to amaze me.

pjts wrote:

There were several points to be discussed here and I was just checking to see if you would notice.

1- You claimed "...like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason.." for your beliefs.

2- You also claimed"...validated by personal experience" as one of your reasons for belief.

3- My comment was clearly defined as my opinion "Most Catholics do a minimal amount of this based on my personal experiences...."

In your statement, this called for proof and I asked for a research study. You could have come back and stated in the same way I did, that it was your opinion "most Christians" did this based on personal observation. But your statement did not so indicate that view.

When you said "validated by personal experience" I'm aware of what that meant and it was not indicating that you observed most Christians basing their beliefs on study, reason, .... but meant you have had some sort of experience that you consider to be supernatural, unexplainable in normal reality, or some sort of intervention by an unseen entity.

And Gramps, I indicated as you noted that my statement was an opinion. Perhaps this misunderstanding is due to your education from an early time back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.  I went to school in the "Wild West".

No need to dwell on this as I was doing a Cpt Pineapple on you is all. You made an unsupported statement so I immediately asked for a research study.

I do not believe that there was anything in this discussion that would lead one to believe that my statements were anything rather than my opinions or observations. When you don't like my opinions you like to "throw out" this kind of garbage. I'm not quite sure just what kind of "kick" you get out of it, but it must be pretty satisfying.

 

I like to see if you can back up your statements.

There is no "kick" involved with a discussion with you.

gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Once again you misunderstood. You claimed that I was a poor little orphan with 1 shoe, so I gave you the opportunity to do the Christian thing by donating to the RRS. Brian would no doubt insure that I got a new pair of shoes with your contribution.

I have no idea if you have ever belonged to Christian forums or not. The discussion we are having would never be allowed to take place on one of those because of the views expressed by the likes of me and Jcgadfly. They limit discussion such that no attack on scripture is allowed, no doubts can be expressed on beliefs, and ban those who express dissent. I know this as I have been kicked off several theist's forums as have many other non-believers. So, what you have here on RRS, is a place that even your view as a believer can be expressed without fear of being banned or silenced.

Isn't that what America has always been about Gramps, the freedom of speech?

You should support the RRS for the reason that it is one of the few places where you can freely express yourself without your posts being deleted or you being banned.

Or to just buy me a pair of shoes.

I have not been much involved in any Christian forums so I do not know first hand about this. There are many different sites and forums each with it's own purpose, method of operation, and mission. If a site or forum promotes open discussion, in my opinion, pretty much all comments made should be included. And people should not be banned for disagreeing.

Some rules would be reasonable. Like the "killing them with kindness" section on this sites expectation for respectful dialog. There may also be sites for new believers that want a pastor's perspective. But on a site that promotes the open discussion of issues, this should be open to all.

I do believe in freedom of speech, and appreciate this site for that. I will have to think about this one as it presents quite a quandary. A site that exists primarily to discredit the belief in God and also offers unrestricted freedom of expression.

One would hope that there would be at least one Christian site that exists for the purpose of open discussion on the relevant issues that does not ban one for not agreeing with them.

Theist sites don't like or entertain "open discussion". They consider what we do to be blasphemy and insulting. They should read more and follow the Jesus character's lead. Too bad they don't, the world would be better for it. As Gandhi said, ""Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Our discussion on Daniel is interesting in that it shows how far someone will go to grasp meaning in ancient texts to validate their beliefs. This discussion would not occur on any theist site. If you think so, go try it by taking my view and see how long it takes for you to be banned.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Devil's Advocate

 

pjts wrote:

Theist sites don't like or entertain "open discussion". They consider what we do to be blasphemy and insulting. They should read more and follow the Jesus character's lead. Too bad they don't, the world would be better for it. As Gandhi said, ""Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Our discussion on Daniel is interesting in that it shows how far someone will go to grasp meaning in ancient texts to validate their beliefs. This discussion would not occur on any theist site. If you think so, go try it by taking my view and see how long it takes for you to be banned.

Actually I have thought of "playing the devil's advocate", and arguing against my own beliefs. This would be a very interesting venture. I would not have time to do this now, but sometime in the not too distant future maybe I can.

Do you have any sites to recommend?

Now regarding a donation to RSS. Anything substantial (over $25,000) would get the attention and dissaproval of "grams". She wants me to curb tendencies towards substantial donations. A small contribution is still not an issue that I have completely "hashed out" in my own mind.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Gramster

The easiest one to get kicked off would be on CARM. If you go there and challenge them by suggesting the Daniel is Sci-Fi, you probably can get dumped very quick. They have many discussions in process and I'm sure you can found one this time of year dealing with the myths of the Birth of the Jesus.

As to donating to the RRS, you can be a Bronze member for $3 per month, a silver member for $10 or a gold member for $25 per month. You can donate any amount you would like as well as one time donations.

They are not tax deductible however.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
CARM and Taxes

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The easiest one to get kicked off would be on CARM. If you go there and challenge them by suggesting the Daniel is Sci-Fi, you probably can get dumped very quick. They have many discussions in process and I'm sure you can found one this time of year dealing with the myths of the Birth of the Jesus.

As to donating to the RRS, you can be a Bronze member for $3 per month, a silver member for $10 or a gold member for $25 per month. You can donate any amount you would like as well as one time donations.

They are not tax deductible however.

Took a little time to check out CARM. Yes, this does look like an interesting place for me to do this. I'll wait until I get finished with the "Daniel Thing" here to do this.

As for the donations, I really don't like the monthly "nickel and dime" method, and certainly would not want to be identified as a member. A one time mid range would be more likely. Not to say that I have decided that this is something I am OK with.

Not worried about the tax deductible thing. I agree with Warren Buffet on the tax issue. A healthy economy would be a far greater benefit than the relatively small burden of paying a little more in taxes. Greed and selfishness always ends up being counter productive and harmful in the long term.

Now I'd better get back to business on the "Daniel Thing". 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
CARM

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The easiest one to get kicked off would be on CARM. If you go there and challenge them by suggesting the Daniel is Sci-Fi, you probably can get dumped very quick. They have many discussions in process and I'm sure you can found one this time of year dealing with the myths of the Birth of the Jesus.

As to donating to the RRS, you can be a Bronze member for $3 per month, a silver member for $10 or a gold member for $25 per month. You can donate any amount you would like as well as one time donations.

They are not tax deductible however.

Took a little time to check out CARM. Yes, this does look like an interesting place for me to do this. I'll wait until I get finished with the "Daniel Thing" here to do this.

As for the donations, I really don't like the monthly "nickel and dime" method, and certainly would not want to be identified as a member. A one time mid range would be more likely. Not to say that I have decided that this is something I am OK with.

Not worried about the tax deductible thing. I agree with Warren Buffet on the tax issue. A healthy economy would be a far greater benefit than the relatively small burden of paying a little more in taxes. Greed and selfishness always ends up being counter productive and harmful in the long term.

Now I'd better get back to business on the "Daniel Thing". 

 

If you go to CARM and act like an atheist or just a very divergent believer let us know what happens. You could take the gnostic position for example where the god of the Jews, creator god and the god of the Jesus aren't the same. They won't like that. Or you can just take an atheist position and see how long they tolerate you.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Re #1334

pjts wrote:

Ambrose and Augustine OTOH believed the god approved of force to make people believe so you disagree with these church fathers it seems.

Yes, unlike some people I do not worship or view any man as if they were more than just a mere human being. Excepting Jesus Christ who has been shown to be. Which is another discussion altogether.

pjts wrote:

I'd rather not spend my time kissing butt 24/7 and being around the lovey dovey prudish believers that have no life but for an imaginary self appointed dictator.

Sounds like bigotry with a healthy dose of angst thrown in. I find that most Christians live a very full and satisfying existence. But than I do not view the world with slime covered glasses.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Along the way some kings, rulers, and other figures are mentioned as they relate to the stories being told.

pjts wrote:

Not unusual at all for storytelling or fiction, add a few names or places to give the story supposed basis in the real world so that the reader buys into the story, forgery, lies or deceptions that will be forthcoming.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Not all of the kings and notable figures in Babylon are mentioned, as this is not a book about the history of Babylon.

pjts wrote:

Yep, keep it minimal or someone might determine it was either a forged book or a story telling adventure. Though it still seeps out at you when you study it.

Plenty of details are included. Exactly the details one would expect to be included in the situations involved. But to expect a written account of an event to be written like "The History of Babylon" is not rational.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

The following is a summary of the powers foretold as I have detailed in earlier posts.

1. Babylon

2. "Medo-Persia" As it was seen by the author with both Median and Persian influence and heritage.

3 "The Grecian Kingdom" Alexander the Great's kingdom and it's 4 divisions that followed.

4. Rome.

5. Papal Rome or the holy Roman Empire.

pjts wrote:

This is an assertion with only a limited discussion where you indicated that the RCC forced people to go through the Church and took away going directly to the Jesus character, related to taking way the sacrifices we discussed.

This is a subject all of it's own. Briefly, Jesus was called "the lamb of God" because He was the ultimate and final sacrifice that all the others pointed to. He is our sacrifice. We are directed to go directly to Him for forgiveness of sin. For a religious power to tell people that they need to go to a human being for the forgiveness of their sins instead of going directly to Jesus "obscures" the now current "daily" sacrifice. That being Jesus.

pjts wrote:

You have not shown that papal Rome was a power in your interpolated deciphering.

You have never gone through a detailed discussion on the Holy Roman Empire.

This is a summary. You will need to go back to the earlier posts for "detailed discussions". This would no longer be a summary were I to go back over everything in detail.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

6. Divided Europe

pjts wrote:

Still waiting on the details of how unrelated tribes to the Jews have any pertinence on them and how later European countries are interpolated into the sketchy text of Daniel.

Already gave the details. I have also already discussed the relevance of the later European countries. You keep trying to insert thinly veiled "circular reasoning" into this discussion. Were the Book of Daniel to have been written in the 2nd century BC without divine guidance, you would be right to say there is no relevance here. But that would be making an assumption that the very topic under debate has already been proven.

Really man. Do you have to play unfairly to "win"? I would not want to play poker with you!

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Something to consider.

Not one single historical error has been proven to exist in the whole book of Daniel. This is amazing since one cannot say the same about any of the historians who wrote about this period in all of BC history.

There have been many allegations, but none, no not one holds water when examined closely.

pjts wrote:

That's because you bought the premise in the story telling and are in a "dimension of never was and never will be". You dismiss all because to admit fault perhaps will cause you to be eternally damned (at least in your mind, though that's the only place it will ever occur).

You counter by claiming that these things aren't important, and you made excuses for everything as you dodged setting foot in the real world.

Actually I have gone over every single claim in detail. And there remains not a single proven historical error. No excuses needed.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

I do not believe a 2nd century BC Jewish author could have possibly accomplished that. He would certainly have made at least one historical error that could be proven to be an error indeed. Not just something that can be "questioned".

pjts wrote:

You can't see past the end of your nose due to your mind being unable to really grasp how the points made were completely detrimental to your self deception. You can't see what is really there or not because it will self destruct your world.

Blog, Blog! but no substance.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

As I have shown, one does not have to make excuses for the author, shift time lines, skew events, etc for the above interpretation. One only need to simply take a look into the history of the past 2600 or so years to realize the accuracy of these prophecies.

pjts wrote:

Never the less, that's is exactly what you have done throughout this thread. I will detail each and every dodge and excuse you made in my summary.

You do that!

gramster post #1324 wrote:

The powers 1 through 6 has happened just as predicted. Only #7 is left. At that time God will appear, and you will have your "proof positive" that will not be explained away.

pjts wrote:

You have yet to go through #5 and 6 in detail, you have made assertions.

Details were given in the original discussions. Once again, this is a summary.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Papal Rome or the HRE?

 Papal Rome or the HRE? Which is it?

One loosely fits what you claim is prophecy, the other not at all.

Going to include the Doges of Venice next?

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:pjts

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Ambrose and Augustine OTOH believed the god approved of force to make people believe so you disagree with these church fathers it seems.

Yes, unlike some people I do not worship or view any man as if they were more than just a mere human being. Excepting Jesus Christ who has been shown to be. Which is another discussion altogether.

The Jesus has not  shown to be anything other than a character in some 2000 year old writings. When you say "shown to be", that is a statement that suggests it has been proved. That is not the case.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

I'd rather not spend my time kissing butt 24/7 and being around the lovey dovey prudish believers that have no life but for an imaginary self appointed dictator.

Sounds like bigotry with a healthy dose of angst thrown in. I find that most Christians live a very full and satisfying existence. But than I do not view the world with slime covered glasses.

The supposed afterlife in the NT indicates the god is the king. Kings are dictators and are not subject to question.

Please don't use the "most people say" line on me, "I find that most Christians".

First off, all you see is the social church person. You have no idea whatever the family person is, and for sure, the secret person they never show anyone else. On rare occasions, the hidden person sneaks out and is caught doing drugs with a male hooker even though they condemned such behavior with fervent fiery language.

My statement was fairly simple, if heaven includes serving a dictator with a group of zombies then I rather not. Though this isn't a real problem as it is all based in the "land of fantasy" and does not exist as a possibility anyway.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Along the way some kings, rulers, and other figures are mentioned as they relate to the stories being told.

pjts wrote:

Not unusual at all for storytelling or fiction, add a few names or places to give the story supposed basis in the real world so that the reader buys into the story, forgery, lies or deceptions that will be forthcoming.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Not all of the kings and notable figures in Babylon are mentioned, as this is not a book about the history of Babylon.

pjts wrote:

Yep, keep it minimal or someone might determine it was either a forged book or a story telling adventure. Though it still seeps out at you when you study it.

Plenty of details are included. Exactly the details one would expect to be included in the situations involved. But to expect a written account of an event to be written like "The History of Babylon" is not rational.

 

Details are included in many works of storytelling. This does not make the writing to have validity or factual based.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

The following is a summary of the powers foretold as I have detailed in earlier posts.

1. Babylon

2. "Medo-Persia" As it was seen by the author with both Median and Persian influence and heritage.

3 "The Grecian Kingdom" Alexander the Great's kingdom and it's 4 divisions that followed.

4. Rome.

5. Papal Rome or the holy Roman Empire.

pjts wrote:

This is an assertion with only a limited discussion where you indicated that the RCC forced people to go through the Church and took away going directly to the Jesus character, related to taking way the sacrifices we discussed.

This is a subject all of it's own. Briefly, Jesus was called "the lamb of God" because He was the ultimate and final sacrifice that all the others pointed to. He is our sacrifice. We are directed to go directly to Him for forgiveness of sin. For a religious power to tell people that they need to go to a human being for the forgiveness of their sins instead of going directly to Jesus "obscures" the now current "daily" sacrifice. That being Jesus.

pjts wrote:

You have not shown that papal Rome was a power in your interpolated deciphering.

You have never gone through a detailed discussion on the Holy Roman Empire.

This is a summary. You will need to go back to the earlier posts for "detailed discussions". This would no longer be a summary were I to go back over everything in detail.

 

I was pointing out a place where you did minimal explanation in your Roman theory. Feel free to ignore it if you want.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

6. Divided Europe

pjts wrote:

Still waiting on the details of how unrelated tribes to the Jews have any pertinence on them and how later European countries are interpolated into the sketchy text of Daniel.

Already gave the details. I have also already discussed the relevance of the later European countries. You keep trying to insert thinly veiled "circular reasoning" into this discussion. Were the Book of Daniel to have been written in the 2nd century BC without divine guidance, you would be right to say there is no relevance here. But that would be making an assumption that the very topic under debate has already been proven.

Really man. Do you have to play unfairly to "win"? I would not want to play poker with you!

OK then, if that's all you have on the relationship of Europe to the Jews its all you have.

How am I playing unfair with you?

Win what? There was something to win here? What was the prize? We both understood a long time back that neither of us was going to change our views. So how does one win something here?

People will see what they choose in our discussion.

They will either see there was prophecy in Daniel and he was prophet of a god or they won't see it as anything more than another ancient undated writing that was playing to it's group of believers and was in fact an attack on the vile Antiochus IV and more history than anything else.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Something to consider.

Not one single historical error has been proven to exist in the whole book of Daniel. This is amazing since one cannot say the same about any of the historians who wrote about this period in all of BC history.

There have been many allegations, but none, no not one holds water when examined closely.

pjts wrote:

That's because you bought the premise in the story telling and are in a "dimension of never was and never will be". You dismiss all because to admit fault perhaps will cause you to be eternally damned (at least in your mind, though that's the only place it will ever occur).

You counter by claiming that these things aren't important, and you made excuses for everything as you dodged setting foot in the real world.

Actually I have gone over every single claim in detail. And there remains not a single proven historical error. No excuses needed.

No, actually you have not. I have been going through all of these hundreds of posts as I'm working on my rebuttal and there are many places where you overlooked arguments and did not even respond at all.

I will be glad to detail for you the "excuses, dodges, and misinterpretations" you have used to justify your assertion of "no historical errors" when you are finished with your summary and conclusion.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

I do not believe a 2nd century BC Jewish author could have possibly accomplished that. He would certainly have made at least one historical error that could be proven to be an error indeed. Not just something that can be "questioned".

pjts wrote:

You can't see past the end of your nose due to your mind being unable to really grasp how the points made were completely detrimental to your self deception. You can't see what is really there or not because it will self destruct your world.

Blog, Blog! but no substance.

That's pretty much what I have thought of your interpretations. Lots of assertions and misconstrued interpretations with no substance. Or as you say, blog, blog, blog.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

As I have shown, one does not have to make excuses for the author, shift time lines, skew events, etc for the above interpretation. One only need to simply take a look into the history of the past 2600 or so years to realize the accuracy of these prophecies.

pjts wrote:

Never the less, that's is exactly what you have done throughout this thread. I will detail each and every dodge and excuse you made in my summary.

You do that!

No problem, I took notes throughout this year plus discussion.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

The powers 1 through 6 has happened just as predicted. Only #7 is left. At that time God will appear, and you will have your "proof positive" that will not be explained away.

pjts wrote:

You have yet to go through #5 and 6 in detail, you have made assertions.

Details were given in the original discussions. Once again, this is a summary.

OK, you can stand on the vague comments you made. You did very little discussion on the Holy Roman Empire at all. Papal Rome and the Holy Roman Empire are not the same.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The easiest one to get kicked off would be on CARM.

You mean Matt Slick will just ban someone when he runs out of 'defenses' and starts to lose the debate?

Matt Slick will ban people for not believing as he does.

Especially if you're an atheist or Roman Catholic.

There are plenty of Roman Catholics that he has accused of apostacy, and banned when they proved him wrong, and they will tell you both that Matt Slick is dishonest when he claims that he treats people fairly when they debate him, and that CARM is dishonest about being able to defend Christianity fairly.

He takes peoples' money, preaches in the name of Jesus, all the while not following what Jesus taught in scriptures.

A blatant hypocrite, obviously...

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
redneF

redneF wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The easiest one to get kicked off would be on CARM.

You mean Matt Slick will just ban someone when he runs out of 'defenses' and starts to lose the debate?

Matt Slick will ban people for not believing as he does.

 

Exactly. If one goes there and argues against his beliefs, one will get banned almost immediately.

Gramps was able to express his beliefs here in very great detail without being suppressed or banned.

That will not happen on CARM.

RRS allows one to have Freedom of Speech, CARM does not.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I'm a member of another

I'm a member of another atheist forum where we often have great dialogue among atheists, deists, Christians, Roman Catholics, and they all agree that Matt Slick is indeed very dishonest and unfair.

It's talked about very openly, and people even admit to their identities on the CARM forum, and provide links to threads when they haven't been simply deleted to cover up the unfairness.

I've seen Matt become hostile and belligerent, as well as ban someone without justification.

 

His *ahem* fans come in here to shill for his radio show, and to try and coerce people into going on his radio show, yet cannot convince *ahem* him to accept the challenges we've given for him to join here an debate in an open forum.

Funny all dat, huh?

 

I take it Matt Slick or CARM banned you, PJTS?

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, a long time ago before

Yeah, a long time ago before I joined RRS. I used to belong to various atheist forums and several religious sites. I stopped going to them in like 2005 or so.

I have less time to belong to many sites like I used to and I learned that theists sites were a pointless exercise for me, so I don't bother going to any of them anymore.

In effect, they don't really want to listen anyway, consider any debate you have had for example.

If  they come to visit me I will respond. But I don't go out of my way to confront them anymore.

Here on RRS, I will argue and debate. And I will do so endlessly as I have no fear of my views being suppressed.

Religious sites generally do not allow an atheist to debate except in a limited box. On RRS, theists can post anywhere except in the Freethinkers forum (and VIP forums usually).

Freedom of Speech, not so much on religious sites.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Yeah, a long time ago before I joined RRS.

Not surprising.

There's probably more atheists and even theists on this forum that Matt banned, which would likely contribute to him not wanting to come here and post as himself and have to face losing a debate, but rather, in disguise (which on his website he admits he does).

http://carm.org/matt-slick

"Matt also uses pseudonyms when exploring, gathering information, testing ideas, and generally does not affirm or deny who he is or isn't regarding pseudonyms on the internet."

"This low profile is so impersonators can be easily spotted."

 

Logically, an honest, forthcoming and righteous 'defender of the faith' who has nothing to hide, would hide nothing.

He obviously chooses not to do that, yet is soooooooooo quick to preach morals.

I guess that's why he wouldn't want to be a Roman Catholic... to difficult with all those confessions and 'Hail Mary's...lol

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I have less time to belong to many sites like I used to and I learned that theists sites were a pointless exercise for me, so I don't bother going to any of them anymore.

In effect, they don't really want to listen anyway, consider any debate you have had for example.

I have a close friend who is a theist, and gives me the honest truth about how religions view 'apostates', and the 'godless' in particular.

Religions paint us as literal devils and demons, so, I don't think they actually understand what being human, or a human 'without belief' means, entirely.

Take Fonzie for instance...lol

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Here on RRS, I will argue and debate. And I will do so endlessly as I have no fear of my views being suppressed.

CARM is anything but freedom of speech, or freedom of expression.

The RRS is virtually without parallel on the internet in that regard.

They have definitely helped set the bar, if not been the ones to set it this high to begin with.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
there aren't any other Gods

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

It means don't be making any, or don't consider there to be more or any others. In essence, don't be making statues or material representations. Or, don't assume there are others. Or, don't invent any other. (it's a matter of wording) It is a command that attempts to keep the Israelites constant  in one direction of thought toward what their God is. The God of the Israelites was different then neighboring tribes in that they had material representation, or the sun or moon etc. The Israelites seen God as spiritual not material.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Partially correct

robj101 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

That does infer that there are other gods potentially equal too said god. Honestly I think it could read "thou shalt have no man made religions before this one." and it would be the same exact animal.

Partially wrong. They didn't have a man made religion. Their God is spiritual which is not man made. That's why it was different then that of the other tribes in the region.

Correct- Thou shalt have no man made religions/Gods

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Mostly Semantics

jcgadfly wrote:

 Papal Rome or the HRE? Which is it?

One loosely fits what you claim is prophecy, the other not at all.

Going to include the Doges of Venice next?

You are mostly quibbling about semantics.

I would say that it was the Holy Roman Empire, which was heavily influenced or in many ways controlled by the Popes who appointed the Emperors. However the foundations of the HRE was being formed long before is officially came into existence.

As the Roman Empire "broke up" into several individual "states", the Popes were gaining in influence and power. During the 4th through the 8th centuries the "Roman Emperors" were the popes "secular allies". During these medieval times the popes played powerful roles in Western Europe.

The "HRE" did not officially come into existence until around the 10th century, during which time the popes were also very powerful and influential.

In 1054 the "East - West Schism" further complicated things. The Western portion became what we know as the Roman Catholic Church. This power continued as a church state power with "popes at the helm".

The HRE at various times included the vast majority of what previously was the western territories of the Roman Empire.

What is now the EU covers much of the same territories.

Does "The EU cover the same exact territories as the Roman Empire of the past? Did the Holy Roman Empire have the same "footprint" of the Roman Empire? Definitely not! Neither did the Byzantine Empire, or any other power on earth.

Babylon was not followed by another power with the same "footprint", and neither were any of the successive powers that followed.

In brief, The Roman Empire as prophesied broke up into many separate individual powers. As this breakup was taking place the "Church/State" power largely controlled by "popes" was gaining in power. And a great deal of persecution of "Gods holy people" took place under this power. The popes continued to have significant influence and control of much of Western Europe for centuries, and greatly impacted the lives of "Gods Holy People".

It would be a daunting task to write a prophecy covering this fragmented and troublesome period of history is so brief a document as was done in Daniel. When examined, The Book of Daniel does a remarkable job.

One could easily write volumes on this subject, and already have.

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

That does infer that there are other gods potentially equal too said god. Honestly I think it could read "thou shalt have no man made religions before this one." and it would be the same exact animal.

Partially wrong. They didn't have a man made religion. Their God is spiritual which is not man made. That's why it was different then that of the other tribes in the region.

Correct- Thou shalt have no man made religions/Gods

Welcome Old Seer.

Sometimes it appears that the atheist is intentionally misunderstanding or misinterpreting the text. It is quite clear unless one wishes to make it into something other than the obvious.

I appreciate your correct and clear response to this one.

Gramps

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
And around we go!

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Ambrose and Augustine OTOH believed the god approved of force to make people believe so you disagree with these church fathers it seems.

Yes, unlike some people I do not worship or view any man as if they were more than just a mere human being. Excepting Jesus Christ who has been shown to be. Which is another discussion altogether.

pjts wrote:

The Jesus has not  shown to be anything other than a character in some 2000 year old writings. When you say "shown to be", that is a statement that suggests it has been proved. That is not the case.

You and I have a difference of opinion on this. But as we both know, this is another subject all of its own.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

I'd rather not spend my time kissing butt 24/7 and being around the lovey dovey prudish believers that have no life but for an imaginary self appointed dictator.

Sounds like bigotry with a healthy dose of angst thrown in. I find that most Christians live a very full and satisfying existence. But than I do not view the world with slime covered glasses.

pjts wrote:

The supposed afterlife in the NT indicates the god is the king. Kings are dictators and are not subject to question.

Please don't use the "most people say" line on me, "I find that most Christians".

First off, all you see is the social church person. You have no idea whatever the family person is, and for sure, the secret person they never show anyone else. On rare occasions, the hidden person sneaks out and is caught doing drugs with a male hooker even though they condemned such behavior with fervent fiery language.

My statement was fairly simple, if heaven includes serving a dictator with a group of zombies then I rather not. Though this isn't a real problem as it is all based in the "land of fantasy" and does not exist as a possibility anyway.

Likewise, your statement is narrow, judgmental, and bigoted, and is not confined to just a couple of people you know very well. It is never good to stereotype any group of people because of race, religion, or ethnic origin. Or sexual orientation either.

Yes, I see the "social church person". I also have had many, many, good close Christian friends that I have known very well.

It is not a judgment of ignorance for me to say what I did. Maybe I should have narrowed it some by saying "nearly all of the Christians that I have known personally". And none of them are "zombies" in some kind of trance.

Your statement still "reeks" of bigotry and angst. And that's something you might want to think about.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Along the way some kings, rulers, and other figures are mentioned as they relate to the stories being told.

pjts wrote:

Not unusual at all for storytelling or fiction, add a few names or places to give the story supposed basis in the real world so that the reader buys into the story, forgery, lies or deceptions that will be forthcoming.

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Not all of the kings and notable figures in Babylon are mentioned, as this is not a book about the history of Babylon.

pjts wrote:

Yep, keep it minimal or someone might determine it was either a forged book or a story telling adventure. Though it still seeps out at you when you study it.

Plenty of details are included. Exactly the details one would expect to be included in the situations involved. But to expect a written account of an event to be written like "The History of Babylon" is not rational.

pjts wrote:

Details are included in many works of storytelling. This does not make the writing to have validity or factual based.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

The following is a summary of the powers foretold as I have detailed in earlier posts.

1. Babylon

2. "Medo-Persia" As it was seen by the author with both Median and Persian influence and heritage.

3 "The Grecian Kingdom" Alexander the Great's kingdom and it's 4 divisions that followed.

4. Rome.

5. Papal Rome or the holy Roman Empire.

pjts wrote:

This is an assertion with only a limited discussion where you indicated that the RCC forced people to go through the Church and took away going directly to the Jesus character, related to taking way the sacrifices we discussed.

This is a subject all of it's own. Briefly, Jesus was called "the lamb of God" because He was the ultimate and final sacrifice that all the others pointed to. He is our sacrifice. We are directed to go directly to Him for forgiveness of sin. For a religious power to tell people that they need to go to a human being for the forgiveness of their sins instead of going directly to Jesus "obscures" the now current "daily" sacrifice. That being Jesus.

pjts wrote:

You have not shown that papal Rome was a power in your interpolated deciphering.

You have never gone through a detailed discussion on the Holy Roman Empire.

This is a summary. You will need to go back to the earlier posts for "detailed discussions". This would no longer be a summary were I to go back over everything in detail.

pjts wrote:

I was pointing out a place where you did minimal explanation in your Roman theory. Feel free to ignore it if you want.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

6. Divided Europe

pjts wrote:

Still waiting on the details of how unrelated tribes to the Jews have any pertinence on them and how later European countries are interpolated into the sketchy text of Daniel.

Already gave the details. I have also already discussed the relevance of the later European countries. You keep trying to insert thinly veiled "circular reasoning" into this discussion. Were the Book of Daniel to have been written in the 2nd century BC without divine guidance, you would be right to say there is no relevance here. But that would be making an assumption that the very topic under debate has already been proven.

Really man. Do you have to play unfairly to "win"? I would not want to play poker with you!

pjts wrote:

OK then, if that's all you have on the relationship of Europe to the Jews its all you have.

How am I playing unfair with you?

Win what? There was something to win here? What was the prize? We both understood a long time back that neither of us was going to change our views. So how does one win something here?

People will see what they choose in our discussion.

They will either see there was prophecy in Daniel and he was prophet of a god or they won't see it as anything more than another ancient undated writing that was playing to it's group of believers and was in fact an attack on the vile Antiochus IV and more history than anything else.

My arguments and reasoning have been good. And I have not had to revert to circular reasoning. I will not stand by and not say anything when you do this.

The real question when evaluating my interpretation is not what the nations of modern day Western Europe have to do with the Jews. The question should be what do they have to do with "Gods people"? And what relevance do they have in a prophecy inspired by God about powers that affect His people down through history up to His return to this earth?

To expect my interpretation to make sense according to yours is circular reasoning. My interpretation should be consistent, and make sense standing by itself. 

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Something to consider.

Not one single historical error has been proven to exist in the whole book of Daniel. This is amazing since one cannot say the same about any of the historians who wrote about this period in all of BC history.

There have been many allegations, but none, no not one holds water when examined closely.

pjts wrote:

That's because you bought the premise in the story telling and are in a "dimension of never was and never will be". You dismiss all because to admit fault perhaps will cause you to be eternally damned (at least in your mind, though that's the only place it will ever occur).

You counter by claiming that these things aren't important, and you made excuses for everything as you dodged setting foot in the real world.

Actually I have gone over every single claim in detail. And there remains not a single proven historical error. No excuses needed.

pjts wrote:

No, actually you have not. I have been going through all of these hundreds of posts as I'm working on my rebuttal and there are many places where you overlooked arguments and did not even respond at all.

I will be glad to detail for you the "excuses, dodges, and misinterpretations" you have used to justify your assertion of "no historical errors" when you are finished with your summary and conclusion.

You do that!

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

I do not believe a 2nd century BC Jewish author could have possibly accomplished that. He would certainly have made at least one historical error that could be proven to be an error indeed. Not just something that can be "questioned".

pjts wrote:

You can't see past the end of your nose due to your mind being unable to really grasp how the points made were completely detrimental to your self deception. You can't see what is really there or not because it will self destruct your world.

Blog, Blog! but no substance.

pjts wrote:

That's pretty much what I have thought of your interpretations. Lots of assertions and misconstrued interpretations with no substance. Or as you say, blog, blog, blog.

And I am the one being call blind and in a world that never was. Do wonders never cease.

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

As I have shown, one does not have to make excuses for the author, shift time lines, skew events, etc for the above interpretation. One only need to simply take a look into the history of the past 2600 or so years to realize the accuracy of these prophecies.

pjts wrote:

Never the less, that's is exactly what you have done throughout this thread. I will detail each and every dodge and excuse you made in my summary.

You do that!

pjts wrote:

No problem, I took notes throughout this year plus discussion.

I can't wait!

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

The powers 1 through 6 has happened just as predicted. Only #7 is left. At that time God will appear, and you will have your "proof positive" that will not be explained away.

pjts wrote:

You have yet to go through #5 and 6 in detail, you have made assertions.

Details were given in the original discussions. Once again, this is a summary.

pjts wrote:

OK, you can stand on the vague comments you made. You did very little discussion on the Holy Roman Empire at all. Papal Rome and the Holy Roman Empire are not the same.

Yes, I know that. As I briefly pointed out to Gadfly, they were very closely connected. It was the popes who appointed the Holy Roman Emperors.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

I'd rather not spend my time kissing butt 24/7 and being around the lovey dovey prudish believers that have no life but for an imaginary self appointed dictator.

Sounds like bigotry with a healthy dose of angst thrown in. I find that most Christians live a very full and satisfying existence. But than I do not view the world with slime covered glasses.

pjts wrote:

The supposed afterlife in the NT indicates the god is the king. Kings are dictators and are not subject to question.

Please don't use the "most people say" line on me, "I find that most Christians".

First off, all you see is the social church person. You have no idea whatever the family person is, and for sure, the secret person they never show anyone else. On rare occasions, the hidden person sneaks out and is caught doing drugs with a male hooker even though they condemned such behavior with fervent fiery language.

My statement was fairly simple, if heaven includes serving a dictator with a group of zombies then I rather not. Though this isn't a real problem as it is all based in the "land of fantasy" and does not exist as a possibility anyway.

Likewise, your statement is narrow, judgmental, and bigoted, and is not confined to just a couple of people you know very well. It is never good to stereotype any group of people because of race, religion, or ethnic origin. Or sexual orientation either.

Yes, I see the "social church person". I also have had many, many, good close Christian friends that I have known very well.

It is not a judgment of ignorance for me to say what I did. Maybe I should have narrowed it some by saying "nearly all of the Christians that I have known personally". And none of them are "zombies" in some kind of trance.

Your statement still "reeks" of bigotry and angst. And that's something you might want to think about.

Actually the NT describes exactly what sounds like "zombies" serving a dictator

The Apocalypse of John aka Revelation: 7:9-17: specifically v 15 - "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he, that sitteth on the throne, shall dwell over them." - DRO

As does the book of Enoch which was used by the writer: 1 Enoch 10, 14 and 25; The god described is nothing other than a dictator.

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

You called me a bigot, which is unwarranted. though I do not accept your beliefs, you and others are more than welcome to your opinions and beliefs. I have many friends that are Christian and I do tolerate and respect their right to believe as they so choose. A bigot is someone that does not tolerate the views of others. Simply rejecting the opinions and views of another is not in itself bigotry. If so, rejecting my secular views and skepticism does the same for you.

To quote Roxy the grim reaper from Dead Like Me, "You don't know me".

Actually Gramps, I do like you. I respect that you stand up for what you believe. You are welcome to your views and choices. In the end, what matters most is how one treats others in this world, for it is the only one that we occupy. All else is conjecture. People are the most important thing in the world, coming before all else. In that respect I agree with much of what the Jesus character stands for in the writing, much like Gandhi.

People first, all else comes after.

 

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

6. Divided Europe

pjts wrote:

Still waiting on the details of how unrelated tribes to the Jews have any pertinence on them and how later European countries are interpolated into the sketchy text of Daniel.

Already gave the details. I have also already discussed the relevance of the later European countries. You keep trying to insert thinly veiled "circular reasoning" into this discussion. Were the Book of Daniel to have been written in the 2nd century BC without divine guidance, you would be right to say there is no relevance here. But that would be making an assumption that the very topic under debate has already been proven.

Really man. Do you have to play unfairly to "win"? I would not want to play poker with you!

pjts wrote:

OK then, if that's all you have on the relationship of Europe to the Jews its all you have.

How am I playing unfair with you?

Win what? There was something to win here? What was the prize? We both understood a long time back that neither of us was going to change our views. So how does one win something here?

People will see what they choose in our discussion.

They will either see there was prophecy in Daniel and he was prophet of a god or they won't see it as anything more than another ancient undated writing that was playing to it's group of believers and was in fact an attack on the vile Antiochus IV and more history than anything else.

My arguments and reasoning have been good. And I have not had to revert to circular reasoning. I will not stand by and not say anything when you do this.

The real question when evaluating my interpretation is not what the nations of modern day Western Europe have to do with the Jews. The question should be what do they have to do with "Gods people"? And what relevance do they have in a prophecy inspired by God about powers that affect His people down through history up to His return to this earth?

To expect my interpretation to make sense according to yours is circular reasoning. My interpretation should be consistent, and make sense standing by itself.

In the end you are doing circular reasoning. How can a book that has unrealistic events be based in reality? How can a book doing this stand on it's own?

The question really is, who did the writer(s) of Daniel think were "God's people". The Jews that existed or a divergent sect that did not exist at the time it was written? You and Freeminer both beat me up for how the text needed to be relevant to the Jews for example in relation to other nations that were great powers. Now, you wish to make meaningless tribes have merit to "God's People".

Daniel does not go into the mashiach or his death and resurrection at all, that would have been contrary to Jewish belief and is one of the main reasons Jews don't accept the Jesus as the mashiach.

 

gramps wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

I do not believe a 2nd century BC Jewish author could have possibly accomplished that. He would certainly have made at least one historical error that could be proven to be an error indeed. Not just something that can be "questioned".

pjts wrote:

You can't see past the end of your nose due to your mind being unable to really grasp how the points made were completely detrimental to your self deception. You can't see what is really there or not because it will self destruct your world.

Blog, Blog! but no substance.

pjts wrote:

That's pretty much what I have thought of your interpretations. Lots of assertions and misconstrued interpretations with no substance. Or as you say, blog, blog, blog.

And I am the one being call blind and in a world that never was. Do wonders never cease.

No!!

 

gramps wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

Something to consider.

Not one single historical error has been proven to exist in the whole book of Daniel. This is amazing since one cannot say the same about any of the historians who wrote about this period in all of BC history.

There have been many allegations, but none, no not one holds water when examined closely.

pjts wrote:

That's because you bought the premise in the story telling and are in a "dimension of never was and never will be". You dismiss all because to admit fault perhaps will cause you to be eternally damned (at least in your mind, though that's the only place it will ever occur).

You counter by claiming that these things aren't important, and you made excuses for everything as you dodged setting foot in the real world.

Actually I have gone over every single claim in detail. And there remains not a single proven historical error. No excuses needed.

pjts wrote:

No, actually you have not. I have been going through all of these hundreds of posts as I'm working on my rebuttal and there are many places where you overlooked arguments and did not even respond at all.

I will be glad to detail for you the "excuses, dodges, and misinterpretations" you have used to justify your assertion of "no historical errors" when you are finished with your summary and conclusion.

You do that!

 

gramster wrote:

gramster post #1324 wrote:

As I have shown, one does not have to make excuses for the author, shift time lines, skew events, etc for the above interpretation. One only need to simply take a look into the history of the past 2600 or so years to realize the accuracy of these prophecies.

pjts wrote:

Never the less, that's is exactly what you have done throughout this thread. I will detail each and every dodge and excuse you made in my summary.

You do that!

pjts wrote:

No problem, I took notes throughout this year plus discussion.

I can't wait!

Whenever you feel that you have finished your summary and conclusion let me know.

 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

OK, you can stand on the vague comments you made. You did very little discussion on the Holy Roman Empire at all. Papal Rome and the Holy Roman Empire are not the same.

Yes, I know that. As I briefly pointed out to Gadfly, they were very closely connected. It was the popes who appointed the Holy Roman Emperors. 

In some respect I understand your views of the popes, I see them as evil manipulators. As they unlike you did follow the views of Augustine and Ambrose using force in one way or the other to force adherence to their will.

There was relationship between the popes and the Holy Roman Empire. They did in fact crown them based on a forged document - "Donation of Constantine" which supports the point of evil manipulation.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:robj101

Old Seer wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

That does infer that there are other gods potentially equal too said god. Honestly I think it could read "thou shalt have no man made religions before this one." and it would be the same exact animal.

Partially wrong. They didn't have a man made religion. Their God is spiritual which is not man made. That's why it was different then that of the other tribes in the region.

Correct- Thou shalt have no man made religions/Gods

And who/what told you that God was spiritual? A book written by men, of course! It's so clear now - God is spiritual because men wrote the book describing this God (that no one knew about until the book was written). YAY!

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Papal Rome or the HRE? Which is it?

One loosely fits what you claim is prophecy, the other not at all.

Going to include the Doges of Venice next?

You are mostly quibbling about semantics.

I would say that it was the Holy Roman Empire, which was heavily influenced or in many ways controlled by the Popes who appointed the Emperors. However the foundations of the HRE was being formed long before is officially came into existence.

As the Roman Empire "broke up" into several individual "states", the Popes were gaining in influence and power. During the 4th through the 8th centuries the "Roman Emperors" were the popes "secular allies". During these medieval times the popes played powerful roles in Western Europe.

The "HRE" did not officially come into existence until around the 10th century, during which time the popes were also very powerful and influential.

In 1054 the "East - West Schism" further complicated things. The Western portion became what we know as the Roman Catholic Church. This power continued as a church state power with "popes at the helm".

The HRE at various times included the vast majority of what previously was the western territories of the Roman Empire.

What is now the EU covers much of the same territories.

Does "The EU cover the same exact territories as the Roman Empire of the past? Did the Holy Roman Empire have the same "footprint" of the Roman Empire? Definitely not! Neither did the Byzantine Empire, or any other power on earth.

Babylon was not followed by another power with the same "footprint", and neither were any of the successive powers that followed.

In brief, The Roman Empire as prophesied broke up into many separate individual powers. As this breakup was taking place the "Church/State" power largely controlled by "popes" was gaining in power. And a great deal of persecution of "Gods holy people" took place under this power. The popes continued to have significant influence and control of much of Western Europe for centuries, and greatly impacted the lives of "Gods Holy People".

It would be a daunting task to write a prophecy covering this fragmented and troublesome period of history is so brief a document as was done in Daniel. When examined, The Book of Daniel does a remarkable job.

One could easily write volumes on this subject, and already have.

 

 

I was wondering when you'd get to the EU. Before the EU existed, Daniel's prophecy described the Common Market countries.

I wonder what it will describe when the EU ceases to exist - the countries in NAFTA? OPEC? 

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

I'd rather not spend my time kissing butt 24/7 and being around the lovey dovey prudish believers that have no life but for an imaginary self appointed dictator.

Sounds like bigotry with a healthy dose of angst thrown in. I find that most Christians live a very full and satisfying existence. But than I do not view the world with slime covered glasses.

pjts wrote:

The supposed afterlife in the NT indicates the god is the king. Kings are dictators and are not subject to question.

Please don't use the "most people say" line on me, "I find that most Christians".

First off, all you see is the social church person. You have no idea whatever the family person is, and for sure, the secret person they never show anyone else. On rare occasions, the hidden person sneaks out and is caught doing drugs with a male hooker even though they condemned such behavior with fervent fiery language.

My statement was fairly simple, if heaven includes serving a dictator with a group of zombies then I rather not. Though this isn't a real problem as it is all based in the "land of fantasy" and does not exist as a possibility anyway.

Likewise, your statement is narrow, judgmental, and bigoted, and is not confined to just a couple of people you know very well. It is never good to stereotype any group of people because of race, religion, or ethnic origin. Or sexual orientation either.

Yes, I see the "social church person". I also have had many, many, good close Christian friends that I have known very well.

It is not a judgment of ignorance for me to say what I did. Maybe I should have narrowed it some by saying "nearly all of the Christians that I have known personally". And none of them are "zombies" in some kind of trance.

Your statement still "reeks" of bigotry and angst. And that's something you might want to think about.

pjts wrote:

Actually the NT describes exactly what sounds like "zombies" serving a dictator

The Apocalypse of John aka Revelation: 7:9-17: specifically v 15 - "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he, that sitteth on the throne, shall dwell over them." - DRO

As does the book of Enoch which was used by the writer: 1 Enoch 10, 14 and 25; The god described is nothing other than a dictator.

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

You called me a bigot, which is unwarranted. though I do not accept your beliefs, you and others are more than welcome to your opinions and beliefs. I have many friends that are Christian and I do tolerate and respect their right to believe as they so choose. A bigot is someone that does not tolerate the views of others. Simply rejecting the opinions and views of another is not in itself bigotry. If so, rejecting my secular views and skepticism does the same for you.

To quote Roxy the grim reaper from Dead Like Me, "You don't know me".

Actually Gramps, I do like you. I respect that you stand up for what you believe. You are welcome to your views and choices. In the end, what matters most is how one treats others in this world, for it is the only one that we occupy. All else is conjecture. People are the most important thing in the world, coming before all else. In that respect I agree with much of what the Jesus character stands for in the writing, much like Gandhi.

People first, all else comes after.

You are right. Bigot is the wrong word. Biased against or prejudiced would be more accurate. That would be what would lead you to conclude that Christians "have no life but...". Countless Christians have very full and meaningful lives outside of church and religious matters.

I also like and respect you. I find that you are basically honest, fair, and respectful. And I appreciate that you tolerate and respect the beliefs of others. I did find your comment to be highly prejudiced though.

pjts wrote:
 

Whenever you feel that you have finished your summary and conclusion let me know.

Go for it. Anything left out can be dealt with after you have responded.

pjts wrote:

OK, you can stand on the vague comments you made. You did very little discussion on the Holy Roman Empire at all. Papal Rome and the Holy Roman Empire are not the same.

gramps wrote:

Yes, I know that. As I briefly pointed out to Gadfly, they were very closely connected. It was the popes who appointed the Holy Roman Emperors. 

pjts wrote:

In some respect I understand your views of the popes, I see them as evil manipulators. As they unlike you did follow the views of Augustine and Ambrose using force in one way or the other to force adherence to their will.

There was relationship between the popes and the Holy Roman Empire. They did in fact crown them based on a forged document - "Donation of Constantine" which supports the point of evil manipulation.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:pjts

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Actually the NT describes exactly what sounds like "zombies" serving a dictator

The Apocalypse of John aka Revelation: 7:9-17: specifically v 15 - "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he, that sitteth on the throne, shall dwell over them." - DRO

As does the book of Enoch which was used by the writer: 1 Enoch 10, 14 and 25; The god described is nothing other than a dictator.

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

You called me a bigot, which is unwarranted. though I do not accept your beliefs, you and others are more than welcome to your opinions and beliefs. I have many friends that are Christian and I do tolerate and respect their right to believe as they so choose. A bigot is someone that does not tolerate the views of others. Simply rejecting the opinions and views of another is not in itself bigotry. If so, rejecting my secular views and skepticism does the same for you.

To quote Roxy the grim reaper from Dead Like Me, "You don't know me".

Actually Gramps, I do like you. I respect that you stand up for what you believe. You are welcome to your views and choices. In the end, what matters most is how one treats others in this world, for it is the only one that we occupy. All else is conjecture. People are the most important thing in the world, coming before all else. In that respect I agree with much of what the Jesus character stands for in the writing, much like Gandhi.

People first, all else comes after.

You are right. Bigot is the wrong word. Biased against or prejudiced would be more accurate. That would be what would lead you to conclude that Christians "have no life but...". Countless Christians have very full and meaningful lives outside of church and religious matters.

I also like and respect you. I find that you are basically honest, fair, and respectful. And I appreciate that you tolerate and respect the beliefs of others. I did find your comment to be highly prejudiced though.

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:
 

Whenever you feel that you have finished your summary and conclusion let me know.

Go for it. Anything left out can be dealt with after you have responded.

 

 

I will do that.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Counter Argument

Summary of issues from the Daniel discussion


Overview


Gramps has taken the position the Book of Daniel is prophecy written in the 6th century BCE. He claims that if Daniel is really prophecy only the god could have made this possible, therefore the god of the Jews is real.

He further claims that it discusses Rome, the Jesus, the popes, divided Europe and ultimately the end of the world.


gramps post 229 wrote:

Prophecy
The clearest evidence that God can see and foretell the future is in the book of Daniel.

In this book we find a clearly detailed account of future events prophesied well in advance of their taking place. Only God can see the future.


My view on this is Daniel when looked at as a 6th century BCE writer foretelling the future is neither clear nor detailed as one would expect from one getting all the goods on future events from a god.

I will detail this as I go through Gramps claims and interpretations. Gramps has made excuses throughout to claim "there are no proved historical errors". I will go through his excuses and show that they are only that and no more.
First off, if Daniel contained "clearly detailed prophecy" we'd not need this discussion.

It is neither clear nor detailed if it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

My position is the Book of Daniel is the likely product of a 2nd century BCE writer describing Antiochus IV in a story teller’s technique. It is not prophecy, does not discuss Rome, the Jesus, the popes, divided Europe or the end of the world. Scholars and religious groups that support this view are many including Bart Ehrman and Rev S R Driver.


Some scholars conclude that Daniel wrote in the 6th century BCE but the events were in regard to that of the 2nd century BCE and Antiochus IV. This includes several religious groups including Judaism and the RCC. The Rev. Henry Cowles is one that takes this position. That both RCC and Judaism agree perhaps might be understandable. As Jews deny the Jesus was the mashiach and the RCC does not see itself as the little horn of Daniel. However dismissing their arguments that it involves Antiochus IV for the sole reason they are biased because of prejudice to an end would mean the same should be applied to the believers seeing it as suggested by Gramps. One can’t dismiss the arguments upon that alone.

gramps post 237 wrote:
Since there are many schools of thought when it comes to prophecy Gramps will be detailing what he believes to be valid and what is not and supporting this with solid logic and evidence.


Since gramps is making the positive claim here that Daniel was a product of a 6th century writer and also claims he will support this position with evidence for his beliefs my position is a critic to argue against his supposed proofs. In other words, it is on the Gramster to prove beyond any doubt that a 6th century BCE writer is the author who was inspired by the god and not a 2nd century BCE writer(s) doing an Apocalyptic story.


And I for one do not accept prophecy as real. Are we dealing with Hari Seldon’s pyscho-history or are we discussing oracles as real. Hari Seldon was a character in Asimov’s Foundation series and ultimately in the robot series when he brought the two series together. Hari Seldon used advanced computations to predict the actions of an entire civilization supposedly. Was he accurate? Was Daniel doing supposed prophecy more than an oracle or a soothsayer? Or was it just Apocalyptic writing against a king that persecuted the Jews?


As we go through this discussion, it’s clear there are doubts.


Next


Chapter by Chapter issues.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Heaven

pjts wrote:

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

pjts wrote:

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

No death, no sickness, no pain. That's a good start. Who says there will be "no challenges" or nothing much to do?

Build houses and plant vineyards. That will be fun. How about studying into the "mysteries" of God. Actually starting to understand all of the mysteries of science and the universe. Possibly scuba diving without any gear. Possible space travel the same way.

The Bible doesn't give too many details because what awaits us is "beyond our imagination". I do not believe that describes a place that is "very boring with no challenges".

Atheists spend a lot of time complaining that God allows pain, hunger, and death. Now you are moaning that there will not be any of these in heaven. Some people can never be happy.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:pjts

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

pjts wrote:

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

No death, no sickness, no pain. That's a good start. Who says there will be "no challenges" or nothing much to do?

Build houses and plant vineyards. That will be fun. How about studying into the "mysteries" of God. Actually starting to understand all of the mysteries of science and the universe. Possibly scuba diving without any gear. Possible space travel the same way.

The Bible doesn't give too many details because what awaits us is "beyond our imagination". I do not believe that describes a place that is "very boring with no challenges".

Atheists spend a lot of time complaining that God allows pain, hunger, and death. Now you are moaning that there will not be any of these in heaven. Some people can never be happy.

"Build houses and plant vineyards"? In the clouds of heaven or on the new earth that you will be woefully unprepared to inhabit because you lack the needed skills (will you become omniscient then?)?

"Understand the mysteries of God"? Why? Once you get there the pressure to know, learn and improve will be off. Or don't you believe you'll be perfect in heaven?

What challenges will there be left to face once you have mastered them all and still have eternity to go?

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

pjts wrote:

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

No death, no sickness, no pain. That's a good start. Who says there will be "no challenges" or nothing much to do?

Build houses and plant vineyards. That will be fun. How about studying into the "mysteries" of God. Actually starting to understand all of the mysteries of science and the universe. Possibly scuba diving without any gear. Possible space travel the same way.

The Bible doesn't give too many details because what awaits us is "beyond our imagination". I do not believe that describes a place that is "very boring with no challenges".

Atheists spend a lot of time complaining that God allows pain, hunger, and death. Now you are moaning that there will not be any of these in heaven. Some people can never be happy.

"Build houses and plant vineyards"? In the clouds of heaven or on the new earth that you will be woefully unprepared to inhabit because you lack the needed skills (will you become omniscient then?)?

"Understand the mysteries of God"? Why? Once you get there the pressure to know, learn and improve will be off. Or don't you believe you'll be perfect in heaven?

What challenges will there be left to face once you have mastered them all and still have eternity to go?

I don't believe we will be omnicient, or "like God". Far superior to how we are now though.

You really do lack imagination. What a wee little  you have.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

pjts wrote:

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

No death, no sickness, no pain. That's a good start. Who says there will be "no challenges" or nothing much to do?

Build houses and plant vineyards. That will be fun. How about studying into the "mysteries" of God. Actually starting to understand all of the mysteries of science and the universe. Possibly scuba diving without any gear. Possible space travel the same way.

The Bible doesn't give too many details because what awaits us is "beyond our imagination". I do not believe that describes a place that is "very boring with no challenges".

Atheists spend a lot of time complaining that God allows pain, hunger, and death. Now you are moaning that there will not be any of these in heaven. Some people can never be happy.

"Build houses and plant vineyards"? In the clouds of heaven or on the new earth that you will be woefully unprepared to inhabit because you lack the needed skills (will you become omniscient then?)?

"Understand the mysteries of God"? Why? Once you get there the pressure to know, learn and improve will be off. Or don't you believe you'll be perfect in heaven?

What challenges will there be left to face once you have mastered them all and still have eternity to go?

I don't believe we will be omnicient, or "like God". Far superior to how we are now though.

You really do lack imagination. What a wee little  you have.

Sorry dodgeballer. No matter the vastness of one's imagination it would (according to your theology) pale in the vastness of eternity.

Would you like to answer the questions now or do you think that insulting my intellect (despite the evidence that it has vanquished yours repeatedly) is sufficient?

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:pjts

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

pjts wrote:

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

No death, no sickness, no pain. That's a good start. Who says there will be "no challenges" or nothing much to do?

Build houses and plant vineyards. That will be fun. How about studying into the "mysteries" of God. Actually starting to understand all of the mysteries of science and the universe. Possibly scuba diving without any gear. Possible space travel the same way.

The Bible doesn't give too many details because what awaits us is "beyond our imagination". I do not believe that describes a place that is "very boring with no challenges".

Atheists spend a lot of time complaining that God allows pain, hunger, and death. Now you are moaning that there will not be any of these in heaven. Some people can never be happy.

Why would I want to plant vineyards, I don't really like wine or grape jelly?

I've done enough home remodelling that I don't ever care to build anything again if I can help it.

No Sun either, as I owned tanning salons for years I have a problem with that. The only light comes from the god/ the Jesus. How do you get a tan from that?

You can think it's whatever you like. The problem is one man's utopia is another man's torture.

Generally I never complain the man made god allows anything. How could something that does not exist have any effect in reality?

In the event I do comment in this regard, I always mention that imaginary gods should be able to do fantastic things. Well at least they do in Sci-Fi. Or point out how the god is just as emotional as the men that created it.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

pjts wrote:

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

No death, no sickness, no pain. That's a good start. Who says there will be "no challenges" or nothing much to do?

Build houses and plant vineyards. That will be fun. How about studying into the "mysteries" of God. Actually starting to understand all of the mysteries of science and the universe. Possibly scuba diving without any gear. Possible space travel the same way.

The Bible doesn't give too many details because what awaits us is "beyond our imagination". I do not believe that describes a place that is "very boring with no challenges".

Atheists spend a lot of time complaining that God allows pain, hunger, and death. Now you are moaning that there will not be any of these in heaven. Some people can never be happy.

"Build houses and plant vineyards"? In the clouds of heaven or on the new earth that you will be woefully unprepared to inhabit because you lack the needed skills (will you become omniscient then?)?

"Understand the mysteries of God"? Why? Once you get there the pressure to know, learn and improve will be off. Or don't you believe you'll be perfect in heaven?

What challenges will there be left to face once you have mastered them all and still have eternity to go?

I don't believe we will be omniscient, or "like God". Far superior to how we are now though.

You really do lack imagination. What a wee little  you have.

Sorry dodgeballer. No matter the vastness of one's imagination it would (according to your theology) pale in the vastness of eternity.

Would you like to answer the questions now or do you think that insulting my intellect (despite the evidence that it has vanquished yours repeatedly) is sufficient?

o

A#1 On the new earth. A#2 What makes you think we will be "woefully unprepared"? A#3 no, not omniscient. A#4 I do not need "pressure" to enjoy learning and growing. A#5 Yes, I believe we will be perfect (without defects). A#6 What makes you think we will ever master all challenges, and possess all knowledge? A#7 My apologies for the insult.

Don't worry. You will not have to suffer the unimaginable fate of living forever in a perfect universe.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Man needs challenges to exist. The heaven described in the NT lacks that. No sun, no hunger, no needs. The utopia described is very boring with no challenges.

pjts wrote:

I admit that I do not agree with the NT's happy happy vision found in Revelation for one. It is not logical and assumes that the writer's utopia is the one that all would want if they are in the "book of life".

No death, no sickness, no pain. That's a good start. Who says there will be "no challenges" or nothing much to do?

Build houses and plant vineyards. That will be fun. How about studying into the "mysteries" of God. Actually starting to understand all of the mysteries of science and the universe. Possibly scuba diving without any gear. Possible space travel the same way.

The Bible doesn't give too many details because what awaits us is "beyond our imagination". I do not believe that describes a place that is "very boring with no challenges".

Atheists spend a lot of time complaining that God allows pain, hunger, and death. Now you are moaning that there will not be any of these in heaven. Some people can never be happy.

Why would I want to plant vineyards, I don't really like wine or grape jelly?

I've done enough home remodelling that I don't ever care to build anything again if I can help it.

No Sun either, as I owned tanning salons for years I have a problem with that. The only light comes from the god/ the Jesus. How do you get a tan from that?

You can think it's whatever you like. The problem is one man's utopia is another man's torture.

Generally I never complain the man made god allows anything. How could something that does not exist have any effect in reality?

In the event I do comment in this regard, I always mention that imaginary gods should be able to do fantastic things. Well at least they do in Sci-Fi. Or point out how the god is just as emotional as the men that created it.

 

Maybe a "God Light" tan would turn out to be quite superior?

I would imagine that a God that could create everything we see and know would be capable of also creating a utopia that never gets  boring. But you are right. Some people would probably not be happy there. Their wishes will be honored, and they will not find themselves in such a "droll" place.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Old Seer

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

That does infer that there are other gods potentially equal too said god. Honestly I think it could read "thou shalt have no man made religions before this one." and it would be the same exact animal.

Partially wrong. They didn't have a man made religion. Their God is spiritual which is not man made. That's why it was different then that of the other tribes in the region.

Correct- Thou shalt have no man made religions/Gods

And who/what told you that God was spiritual? A book written by men, of course! It's so clear now - God is spiritual because men wrote the book describing this God (that no one knew about until the book was written). YAY!

There is no evidence that "no one knew about God" before the Bible was written. According to the Bible there have been people that knew about God far before that. The biblical time line shows Abraham being a young man before the death of Noah. Noah would certainly have had a first hand knowledge of God.

This kind of reasoning comes only from our own ignorance. Just because we do not possess early evidence does not mean that it did not happen.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

That does infer that there are other gods potentially equal too said god. Honestly I think it could read "thou shalt have no man made religions before this one." and it would be the same exact animal.

Partially wrong. They didn't have a man made religion. Their God is spiritual which is not man made. That's why it was different then that of the other tribes in the region.

Correct- Thou shalt have no man made religions/Gods

And who/what told you that God was spiritual? A book written by men, of course! It's so clear now - God is spiritual because men wrote the book describing this God (that no one knew about until the book was written). YAY!

 

 

There is no evidence that "no one knew about God" before the Bible was written. According to the Bible there have been people that knew about God far before that.

Do you see what's wrong with this Gramps?

1- Argument from omission, something you like to accuse me of doing.

2-The book of storytelling says that........

So. I'd like to differ with you. plenty of people knew about Anu and Ki as well as Enki and the other Annunaki. Yahweh, not so much. Maybe he was a spoiled child of a goddess.

And claiming that the book of stories says something happened before the book of stories is using the book to prove itself. Something you have been trying to do with Daniel, though it's a circular argument.

 

gramster wrote:

The biblical time line shows Abraham being a young man before the death of Noah. Noah would certainly have had a first hand knowledge of God.

This kind of reasoning comes only from our own ignorance. Just because we do not possess early evidence does not mean that it did not happen.

Exactly, the Sumerian stories tell us all about the Annunaki, just because no one in the modern era has never seen any of them does not mean that any of their stories did not happen.

And they lived pretty much indefinitely as well, perhaps the origin of the long lives in the OT, from their ancestors in Mesopotamia.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Counter Argument cont'd Chap1

Daniel 1
Gramps does not discuss chapter 1 until later on near the summary discussion. He takes the position Daniel had to have been a captive in 605 BCE.  In his early discussion he begins in chapter 2 not chap 1.
In chapter 1 we learn Daniel and his friends are part of the captives when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah in 597 BCE. However Gramps indicates that he believes this happened in 605 BCE. The chapter continues in describing basics about Daniel. The last comment in v 21 indicates Daniel continued in service to Babylon/Persia until the 1st year of Cyrus.


Cyrus began his rule in 559 BCE over Persia and conquered Babylon in 538 BCE.  Daniel is not clear on which date is meant. Most interpret this to be 538BCE so Daniel would have been in Babylon's service for about 60 years.
Problems with Jewish captives being taken by Nebuchadrezzar in 605 BCE from Judah/Jerusalem are numerous requiring one to interpolate between lines of texts in multiple documents.
Gramps makes the excuse here that Crown Prince Nebuchadrezzar took Jewish captives when he conquered Hatti-land even though nothing is claimed in this respect in the Babylonian Chronicles. The Chronicles only indicate captives were taken, no mention of their country of origin. A detailed discussion between us did not resolve our different views.

See Gramps post 1215, here he claims that Daniel says King Neb assaulted Jerusalem in 605 BCE and captives are taken. In reality, nothing supports this happened then.
Captives are mentioned being taken in Jerusalem in 597 BCE of the Jews. Captives taken in 605 BCE specifically in Jerusalem or Judah are not mentioned. Though captives are discussed, there is no  detail as to country of origin in any account.


Gramps posts- 1215, 1222, 1225, 1227, 1238, 1244, 1251, 1253


PJTS – 1219, 1224, 1226, 1231, 1243, 1249, 1252, 1255


The records do not support that Jews were taken in 605 BCE. Gramps interpolates this and makes an unsupported claim.


See ABC 5 link for what was recorded in King Nebuchadrezzar’s time - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html


300 Years later Berossus wrote - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

and only indicates the captives that were taken were left with his friends, naming various countries of origin.

As to where they were taken is not given. As Judah was a vassal state of Egypt at the time, troops are likely to have been in the service of the Pharaoh.

Concluding that this account 300 years later proves Daniel was correct is unwarranted.

End result – there is no proof that captives were taken in Jerusalem in 605 BCE by Babylon, elsewhere yes, Judah, no.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

That does infer that there are other gods potentially equal too said god. Honestly I think it could read "thou shalt have no man made religions before this one." and it would be the same exact animal.

Partially wrong. They didn't have a man made religion. Their God is spiritual which is not man made. That's why it was different then that of the other tribes in the region.

Correct- Thou shalt have no man made religions/Gods

And who/what told you that God was spiritual? A book written by men, of course! It's so clear now - God is spiritual because men wrote the book describing this God (that no one knew about until the book was written). YAY!

There is no evidence that "no one knew about God" before the Bible was written. According to the Bible there have been people that knew about God far before that. The biblical time line shows Abraham being a young man before the death of Noah. Noah would certainly have had a first hand knowledge of God.

This kind of reasoning comes only from our own ignorance. Just because we do not possess early evidence does not mean that it did not happen.

People knew about gods for eons before Yahweh was thought up. They were used to explain what they did not understand. Humans are great at making stuff up. The only reason you like Yahweh as your God is majority rule where you live. Nothing more.

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                 The 1st commandment says, "Have no other god before me."  Who are these other gods in competition with your god?

That does infer that there are other gods potentially equal too said god. Honestly I think it could read "thou shalt have no man made religions before this one." and it would be the same exact animal.

Partially wrong. They didn't have a man made religion. Their God is spiritual which is not man made. That's why it was different then that of the other tribes in the region.

Correct- Thou shalt have no man made religions/Gods

And who/what told you that God was spiritual? A book written by men, of course! It's so clear now - God is spiritual because men wrote the book describing this God (that no one knew about until the book was written). YAY!

 

 

There is no evidence that "no one knew about God" before the Bible was written. According to the Bible there have been people that knew about God far before that.

pjts wrote:

Do you see what's wrong with this Gramps?

1- Argument from omission, something you like to accuse me of doing.

2-The book of storytelling says that........

So. I'd like to differ with you. plenty of people knew about Anu and Ki as well as Enki and the other Annunaki. Yahweh, not so much. Maybe he was a spoiled child of a goddess.

And claiming that the book of stories says something happened before the book of stories is using the book to prove itself. Something you have been trying to do with Daniel, though it's a circular argument.

Quite the opposite. I am countering an argument of omission. The claim was that "no one knew about" God before "the book was written". This is a claim that can not possibly be backed up. This is a claim based upon our own ignorance of the times we are discussing.

Just because we do not have in our possession concrete evidence that man knew about God, does not mean it does not exist.

"We do not know...therefore it did not happen". That is not Rational. We do not know...therefore we do not know. That is Rational.

The "book" gives a narrative that explains the days before "the book" was written. In this it "claims" that man had knowledge of God. That does not prove it. It simply gives a narrative for us to examine.

 

gramster wrote:

The biblical time line shows Abraham being a young man before the death of Noah. Noah would certainly have had a first hand knowledge of God.

This kind of reasoning comes only from our own ignorance. Just because we do not possess early evidence does not mean that it did not happen.

pjts

Exactly, theSumerian stories tell us all about the Annunaki, just because no one in the modern era has never seen any of them does not mean that any of their stories did not happen.

And they lived pretty much indefinitely as well, perhaps the origin of the long lives in the OT, from their ancestors in Mesopotamia. [/quote wrote:

"Perhaps" You just go on believing this. I have not seen any Sumerian stories that come anywhere close to making as much sense as the bible. I am sure that you do not agree.

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Gramps

You take a week off and forget everything I tried to teach you about quotes.

Gramps wrote:

Just because we do not have in our possession concrete evidence that man knew about God, does not mean it does not exist.

"We do not know...therefore it did not happen". That is not Rational. We do not know...therefore we do not know. That is Rational.

The "book" gives a narrative that explains the days before "the book" was written. In this it "claims" that man had knowledge of God. That does not prove it. It simply gives a narrative for us to examine.

We do not know, so we do not know!!!!

The book has issues.

As I tried to show you, ancient books have all kinds of claims. Claims are not necessarily true.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Arguments of Omission - No bad history required!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 1
Gramps does not discuss chapter 1 until later on near the summary discussion. He takes the position Daniel had to have been a captive in 605 BCE.  In his early discussion he begins in chapter 2 not chap 1.
In chapter 1 we learn Daniel and his friends are part of the captives when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah in 597 BCE. However Gramps indicates that he believes this happened in 605 BCE. The chapter continues in describing basics about Daniel. The last comment in v 21 indicates Daniel continued in service to Babylon/Persia until the 1st year of Cyrus.


Cyrus began his rule in 559 BCE over Persia and conquered Babylon in 538 BCE.  Daniel is not clear on which date is meant. Most interpret this to be 538BCE so Daniel would have been in Babylon's service for about 60 years.
Problems with Jewish captives being taken by Nebuchadrezzar in 605 BCE from Judah/Jerusalem are numerous requiring one to interpolate between lines of texts in multiple documents.
Gramps makes the excuse here that Crown Prince Nebuchadrezzar took Jewish captives when he conquered Hatti-land even though nothing is claimed in this respect in the Babylonian Chronicles. The Chronicles only indicate captives were taken, no mention of their country of origin. A detailed discussion between us did not resolve our different views.

See Gramps post 1215, here he claims that Daniel says King Neb assaulted Jerusalem in 605 BCE and captives are taken. In reality, nothing supports this happened then.
Captives are mentioned being taken in Jerusalem in 597 BCE of the Jews. Captives taken in 605 BCE specifically in Jerusalem or Judah are not mentioned. Though captives are discussed, there is no  detail as to country of origin in any account.


Gramps posts- 1215, 1222, 1225, 1227, 1238, 1244, 1251, 1253


PJTS – 1219, 1224, 1226, 1231, 1243, 1249, 1252, 1255


The records do not support that Jews were taken in 605 BCE. Gramps interpolates this and makes an unsupported claim.


See ABC 5 link for what was recorded in King Nebuchadrezzar’s time - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html


300 Years later Berossus wrote - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

and only indicates the captives that were taken were left with his friends, naming various countries of origin.

As to where they were taken is not given. As Judah was a vassal state of Egypt at the time, troops are likely to have been in the service of the Pharaoh.

Concluding that this account 300 years later proves Daniel was correct is unwarranted.

End result – there is no proof that captives were taken in Jerusalem in 605 BCE by Babylon, elsewhere yes, Judah, no.

My argument is only to point out that the claim of "bad history" here is completely without merit. I am not claiming to prove that this captivity did happen in 605 BC. Only to point out that it is not unlikely, and certainly not "highly unlikely".

Facts

Nebuchadnezzar was in the area with a massive army in 605 BC.

Nebuchadnezzar did take captives at this time.

We have the Berrossus account that Jewish captives were taken at this time.

The only collaboration of the Berrossus account is the Book of Daniel.

My point is that it is entirely possible that these captives that Berrossus mentions could well have included Daniel and his friends. That has not been shown to be out of the realm of a reasonable possibility.

Therefore the claim of "bad history" is completely unwarranted and unsupported in this account. To claim "bad history" here is to make a claim based entirely upon our own obvious ignorance of the missing details. Or if you wish "an argument of omission".

Which I reject as Totally Irrational.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
As Gramps sinks below the muck slowly ........

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 1
Gramps does not discuss chapter 1 until later on near the summary discussion. He takes the position Daniel had to have been a captive in 605 BCE.  In his early discussion he begins in chapter 2 not chap 1.
In chapter 1 we learn Daniel and his friends are part of the captives when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah in 597 BCE. However Gramps indicates that he believes this happened in 605 BCE. The chapter continues in describing basics about Daniel. The last comment in v 21 indicates Daniel continued in service to Babylon/Persia until the 1st year of Cyrus.


Cyrus began his rule in 559 BCE over Persia and conquered Babylon in 538 BCE.  Daniel is not clear on which date is meant. Most interpret this to be 538BCE so Daniel would have been in Babylon's service for about 60 years.
Problems with Jewish captives being taken by Nebuchadrezzar in 605 BCE from Judah/Jerusalem are numerous requiring one to interpolate between lines of texts in multiple documents.
Gramps makes the excuse here that Crown Prince Nebuchadrezzar took Jewish captives when he conquered Hatti-land even though nothing is claimed in this respect in the Babylonian Chronicles. The Chronicles only indicate captives were taken, no mention of their country of origin. A detailed discussion between us did not resolve our different views.

See Gramps post 1215, here he claims that Daniel says King Neb assaulted Jerusalem in 605 BCE and captives are taken. In reality, nothing supports this happened then.
Captives are mentioned being taken in Jerusalem in 597 BCE of the Jews. Captives taken in 605 BCE specifically in Jerusalem or Judah are not mentioned. Though captives are discussed, there is no  detail as to country of origin in any account.


Gramps posts- 1215, 1222, 1225, 1227, 1238, 1244, 1251, 1253


PJTS – 1219, 1224, 1226, 1231, 1243, 1249, 1252, 1255


The records do not support that Jews were taken in 605 BCE. Gramps interpolates this and makes an unsupported claim.


See ABC 5 link for what was recorded in King Nebuchadrezzar’s time - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html


300 Years later Berossus wrote - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

and only indicates the captives that were taken were left with his friends, naming various countries of origin.

As to where they were taken is not given. As Judah was a vassal state of Egypt at the time, troops are likely to have been in the service of the Pharaoh.

Concluding that this account 300 years later proves Daniel was correct is unwarranted.

End result – there is no proof that captives were taken in Jerusalem in 605 BCE by Babylon, elsewhere yes, Judah, no.

My argument is only to point out that the claim of "bad history" here is completely without merit. I am not claiming to prove that this captivity did happen in 605 BC. Only to point out that it is not unlikely, and certainly not "highly unlikely".

Actually, you are claiming exactly that the captivity did happen in 605 BCE. If you are not, then you are admitting Daniel is in error.

Gramps post 1222 wrote:

3. As verse 8 tells us he continued "conquering the whole area of Hamath". At least conquering South toward Egypt including a stop by Jerusalem to inform Jehoiachin that he now had a new "boss", and collect tribute. This probably happened in the month of simanu (May/June).

Verse 8 does not tell us that Nebuchadrezzar stopped by Jerusalem, you interpolated that into the text. It is not there.

 

First off, the account of Berrossus is lost to time. The account we have is by way of Josephus.

Even in Josphus' account in Against Apion, paragraph 19 it does not indicate what you claim - "...and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste,..." - see - http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html

So, you have an account quoted by a 1st century CE Jew, quoting an account from the 3rd century BCE in regard to something that happened in the late 7th century BCE (605 BCE) or 300 years earlier.

You think this is something of substance? There are too many places for injection of errors.

Gramps wrote:

Facts

Nebuchadnezzar was in the area with a massive army in 605 BC.

Yes he was.

Gramps wrote:

Nebuchadnezzar did take captives at this time.

He took captives, but their country of origins are not mentioned.

Gramps wrote:

We have the Berrossus account that Jewish captives were taken at this time.

We have this account by way of Josephus. Berrossus wrote his account 300 years after the event. Josephus wrote about 350 years after Berrossus.

We have the account in ABC 5, written at the time of the events. Taking tribute and captives in Jerusalem is NOT included.

Gramps wrote:

The only collaboration of the Berrossus account is the Book of Daniel.

Exactly, which if written after Berrossus would follow the errors in Berrossus if written in the 2nd century BCE.

The errors of Berrossus were included in the Daniel account.

Gramps wrote:

My point is that it is entirely possible that these captives that Berrossus mentions could well have included Daniel and his friends. That has not been shown to be out of the realm of a reasonable possibility.

It is possible that we are all descended from stranded astronauts because of the stories of ancient Sumer in regard to the Annunaki as well as the Nazca lines in Peru which can only be seen from the air.

Gramps wrote:

Therefore the claim of "bad history" is completely unwarranted and unsupported in this account. To claim "bad history" here is to make a claim based entirely upon our own obvious ignorance of the missing details. Or if you wish "an argument of omission".

Which I reject as Totally Irrational.

 

All you have is an account written 300 years later (Berrossus), lost to time, described by a writer 350 years later (Josephus) that is different than an account written at the time of the occurrence (ABC 5).

And from this you wish to build your foundation? It sinks as if built on quicksand.

Totally irrational hardly describes your position.

Grasping at low lying branches to save yourself as you sink slowly under the muck comes closer.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Still sinking in your own manufactured Muck!

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 1
Gramps does not discuss chapter 1 until later on near the summary discussion. He takes the position Daniel had to have been a captive in 605 BCE.  In his early discussion he begins in chapter 2 not chap 1.
In chapter 1 we learn Daniel and his friends are part of the captives when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah in 597 BCE. However Gramps indicates that he believes this happened in 605 BCE. The chapter continues in describing basics about Daniel. The last comment in v 21 indicates Daniel continued in service to Babylon/Persia until the 1st year of Cyrus.


Cyrus began his rule in 559 BCE over Persia and conquered Babylon in 538 BCE.  Daniel is not clear on which date is meant. Most interpret this to be 538BCE so Daniel would have been in Babylon's service for about 60 years.
Problems with Jewish captives being taken by Nebuchadrezzar in 605 BCE from Judah/Jerusalem are numerous requiring one to interpolate between lines of texts in multiple documents.
Gramps makes the excuse here that Crown Prince Nebuchadrezzar took Jewish captives when he conquered Hatti-land even though nothing is claimed in this respect in the Babylonian Chronicles. The Chronicles only indicate captives were taken, no mention of their country of origin. A detailed discussion between us did not resolve our different views.

See Gramps post 1215, here he claims that Daniel says King Neb assaulted Jerusalem in 605 BCE and captives are taken. In reality, nothing supports this happened then.
Captives are mentioned being taken in Jerusalem in 597 BCE of the Jews. Captives taken in 605 BCE specifically in Jerusalem or Judah are not mentioned. Though captives are discussed, there is no  detail as to country of origin in any account.


Gramps posts- 1215, 1222, 1225, 1227, 1238, 1244, 1251, 1253


PJTS – 1219, 1224, 1226, 1231, 1243, 1249, 1252, 1255


The records do not support that Jews were taken in 605 BCE. Gramps interpolates this and makes an unsupported claim.


See ABC 5 link for what was recorded in King Nebuchadrezzar’s time - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html


300 Years later Berossus wrote - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

and only indicates the captives that were taken were left with his friends, naming various countries of origin.

As to where they were taken is not given. As Judah was a vassal state of Egypt at the time, troops are likely to have been in the service of the Pharaoh.

Concluding that this account 300 years later proves Daniel was correct is unwarranted.

End result – there is no proof that captives were taken in Jerusalem in 605 BCE by Babylon, elsewhere yes, Judah, no.

My argument is only to point out that the claim of "bad history" here is completely without merit. I am not claiming to prove that this captivity did happen in 605 BC. Only to point out that it is not unlikely, and certainly not "highly unlikely".

pjts wrote:

Actually, you are claiming exactly that the captivity did happen in 605 BCE. If you are not, then you are admitting Daniel is in error.

You need to go back to school and learn to read and understand what one writes.

I am not claiming that I can PROVE from the sketchy information we have passed down to us today that this did happen. I am merely pointing out that you cannot PROVE that it did not. And furthermore, you have not even been able to demonstrate that it is even unlikely to have happened.

You are the one claiming BAD HISTORY. The burden is upon you to PROVE IT!

The only MUCK here is the way you try to MUDDY up and distort the issue.

 

Gramps post 1222 wrote:

3. As verse 8 tells us he continued "conquering the whole area of Hamath". At least conquering South toward Egypt including a stop by Jerusalem to inform Jehoiachin that he now had a new "boss", and collect tribute. This probably happened in the month of simanu (May/June).

pjts wrote:

Verse 8 does not tell us that Nebuchadrezzar stopped by Jerusalem, you interpolated that into the text. It is not there.

I like how you edit things out. My post started with "Here is what I believe happened". I was detailing a possible scenario. With that said, my sentence should have been written "Possibly including a stop by Jerusalem..." The quotes include only "conquering the whole area of Hamath".

pjts wrote:

First off, the account of Berrossus is lost to time. The account we have is by way of Josephus.

Even in Josphus' account in Against Apion, paragraph 19 it does not indicate what you claim - "...and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste,..." - see - http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html

So, you have an account quoted by a 1st century CE Jew, quoting an account from the 3rd century BCE in regard to something that happened in the late 7th century BCE (605 BCE) or 300 years earlier.

You think this is something of substance? There are too many places for injection of errors.

Once again, I am simply pointing out that we have an account that is entirely compatible with the Daniel account. This is just one more piece of evidence that is consistent with "good history" for the Book of Daniel. To try to make anything more out of this is non sense.

Gramps wrote:

Facts

Nebuchadnezzar was in the area with a massive army in 605 BC.

pjts wrote:

Yes he was.

Gramps wrote:

Nebuchadnezzar did take captives at this time.

pjts wrote:

He took captives, but their country of origins are not mentioned.

Exactly

Gramps wrote:

We have the Berrossus account that Jewish captives were taken at this time.

pjts wrote:

We have this account by way of Josephus. Berrossus wrote his account 300 years after the event. Josephus wrote about 350 years after Berrossus.

We have the account in ABC 5, written at the time of the events. Taking tribute and captives in Jerusalem is NOT included.

Your point? Are you trying to make another of your infamous "arguments of omission"? It looks like you are trying to insinuate that just because the account in ABC 5 does not elaborate on just who was taken and where, that is some kind of evidence that it did not happen??

Once again, I must point out the absurdity of such an argument. Just more Muckity Muck!

Gramps wrote:

The only collaboration of the Berrossus account is the Book of Daniel.

pjts wrote:

Exactly, which if written after Berrossus would follow the errors in Berrossus if written in the 2nd century BCE.

The errors of Berrossus were included in the Daniel account.

Interesting. We are still looking for those "errors" in Daniel. So far we have yet to find even one.

Gramps wrote:

My point is that it is entirely possible that these captives that Berrossus mentions could well have included Daniel and his friends. That has not been shown to be out of the realm of a reasonable possibility.

pjts wrote:

It is possible that we are all descended from stranded astronauts because of the stories of ancient Sumer in regard to the Annunaki as well as the Nazca lines in Peru which can only be seen from the air.

Is this supposed to be a competent answer? Keep throwing mud on the window long enough, and you just might be able to obscure your short comings.

Gramps wrote:

Therefore the claim of "bad history" is completely unwarranted and unsupported in this account. To claim "bad history" here is to make a claim based entirely upon our own obvious ignorance of the missing details. Or if you wish "an argument of omission".

Which I reject as Totally Irrational.

 

pjts wrote:

All you have is an account written 300 years later (Berrossus), lost to time, described by a writer 350 years later (Josephus) that is different than an account written at the time of the occurrence (ABC 5).

And from this you wish to build your foundation? It sinks as if built on quicksand.

Totally irrational hardly describes your position.

Grasping at low lying branches to save yourself as you sink slowly under the muck comes closer.

You are forgetting that the burden is upon you to prove "bad history". And so far it looks like you don't even have an argument.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 1
Gramps does not discuss chapter 1 until later on near the summary discussion. He takes the position Daniel had to have been a captive in 605 BCE.  In his early discussion he begins in chapter 2 not chap 1.
In chapter 1 we learn Daniel and his friends are part of the captives when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah in 597 BCE. However Gramps indicates that he believes this happened in 605 BCE. The chapter continues in describing basics about Daniel. The last comment in v 21 indicates Daniel continued in service to Babylon/Persia until the 1st year of Cyrus.


Cyrus began his rule in 559 BCE over Persia and conquered Babylon in 538 BCE.  Daniel is not clear on which date is meant. Most interpret this to be 538BCE so Daniel would have been in Babylon's service for about 60 years.
Problems with Jewish captives being taken by Nebuchadrezzar in 605 BCE from Judah/Jerusalem are numerous requiring one to interpolate between lines of texts in multiple documents.
Gramps makes the excuse here that Crown Prince Nebuchadrezzar took Jewish captives when he conquered Hatti-land even though nothing is claimed in this respect in the Babylonian Chronicles. The Chronicles only indicate captives were taken, no mention of their country of origin. A detailed discussion between us did not resolve our different views.

See Gramps post 1215, here he claims that Daniel says King Neb assaulted Jerusalem in 605 BCE and captives are taken. In reality, nothing supports this happened then.
Captives are mentioned being taken in Jerusalem in 597 BCE of the Jews. Captives taken in 605 BCE specifically in Jerusalem or Judah are not mentioned. Though captives are discussed, there is no  detail as to country of origin in any account.


Gramps posts- 1215, 1222, 1225, 1227, 1238, 1244, 1251, 1253


PJTS – 1219, 1224, 1226, 1231, 1243, 1249, 1252, 1255


The records do not support that Jews were taken in 605 BCE. Gramps interpolates this and makes an unsupported claim.


See ABC 5 link for what was recorded in King Nebuchadrezzar’s time - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html


300 Years later Berossus wrote - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

and only indicates the captives that were taken were left with his friends, naming various countries of origin.

As to where they were taken is not given. As Judah was a vassal state of Egypt at the time, troops are likely to have been in the service of the Pharaoh.

Concluding that this account 300 years later proves Daniel was correct is unwarranted.

End result – there is no proof that captives were taken in Jerusalem in 605 BCE by Babylon, elsewhere yes, Judah, no.

My argument is only to point out that the claim of "bad history" here is completely without merit. I am not claiming to prove that this captivity did happen in 605 BC. Only to point out that it is not unlikely, and certainly not "highly unlikely".

pjts wrote:

Actually, you are claiming exactly that the captivity did happen in 605 BCE. If you are not, then you are admitting Daniel is in error.

You need to go back to school and learn to read and understand what one writes.

I am not claiming that I can PROVE from the sketchy information we have passed down to us today that this did happen. I am merely pointing out that you cannot PROVE that it did not. And furthermore, you have not even been able to demonstrate that it is even unlikely to have happened.

You are the one claiming BAD HISTORY. The burden is upon you to PROVE IT!

The only MUCK here is the way you try to MUDDY up and distort the issue.

I don't have to prove that your interpolation is true, you do.

None of the sources indicate Jerusalem or Judah was attacked. You interpolated that into the account.

If you did not do that, quote the source that directly indicates there was such an attack.

You need to prove that was what happened to validate the claim in Daniel.

My point is you are claiming there was such an attack when you accept the account in Daniel because without it, you have errors. So despite you saying, "I am not claiming to prove that this captivity did happen in 605 BC. Only to point out that it is not unlikely, and certainly not "highly unlikely", you have issues without it happening in 605 BCE.

If you are not claiming that Jerusalem was attacked then you are admitting Daniel is in error. You can't have this both ways.

Which is it Gramps?

Do you consider there to be an invasion/attack in 605 BCE or not. Stop being like a politician and make a stand. The Daniel text which you consider to be true and accurate requires that this happened in 605 BCE.

Either you have doubts about this or you buy the Daniel claim. You can't do both.

 

 

 

 

Gramps post 1222 wrote:

Here is what I believe probably happened.

pjts wrote:

Verse 8 does not tell us that Nebuchadrezzar stopped by Jerusalem, you interpolated that into the text. It is not there.

I like how you edit things out. My post started with "Here is what I believe happened". I was detailing a possible scenario. With that said, my sentence should have been written "Possibly including a stop by Jerusalem..." The quotes include only "conquering the whole area of Hamath".

Here's what you wrote:

gramps 1222 wrote:

Here is what I believe probably happened........rip....

3. As verse 8 tells us he continued "conquering the whole area of Hamath". At least conquering South toward Egypt including a stop by Jerusalem to inform Jehoiachin that he now had a new "boss", and collect tribute. This probably happened in the month of simanu (May/June).

So how is one to take this contradiction you have written. If you aren't a politician you should be.

You phase it as "here is what I believe probably happened" and say "As verse 8 tells us...." But verse 8 does not tell us any such thing.

How do you want me to take this contradictory statement?

 

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

First off, the account of Berrossus is lost to time. The account we have is by way of Josephus.

Even in Josephus' account in Against Apion, paragraph 19 it does not indicate what you claim - "...and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste,..." - see - http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html

So, you have an account quoted by a 1st century CE Jew, quoting an account from the 3rd century BCE in regard to something that happened in the late 7th century BCE (605 BCE) or 300 years earlier.

You think this is something of substance? There are too many places for injection of errors.

Once again, I am simply pointing out that we have an account that is entirely compatible with the Daniel account. This is just one more piece of evidence that is consistent with "good history" for the Book of Daniel. To try to make anything more out of this is non sense.

It is only consistent when you interpolate "captives of the Jews" to mean they were taken in Judah/Jerusalem.

You do not know this was what happened and stretch it be mean what you want.

You really should be a politician.

Gramps wrote:

Gramps wrote:

We have the Berrossus account that Jewish captives were taken at this time.

pjts wrote:

We have this account by way of Josephus. Berrossus wrote his account 300 years after the event. Josephus wrote about 350 years after Berrossus.

We have the account in ABC 5, written at the time of the events. Taking tribute and captives in Jerusalem is NOT included.

Your point? Are you trying to make another of your infamous "arguments of omission"? It looks like you are trying to insinuate that just because the account in ABC 5 does not elaborate on just who was taken and where, that is some kind of evidence that it did not happen??

Once again, I must point out the absurdity of such an argument. Just more Muckity Muck!

No Gramps, I'm pointing out Josephus wrote this in the 1st century CE, over 650 years after the event. The ABC 5 account is right after the event.

Though Josephus/Berrossus still do not say that Jerusalem/Judah was attacked at that point like you interpolate.

 

Gramps wrote:

Gramps wrote:

The only collaboration of the Berrossus account is the Book of Daniel.

pjts wrote:

Exactly, which if written after Berrossus would follow the errors in Berrossus if written in the 2nd century BCE.

The errors of Berrossus were included in the Daniel account.

Interesting. We are still looking for those "errors" in Daniel. So far we have yet to find even one.

Gramps, when you interpolate that which is not there into the text you can whitewash anything into being what you want. What political office are you running for?

Gramps wrote:

Gramps wrote:

My point is that it is entirely possible that these captives that Berrossus mentions could well have included Daniel and his friends. That has not been shown to be out of the realm of a reasonable possibility.

pjts wrote:

It is possible that we are all descended from stranded astronauts because of the stories of ancient Sumer in regard to the Annunaki as well as the Nazca lines in Peru which can only be seen from the air.

Is this supposed to be a competent answer? Keep throwing mud on the window long enough, and you just might be able to obscure your short comings.

No. it is a snarky comment in response to your irrational claims being reasonable.

Gramps wrote:

Gramps wrote:

Therefore the claim of "bad history" is completely unwarranted and unsupported in this account. To claim "bad history" here is to make a claim based entirely upon our own obvious ignorance of the missing details. Or if you wish "an argument of omission".

Which I reject as Totally Irrational.

 

pjts wrote:

All you have is an account written 300 years later (Berrossus), lost to time, described by a writer 350 years later (Josephus) that is different than an account written at the time of the occurrence (ABC 5).

And from this you wish to build your foundation? It sinks as if built on quicksand.

Totally irrational hardly describes your position.

Grasping at low lying branches to save yourself as you sink slowly under the muck comes closer.

You are forgetting that the burden is upon you to prove "bad history". And so far it looks like you don't even have an argument.

The burden is not on me to prove "bad history", it never has been. All I need is reasonable doubt, which there is more than enough to be found.

The Book of Daniel contains "magic" and unrealistic occurrences not found in everyday life.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Prophecy is not an accepted reality. You must eliminate any possibility of doubt.

This you have failed to do.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
You have nothing!

pjts wrote:

The burden is not on me to prove "bad history", it never has been. All I need is reasonable doubt, which there is more than enough to be found.

The Book of Daniel contains "magic" and unrealistic occurrences not found in everyday life.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Prophecy is not an accepted reality. You must eliminate any possibility of doubt.

This you have failed to do.

Herein lies the real issue. You have "reasonable doubt" in the authenticity of the Book of Daniel because "you don't believe in God". Now that's the honest truth. Since we are discussing the evidence for the belief in God, isn't that a classic case of circular reasoning?

As for the claim of "bad history" you still do not have a competent and compelling argument. There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not.

It is reasonable to believe that it very well could have happened just like the author said. Therefore no bad history is required. You can find reasons in your own mind to doubt if you wish, but that does not add up to proof of bad history.

And yes, if you want to go around claiming that The Book of Daniel is "full of bad history", the burden of proof is on you. That is unless you want to be the type of guy that goes around making claims that you can not back up.

You have repeatedly made this claim, and you are not able to prove it. Now that's sad. Or maybe desperate if you prefer.

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Nothing has been proved by you

What you presented to support your view in chapter one is interpolated conjecture.

This from writers who wrote hundreds of years later.

So your 1st volley in this exchange was with blanks.

And you won't even take a solid position on your claims.

Either King Neb seized hostages or not. For your interpretation to be correct you cannot just go with "it is not unlikely, and certainly not highly unlikely" because it is required that the captives were taken in 605 BCE or Daniel is in error.

Your avoidance is duly noted.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The burden is not on me to prove "bad history", it never has been. All I need is reasonable doubt, which there is more than enough to be found.

The Book of Daniel contains "magic" and unrealistic occurrences not found in everyday life.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Prophecy is not an accepted reality. You must eliminate any possibility of doubt.

This you have failed to do.

Herein lies the real issue. You have "reasonable doubt" in the authenticity of the Book of Daniel because "you don't believe in God". Now that's the honest truth. Since we are discussing the evidence for the belief in God, isn't that a classic case of circular reasoning?

As for the claim of "bad history" you still do not have a competent and compelling argument. There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not.

It is reasonable to believe that it very well could have happened just like the author said. Therefore no bad history is required. You can find reasons in your own mind to doubt if you wish, but that does not add up to proof of bad history.

And yes, if you want to go around claiming that The Book of Daniel is "full of bad history", the burden of proof is on you. That is unless you want to be the type of guy that goes around making claims that you can not back up.

You have repeatedly made this claim, and you are not able to prove it. Now that's sad. Or maybe desperate if you prefer.

 

The point you miss here is it is on you to prove that the story in Daniel supports that there is a god.

Start position.

Me - Gods are not real from my understanding.

You - Daniel's prophecies prove that the OT/Christian god is real.

So, you have to take me past reasonable doubt, prove that "magic" discussed in the text can happen in the real world, prove without any doubt that the prophecies can be no other way then you interpret.

So, how is my questioning of your claim circular reasoning?

The problem you have is you can't put yourself in my position to understand why your position of "There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not." does not work.

It does not move me from my position, all things being equal, nothing changes and you are still at the start gate.

Since you believe, you see it as basis for your view, you give over to a bias for the belief in the god, whereas it doesn't actually move you from the start gate if it is A - B = 0

Where A = it happened and B = it didn't.

We won't ever get past these differences because it is inherrant in you as a believer to accept less than complete validation as proof.

A skeptic OTOH does not do so, and requires it to be actually proven.

I will go on to chapter 2 as we have accomplished about all we can with chapter 1.

You - It's true - because -  "There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not."

Me - Can you actually show something to get past the start gate.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What you presented to support your view in chapter one is interpolated conjecture.

This from writers who wrote hundreds of years later.

So your 1st volley in this exchange was with blanks.

And you won't even take a solid position on your claims.

Either King Neb seized hostages or not. For your interpretation to be correct you cannot just go with "it is not unlikely, and certainly not highly unlikely" because it is required that the captives were taken in 605 BCE or Daniel is in error.

Your avoidance is duly noted.

At this point I am simply pointing out that your claim of bad history is not supportable. I am not claiming that this one single account of an early captivity is positive proof of the existence of God. You say that I will not take a stand, yet you continue to make claims of bad history which you can not prove.

To answer your question. I believe that the early captivity probably did take place in 605 BC. However there are other possibilities that do not invalidate the Book of Daniel. We do not need to go into those at this time since you can not even prove that the 605 BC account did not happen.

You have not even loaded the gun.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The burden is not on me to prove "bad history", it never has been. All I need is reasonable doubt, which there is more than enough to be found.

The Book of Daniel contains "magic" and unrealistic occurrences not found in everyday life.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Prophecy is not an accepted reality. You must eliminate any possibility of doubt.

This you have failed to do.

Herein lies the real issue. You have "reasonable doubt" in the authenticity of the Book of Daniel because "you don't believe in God". Now that's the honest truth. Since we are discussing the evidence for the belief in God, isn't that a classic case of circular reasoning?

As for the claim of "bad history" you still do not have a competent and compelling argument. There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not.

It is reasonable to believe that it very well could have happened just like the author said. Therefore no bad history is required. You can find reasons in your own mind to doubt if you wish, but that does not add up to proof of bad history.

And yes, if you want to go around claiming that The Book of Daniel is "full of bad history", the burden of proof is on you. That is unless you want to be the type of guy that goes around making claims that you can not back up.

You have repeatedly made this claim, and you are not able to prove it. Now that's sad. Or maybe desperate if you prefer.

pjts wrote:

The point you miss here is it is on you to prove that the story in Daniel supports that there is a god.

Start position.

Me - Gods are not real from my understanding.

You - Daniel's prophecies prove that the OT/Christian god is real.

So, you have to take me past reasonable doubt, prove that "magic" discussed in the text can happen in the real world, prove without any doubt that the prophecies can be no other way then you interpret.

So, how is my questioning of your claim circular reasoning?

The problem you have is you can't put yourself in my position to understand why your position of "There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not." does not work.

It does not move me from my position, all things being equal, nothing changes and you are still at the start gate.

Since you believe, you see it as basis for your view, you give over to a bias for the belief in the god, whereas it doesn't actually move you from the start gate if it is A - B = 0

Where A = it happened and B = it didn't.

We won't ever get past these differences because it is inherent in you as a believer to accept less than complete validation as proof.

A skeptic OTOH does not do so, and requires it to be actually proven.

I will go on to chapter 2 as we have accomplished about all we can with chapter 1.

You - It's true - because -  "There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not."

Me - Can you actually show something to get past the start gate.

Continue on to chapter 2. What we have determined so far is that "bad history" so far has not been demonstrated, and the existence of God has not yet been proven. So at this point I will not claim that God's existence has been proven, however you will probably continue to claim that bad history has.

I guess you have to do that to defend your religion.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
No movement on the game board

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What you presented to support your view in chapter one is interpolated conjecture.

This from writers who wrote hundreds of years later.

So your 1st volley in this exchange was with blanks.

And you won't even take a solid position on your claims.

Either King Neb seized hostages or not. For your interpretation to be correct you cannot just go with "it is not unlikely, and certainly not highly unlikely" because it is required that the captives were taken in 605 BCE or Daniel is in error.

Your avoidance is duly noted.

At this point I am simply pointing out that your claim of bad history is not supportable. I am not claiming that this one single account of an early captivity is positive proof of the existence of God. You say that I will not take a stand, yet you continue to make claims of bad history which you can not prove.

To answer your question. I believe that the early captivity probably did take place in 605 BC. However there are other possibilities that do not invalidate the Book of Daniel. We do not need to go into those at this time since you can not even prove that the 605 BC account did not happen.

You have not even loaded the gun.

You just can't take a position without qualifers can you?

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The point you miss here is it is on you to prove that the story in Daniel supports that there is a god.

Start position.

Me - Gods are not real from my understanding.

You - Daniel's prophecies prove that the OT/Christian god is real.

So, you have to take me past reasonable doubt, prove that "magic" discussed in the text can happen in the real world, prove without any doubt that the prophecies can be no other way then you interpret.

So, how is my questioning of your claim circular reasoning?

The problem you have is you can't put yourself in my position to understand why your position of "There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not." does not work.

It does not move me from my position, all things being equal, nothing changes and you are still at the start gate.

Since you believe, you see it as basis for your view, you give over to a bias for the belief in the god, whereas it doesn't actually move you from the start gate if it is A - B = 0

Where A = it happened and B = it didn't.

We won't ever get past these differences because it is inherent in you as a believer to accept less than complete validation as proof.

A skeptic OTOH does not do so, and requires it to be actually proven.

I will go on to chapter 2 as we have accomplished about all we can with chapter 1.

You - It's true - because -  "There is not proof that the early captivity did happen, but there is not proof that it did not."

Me - Can you actually show something to get past the start gate.

Continue on to chapter 2. What we have determined so far is that "bad history" so far has not been demonstrated, and the existence of God has not yet been proven. So at this point I will not claim that God's existence has been proven, however you will probably continue to claim that bad history has.

I guess you have to do that to defend your religion. 

What we have determined is that A + B = 0

You are still at the starting gate with your racer engine screaming wtih high RPM and going no where.

Chapter one did nothing to move you forward in you pursuit of proof.

You might want to use a dictionary to check on the definition of religion Gramps.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Counter Argument Summary Chapter 2

Onward into the world of oracles and soothsayers we venture.

Daniel 2

This is one of several supposed prophecies.

Gramps view:

gramps post 351 wrote:

Daniel 2. This prophecy must foretell as it says "what will be in the latter days". Since it starts with Babylon and ends in the later days it stands to reason that it refers to major players along the way. Kingdoms relevant to God's people starting with the first kingdom to follow Babylon. So we will start there.

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.


This is the beginning of Gramps claims and assertions for Rome.

My view is these kingdoms are most likely:

1-Babylon

2-Medes

3-Persians

4-Greece(Macedonia) from which the Seleucid kingdom and 3 others come forth.

I detailed later on in a post that either of the following can be deciphered from the text and still come up with Antiochus in the end.

In other words, it matters little if #2 is Medes- Persians or only Medes as this results in the same outcome as the text is vague.


1-Babylon
2-Medes-Persians
3-Greece(Macedonia)
4-Seleucid kingdom

My comments on Daniel 2:

PJTS #308 wrote:


1- Daniel 2:28- "However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days This was your dream and the visions in your mind while on your bed."NAB


If this was a supposed real occurrence there are several problems. 1st off this calls for acceptance that someone has knowledge of your dream that even you can not recall. Then, you have to buy into soothsayers or fortune tellers. Instead, if it is  but a storyline to begin the Apocalyptic tale regarding the Jews and the Seleucids no magic is required. In regard to the latter days, this is clear throughout to mean the end of the persecution which we will discuss in other chapters.

PJTS #308 wrote:

2- And Daniel 2:39 - "After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth."NAB


The Medes were inferior to Babylon, and if one checks it appears their kingdom achieved its greatest success right before Persia conquered it, which is after King Neb. The Persians never did rule all the world as claimed in this verse, a great part of the world that the writer knew about in the area but not Greece, Rome, Europe, Russia,  China,  Japan, N & S America or for that matter much of the world's total surface area. One can give the writer an out for his ignorance in regard to the size of the Earth as he was being advised by a man made god that was also ignorant. I pointed out the size of Chinese Empires such as the Zhou Dynasty during the time of Babylon and the Han Empire which ruled concurrent to Rome but Gramps discounted them as they had nothing to do with the Jews. Funny that, later he claims tribes that disappeared in Europe have meaning in these tales. Either people and countries that do not relate to the Jews are not relevant or they are. Unless you are puzzle piece fitting of course to create a morphed view to show a man made god is real then any morphed idea is OK.

PJTS #308 wrote:


3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."NAB

 

 Daniel claims here the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. In the 2nd century BCE, the writer may have thought this was to be, though it wasn't. If as in Gramps case you  puzzle piece fit the Jesus as instituting it as do many Christians, then you have a supposed kingdom that is not observed as it is spiritual as an out. Then one has to go through all the myths of the Jesus to show the Jesus was real, the Jesus was the supposed mashiach of the Jews, and the Jews missed the Jesus fit somehow into their prophecies, even in verses that weren't prophecies. This could take a long time to discuss. But wait, Gramps has claimed the prophecies alone will show Daniel had the god's help, we should not need to go to the myths of the Jesus.

I don't see how this works out for Gramps. In order to prove the God is real, this part needs you to accept the kingdom of god is spiritual and the Jesus was the one that instituted it. But how can one do so if the myths must be accepted for the Jesus to have this kingdom. I think this goes in circles for reasoning.



I argue in other posts this really meant the end of the persecution by the Seleucids, see post - 500,

So this chapter is just history presented as a dream to be interpreted in order to build up the Daniel character in the Apocalyptic storytelling.

 

No mystics or oracles required.

As always, extraordinary claims, in this case detailing another's dream that even he can not remember & interpreting it as a fortune teller, require extraordinary proof.

As shown this can fit various views therefore reasonable doubt exists and no progress from the start gate has occurred. Gramps is still revving his engine and going no where.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
PJTS #308 wrote:3-Then


PJTS #308 wrote:


3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."NAB

pjts wrote:

 
Daniel claims here the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. In the 2nd century BCE, the writer may have thought this was to be, though it wasn't. If as in Gramps case you  puzzle piece fit the Jesus as instituting it as do many Christians, then you have a supposed kingdom that is not observed as it is spiritual as an out. Then one has to go through all the myths of the Jesus to show the Jesus was real, the Jesus was the supposed mashiach of the Jews, and the Jews missed the Jesus fit somehow into their prophecies, even in verses that weren't prophecies. This could take a long time to discuss. But wait, Gramps has claimed the prophecies alone will show Daniel had the god's help, we should not need to go to the myths of the Jesus.

I don't see how this works out for Gramps. In order to prove the God is real, this part needs you to accept the kingdom of god is spiritual and the Jesus was the one that instituted it. But how can one do so if the myths must be accepted for the Jesus to have this kingdom. I think this goes in circles for reasoning.

Let's not confuse what gramps believes with the beliefs of other people.

"in the days of those kings" that being divided Europe just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed" that being the literal kingdom of God. "It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever" that being the result of God having put an end to sin, suffering, and death. The earth will be made new, and all things will be restored as they were before the fall of man into sin.

Just clarifying my position. Now you can continue on with your fantasy land interpretation.