ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[wickwoman]

Granite:

I think there would be consequences if there were no literal Hell - and there isn't. But the consequences of separation from God/self are this huge gaping hole in the middle of the heart. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

"Live as evidence that there is a way from wanting to longing."

-Rumi

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

Just saw the picture you posted of yourself on the home page. You and I are probably around the same age, LH. I find that really interesting for one reason or another. Probably because at this age we're supposed to be looking at porn and getting drunk at parties. We're not going to be young forever, dude. You gotta enjoy it while you can.

Looking at porn is pointless. And so is getting drunk. Of course, drinking is fun. And I don't mind doing that. I've got some brandy in my freezer, right now. I'm 24, by the way. The picture you saw was of me at 17. And, if I wanted to see a naked girl that bad, I could see a real one. But, that's pointless as well.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Granite1010--Your post #559 indicates to me that to you, sin is no predicament in spite of the fact that every difficulty, either directly or undirectly, is a consequence of sin. There, sir, are the real consequences.

 

[OMEGA]

Prodigal doesn't know the Bible.

Prodigal doesn't know the Bible.

Prodigal doesn't know the Bible.

What about Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point.
Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and
meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.
For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27)
that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years
after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild
Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely
fulfilled, hundreds of years later.
There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities
and with the course of history in general, all of which have been
literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ
Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of
Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.
There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and
usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus,
Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and
neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian
Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this
remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale
as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine
revelation.

Archaeology and the Bible

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by
itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other
early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have
been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably
the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.
Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear
outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by
the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led
to amazing discoveries."
Scientific Accuracy
Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that
many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature
in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A
sampling of these would include:
Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)


These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course,
but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience;
nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern
scientific facts.
It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in
the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have
been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been
able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.
Unique Structure
The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it
is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a
period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and
consistency throughout.
The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their
message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each
nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose
as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will
continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven
throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of
explanation by chance or collusion.
The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis
to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all
things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Hilston]

Omega,

How positive are you that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Prodigal--You requested proof of the Bible's integrity, demanding extra-biblical proof; but that is like demanding proof that a coin is pure gold while disallowing an examination of the coin itself.

My response was that the Bible's integrity is proven by its own internal evidence. Since unbelievers love to scoff at the Bible and claim it is contrary to "science," I chose to show proof of the Bible's integrity by its scientific evidences--evidences which were FAR in advance of "science." This is my second post showing scientific evidences in Scripture.

In this post, we consider the Bible's statements concerning the substance of space.

"It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." Isa.40:22

"Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain..." Psalm 104:2

"Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest. They all shall wax old as does a garment, and as a vesture thou shalt fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." (from Hebrews chapter one, the apostle's quote from the Old Testament)

In these verses we find a repetition of the idea of a real consistency to space--that rather than it being at any point a void, it has a tangible substance described as "a curtain" spread out; stretched out "like a curtain;" like a "garment", a "vesture" which will one day be "folded up."

You might be interested in checking the latest astronomy magazines, Prodigal. Your esteemed "scientists" are now--this year--beginning to catch up to the TRUE SCIENCE in this regard which was placed in the Bible eons ago.

They now realize that space is not an empty void. I have, within the last two weeks, heard scientists on the radio discussing a newly realized phenomenon which they call "dragging"--the effect made upon space by stars and planets moving through it. One described the effect as what you would see if someone on the other side of a "curtain" [the word choice was his own] drug his finger across it.
By the way--this was NOT said on one of the many "religious" radio stations.

For more information, just stay aware of new updates in scientific knowledge concerning space, and listen for the latest word on the phenomenon they now call "dragging."

There are more internal evidences of the Bible's integrity that I will post later in regard to science. I notice that Omega, in post #564 above has also made a good defense (apologetic) of Biblical integrity. Anyone who is REALLY a scientist seeks the truth above all else, so consider these things.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Granite1010--Your post #559 indicates to me that to you, sin is no predicament in spite of the fact that every difficulty, either directly or undirectly, is a consequence of sin. There, sir, are the real consequences.

You misunderstand: I'm saying that the Christian idea of sin IS a predicament. And that there ARE consequences. I'm saying that because of this, the central idea, concept, doctrine, or whatever you want to call it, of the Christian faith is hell.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Granite1010--Well, friend we just disagree on what makes up the central idea of Christendom. To me, it is threefoldfold: (1) the fallen condition of man, (2) the everlasting covenant agreed upon between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and (3) the manifestation of God's glory by Christ as He came to earth to effect the redemption promised in that covenant.

Imagine all that goes into preparing a table in the wilderness. I am struck by all that goes into the readying of that feast, but it seems to me that you are ignoring that to focus upon the refuse that finally gets thrown in the garbage. That DOES sound sad--until you realize that without the preparer of the feast, EVERYTHING would have ended up in the garbage. As one preacher said, "You wonder how God could hate Esau? I wonder how He could love Jacob."

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

You misunderstand: I'm saying that the Christian idea of sin IS a predicament. And that there ARE consequences. I'm saying that because of this, the central idea, concept, doctrine, or whatever you want to call it, of the Christian faith is hell.

Okay, granite. Would you care to tell me what my idea of sin is?

 

[prodigal]

Rolf,

I have spoken of the Bible's internal evidences proving its integrity. Before detailing some of them—

If I were you, I wouldn’t waste your time. I’ve heard these internal evidences before, remember? I’m an ex-christian. Nothing you will tell me will be anything I haven’t heard before.

The only thing that will be of any true value is the work of the Holy Spirit who creates new creatures in Christ Jesus.

First, use evidence external to the bible to prove that the holy spirit exists at all.

The difficulty they labor against is that the biblical account of origins is backed by hard science and their account is not.

This may be so, but it is not the question. You may find all the evidence in the world that SUPPORTS what you believe, but until you find some that PROVES it, well, that’s a different story.

Question: has modern science caught up with the Bible yet, or does it still try to number the stars?

That’s just a silly question, Rolf. I’m sure a scientist could come up with a much better, and far more confounding question for you. If you’d like I can try and come up with something better.

It's funny, you make science sound like a black, voodoo magical art that's millenia behind your book, but you're still trying to use a scientific argument....

What do you think so far?

Not much, but I think you’re getting closer to what I want.

demanding extra-biblical proof; but that is like demanding proof that a coin is pure gold while disallowing an examination of the coin itself.

Is this just a way to try and shirk away from the challenge? Please don’t disappoint me, Rolf.

Since unbelievers love to scoff at the Bible and claim it is contrary to "science,"

Never said anything of the like myself. Rolf, you said something earlier to the effect of, “[prodigal] you probably consider yourself to be a man of science”. Don’t freak out, I’m just paraphrasing, but I never made that claim. You’ve suddenly turned this into a scientific debate, but don't take that the wrong way, I’m happy to see this moving in a new direction. I just seem to get the impression that you’ve read a book or two that use science to back up your presuppositions.

Would you mind siting your sources?

You might be interested in checking the latest astronomy magazines, Prodigal. Your esteemed "scientists"—

Now you’re falling into the non-scientific territory that Lighthouse often does, that being telepathy. Lighthouse believes he can read my mind, so he often places thoughts in my head that are not there and words in my mouth that were never spoken. These are now, “my esteemed scientists”? Rolf, you turned this into a scientific debate, and now these primitive scientists you refer to are my heroes, championing my atheism? I see the point you're trying to make, but it's a little inappropriate.

And if you point me in the right direction of those magazines, that would be swell.

I’ll try and have a better reply next time, Rolf. I’m in the middle of quite a few things right now, plus a Pats game is on so I haven’t the time right now to check on any of the science you’ve sited, nor will I be able to try and come up with a scientific rebuttal right now.

You've gone out of your way to give me a clear, concise and logical argument defending the credibility of your bible, and I’m quite appreciative. I’ll try and return the favor by being just as clear and concise in the future.

Thanks.

Lighthouse,

if I wanted to see a naked girl that bad, I could see a real one. But, that's pointless as well.

…Are you gay?

OMEGA

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it
is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a
period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and
consistency throughout.

That entire statement is up for debate. Ever read anything scrutinizing the bible from a non-christian, objective point of view, or do you only read literature that supports your own presuppositions?


Yours truly,

Prodigal

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Granite1010--Well, friend we just disagree on what makes up the central idea of Christendom. To me, it is threefoldfold: (1) the fallen condition of man, (2) the everlasting covenant agreed upon between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and (3) the manifestation of God's glory by Christ as He came to earth to effect the redemption promised in that covenant.

Imagine all that goes into preparing a table in the wilderness. I am struck by all that goes into the readying of that feast, but it seems to me that you are ignoring that to focus upon the refuse that finally gets thrown in the garbage. That DOES sound sad--until you realize that without the preparer of the feast, EVERYTHING would have ended up in the garbage. As one preacher said, "You wonder how God could hate Esau? I wonder how He could love Jacob."

That was Gary North, actually. You're not a theomist, Rolf...are you?:noid:

The fallen condition of man is the cornerstone of Christendom. Absolutely. From there comes a) the threat of hell and b) the need for a redeemer.

The "everlasting covenant" you speak of between the Trinity strikes me as gratuitous, but ah well. A good way to self-inflict a migraine is trying to get your arms around trinitarian doctrine.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Okay, granite. Would you care to tell me what my idea of sin is?

Brandon, unlike you and the other stone throwers at TOL, I try not to put words in the mouth of other people and explain their opinions for them. So right now I'll actually defer and let you have a chance to speak for yourself. This isn't a courtesy other posters (yourself included) often give non or ex-Christians, so enjoy.

Go Pats.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Prodigal--A quick research on the tangible substance of space is at your fingertips. Try a google search for >>> Space science-frame dragging 2004. Some of what you said in your last post is in agreement with my own statement that even if I laid out an impregnable case for biblical integrity by internal scientific evidences, it would profit youi nothing. See ya. Your Pats will probably win the big trophy again---either them, or Philly.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Granite1010--You naughty little boy! It was not I who said that the cornerstone of Christendom was man's fallen condition. Man's fallen estate in itself could never amount to anything more than destruction.
Christ is the cornerstone, and He is so against the dark background of man's fallen estate. I think you know that. I think maybe you thought you might be able to confuse me with that.

Anyway, stay at it. You are to us bible-thumpers what a gym is to a bodybuilder.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Prodigal--here is a thought for you--the possibility that frame dragging might possibly--I say again, possibly--be what the psalmisat referred to when he said of the heavens, "as a vesture you shall fold them up and they shall be changed."

Keep this in mind as you read what is being said about frame dragging. I have gotten the impression from what some astronomers have said about it that the effect of frame dragging is cumulative. That would amount to a folding up.

Consider also something else the psalmist said--"They shall all wax old as does a garment..." How does a garment wax old? Think about it. How DOES a garment wax old? One primary evidence of an aging garment is the holes which develop in it--BLACK holes??

I am not at all attempting to control the direction of science. Science is a very laudable pursuit. I differ with it only when it THINKS it has disproven scripture. Eventually, when every scientific issue is answered with finality, it will be in agreement with what the Bible said a long time ago. That is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook, but when the Bible speaks concerning scientific matters, it speaks accurately.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Granite1010--You naughty little boy! It was not I who said that the cornerstone of Christendom was man's fallen condition. Man's fallen estate in itself could never amount to anything more than destruction.
Christ is the cornerstone, and He is so against the dark background of man's fallen estate. I think you know that. I think maybe you thought you might be able to confuse me with that.

Anyway, stay at it. You are to us bible-thumpers what a gym is to a bodybuilder.

You're right, you didn't say it. I did, Rolf. Work on your reading comprehension, hero.

By the way, using the poetic language in the Psalms to somehow confirm the Bible is a scientific proof text of some kind is a losing bet. Kinda leads you back to the "So who owns the cattle on hill #1001?" type questions.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,



…Are you gay?

Not a road you want to travel. But since you are unaware that I don't take kindly to such an accusation, I'll be nice. The answer is no. I never said I don't get turned on by the idea of naked ladies. I just think it's pointless when the lady isn't mine. Especially when I can't even touch them.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

The fallen condition of man is the cornerstone of Christendom. Absolutely. From there comes a) the threat of hell and b) the need for a redeemer.

No, the cornerstone of Christendom is the Redeemer.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

Brandon, unlike you and the other stone throwers at TOL, I try not to put words in the mouth of other people and explain their opinions for them. So right now I'll actually defer and let you have a chance to speak for yourself. This isn't a courtesy other posters (yourself included) often give non or ex-Christians, so enjoy.

Go Pats.

Sin is transgression of the law. And where there is no law, there is no transgression.

And what makes you feel that I throw stones?

P.S.
The reason I asked is because you did put words in my mouth, by making an assumption about what I meant...and misquoting me by insinuating that I believe something I don't.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

No, the cornerstone of Christendom is the Redeemer.

A redeemer is needed in the first place because of man's sin and subsequent future in hell for eternity.

Sin comes first, then the penalty, then the redeemer. It's a natural progression.