I answered his question, saltless. And you can find many of my posts, and see plenty that are insult free, if you wanted to see it that desperately.
ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
He has done everything to draw us to him. You're just too selfish too see that. You are the one pushing in the opposite direction.
Were you a Calvinist?
Christ draws us to Himself, and we use our free will to make the choice. If you choose to reject Him, that's your fault, and your fault alone.
P.S.
I'm not a Calvinist, and I don't agree with their out of context interpretation of those scriptures.
Stick around...you'll see plenty of arrogance from granite. Well, maybe you won't...since you don't see it in yourself.
Then look again. I rebutted your idea of a spiritual GOd proving Himself physically. And I don't hate you. You hate yourself. And I'm not lashing out at anything. You are arrogant. So I told you so. End of story.
You're not asking hard questions. And you are being disrespectful. Not of me, but of God. You are arrogant, and presume He owes you more proof of His existence, and expect Him to perform little tricks for your amusement.
Epistles? What epistles? The account of Christ's physical resurrection is in the gospels. Why would the epistles need to repeat it?
No. I did not use the basis of the one to refute the others. In fact, I know at least one I didn't rebut at all.
See above for what's disrespectful.
If you'd read the entire thing, instead of bits and pieces, then you would find your answers. But it seems you prefer your ignorance. Do you know how many atheists it takes to screw in a lightbulb?:think:
I might get reprimanded for repeating it, but since you like being one yourself, you called me a "prick", remember?
Learn Greek and Hebrew, then you can cry, "Contradiction!" Or, you could just read the whole thing, and get the entire picture, instead of just a few details...
You're acting like one, now. And you really need to learn what lashing out is. Anything offense you have taken was from me calling you what you are. And that's all I was doing. Nothing more.
I explained to you, exactly, how you are a hypocrite.
Actually, I was having a little fun. But if I took it any further it would just turn ugly, and that's not what I'm about, unless you ask for it.
His loss.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--Really, my friend! Why do you make statements concerning a book of which you are largely ignorant? Proddy, you claim to have been a part of the Christian community, profess to have been among Calvinists, and yet, do you have no knowledge of the numerous references to the resurrection of Christ in the epistles? Pick up the Book and read.1 Cor. 15 is an ideal place to start.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Lighthouse--you disagree with Calvinistic doctrine? Suggestion--you pick out any verse you would like me to explain--any verse which you think disproves the reformed view of scripture.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--you said earlier that we live in a day and age in which people are far more educated than before. You know, don't you, that such a statement does not match up with reality?
For example--can you tell me the difference between a democracy and a republic, and which of the two this country was founded as?
Have you recently read what percentage of high school graduates cannot fill out a job application, or read their diplomas? I am beginning to get the impression that you are just out of high school and still quite full of the self-esteem misinformation the public schools pump into the children. The USA ranks real close to the bottom in international competition among school aged children.
For example--can you tell me the difference between a democracy and a republic, and which of the two this country was founded as?
Have you recently read what percentage of high school graduates cannot fill out a job application, or read their diplomas? I am beginning to get the impression that you are just out of high school and still quite full of the self-esteem misinformation the public schools pump into the children. The USA ranks real close to the bottom in international competition among school aged children.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--you say that my references to science in the Bible are not unique. yet you have not shown me ANYWHERE--ANYPLACE--where your ancient authorities spoke the same scientific realities that the Bible related. So how can you say that the Bible is not unique? The fact that ancient sources spoke of scientific facts observable with the naked eye and so apparent they can be comprehended by man's mind without the aid of scientific laboratories does not mean they merit being ranked with the Bible which, millenia ahead of scientist's
comprehension, made clear statements of scientific facts--facts which you cannot find clearly stated anywhere else.
Isn't it interesting to you that references to scientific knowledge which were found on these clay tablets are NOT SPECIFIED? Isn't it interesting to you that the readings are difficult to understand, yet you make such a fuss about them being comparable to the Bible?
Are you not aware of the fact that many scientists are so antagonistic to Biblical references to scientific facts that they desperately want to give the impression that SUCH KNOWLEDGE was widespread, yet, even when they refer to certain "findings" to back up such a wish are unable to actually state exactly what these claimed sources said exactly and bring them forth for examination by the public?
HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT SUCH CLAIMS ESTABLISH THE COMPARIBILITY OF ANCIENT SECULAR KNOWLEDGE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OPENLY DISPLAYED IN THE BIBLE? SECULARISTS LIKE TO claim THEY ARE DUE RESPECT FOR THEIR RATIONALITY AND POWERS OF REASON. WELL, WHERE NOW ARE THEIR RATIONALITY AND POWERS OF REASONING?
comprehension, made clear statements of scientific facts--facts which you cannot find clearly stated anywhere else.
Isn't it interesting to you that references to scientific knowledge which were found on these clay tablets are NOT SPECIFIED? Isn't it interesting to you that the readings are difficult to understand, yet you make such a fuss about them being comparable to the Bible?
Are you not aware of the fact that many scientists are so antagonistic to Biblical references to scientific facts that they desperately want to give the impression that SUCH KNOWLEDGE was widespread, yet, even when they refer to certain "findings" to back up such a wish are unable to actually state exactly what these claimed sources said exactly and bring them forth for examination by the public?
HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT SUCH CLAIMS ESTABLISH THE COMPARIBILITY OF ANCIENT SECULAR KNOWLEDGE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OPENLY DISPLAYED IN THE BIBLE? SECULARISTS LIKE TO claim THEY ARE DUE RESPECT FOR THEIR RATIONALITY AND POWERS OF REASON. WELL, WHERE NOW ARE THEIR RATIONALITY AND POWERS OF REASONING?
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--you may have sat before reformed ministers, but your scope of knowledge indicates you did not pay attention. For example, you ask why God gave man free will if man did not have the power to use it to return to god. WELL--
Man's volition is an aspect of him being made in the image of God; but as a consequence of Adam's rebellion against God, the image of God in man was defaced. Whereas before Adam had the moral integrity to not only will, but to do what was right, Adam's fall resulted in man's loss of ability to independently do what was right. His free will is bound by the cords of his sin.
That loss of ability DID NOT RELIEVE MAN OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO DO WHAT GOD REQUIRED anymore than a student's inability to answer questions on a test relieves him of responsibility to know the material.
A student's inability does not in anyway limit the level of performance which a teacher may require, nor does it limit the teacher's ability to react to the student's inability by penalizing the student according to his/her inability.
Therefore you cannot charge God with injustice for exercising judgement against the failings of men to do what He commands them to do; nor can man demand that God deal with him leniently, or require less of him than the obedience He required of Adam before he fell. And God DOES require PERFECTION--SINLESS PERFECTION.
Hey, Prodigal! You CLAIM to have had training in the reformed faith.
Don't you think you should have learned at least THAT much?? You will be held three hours after school is out for study hall.
Man's volition is an aspect of him being made in the image of God; but as a consequence of Adam's rebellion against God, the image of God in man was defaced. Whereas before Adam had the moral integrity to not only will, but to do what was right, Adam's fall resulted in man's loss of ability to independently do what was right. His free will is bound by the cords of his sin.
That loss of ability DID NOT RELIEVE MAN OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO DO WHAT GOD REQUIRED anymore than a student's inability to answer questions on a test relieves him of responsibility to know the material.
A student's inability does not in anyway limit the level of performance which a teacher may require, nor does it limit the teacher's ability to react to the student's inability by penalizing the student according to his/her inability.
Therefore you cannot charge God with injustice for exercising judgement against the failings of men to do what He commands them to do; nor can man demand that God deal with him leniently, or require less of him than the obedience He required of Adam before he fell. And God DOES require PERFECTION--SINLESS PERFECTION.
Hey, Prodigal! You CLAIM to have had training in the reformed faith.
Don't you think you should have learned at least THAT much?? You will be held three hours after school is out for study hall.
Last edited:
[Jesus]"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me"[/Jesus]
-John 12:32
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
-2 Peter 3:9
There's a start.
Lighthouse,
So, my selfishness is more powerful than his ability to draw me to him? Either you’re giving me too much credit, or you’re not giving your god enough. Maybe a little bit of both? If my “sin” is more powerful than god’s grace, than your god is pretty lousy at what he does.
I was.
Not that I really care anymore, this is just curiosity, what out of context interpretations did they use? Maybe you should read the whole of Romans 9.
You rebutted nothing. You gave me a lousy excuse for why your god is incapable of doing a simple parlor trick to save one’s eternal soul. Your god is either powerless or hyper sensitive.
Once again, it’s your style that needs tweaking. What do you do for work? Do you interact with non-believers on a regular basis? I find it hard to believe that you are capable of functioning in a polite society. Unless this is just the way you talk on-line when you can get away with it, and you’re just a weakling in the real world.
Let your god fight his own battles than, LH. If he can. So far you’ve been excusing his absence by calling me blind and arrogant, but that doesn’t explain where he is. He’s not around, and no amount of name calling on your part is going to convince me that what cannot be proven to exist, exists.
You’re mistaking the fate of my immortal soul with amusement. Sorry, I don’t find this particularly amusing, nor would I find proof of your god’s existence amusing.
To give it some sort of validity. The fact is, there were plenty of mystical traditions contemporary with the time of Christ. If you do a little research (I know, it’s against your religion) you would be able to find many similarities between the Mithraic mystery cult and early Christianity. This leads many objective, critical (two attributes most Christians of your ilk lack) researchers to believe that Paul borrowed heavily upon comparable cults to invent his very spiritual, never physical, image of jesus, an image to be used as an image, not to be taken literally. Also, the fact that none of the epistles refer to Christ in a physical sense lends credence to many arguments that Christ was merely an invention of the later gospel writers. That and the four different accounts of the death and resurrection in the gospels are contradictory and are almost four completely different stories. Rolf pointed me in the direction of 1 Cor. 15, but I’ll get to that in a moment if you would care to pay attention.
You haven’t listed anything that I have done or said as being objectively disrespectful. Your definition of disrespectful is based on the criteria of a fairy tale, the very validity of which is up for debate if you would simply do some objective research. I know your bubble is very secure, but it’s not all that it’s cracked up to be.
I’ve been here the whole time, LH, and nothing you’ve said has been good enough. Everything you have to say is based on your own subjective point of view, therefore it is by default no good for anyone but those who agree with you.
And once again, I’m not an atheist. This joke is an immature attempt at making yourself look witty and smart at the expense of someone else. Please send that joke and your new catch phrase back to wherever you first heard them.
I said you were ACTING LIKE one, I never said that you WERE ONE. There’s actually a big difference, and I don’t like being misquoted.
You know Greek and Hebrew? That’s awesome! But not everyone does, LH. That’s not a benefit that lay men who buy into your bible story can afford. What about them? They’re not getting the real picture of what the bible says? Your book, which has been divinely inspired is lying to these good people?
Than you shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place, LH. Come on. You’re now threatening me with ugly “your mom” jokes? You’ve got childish catch phrases, you’re impudent, and you would dare to lecture me on hypocrisy and disrespect?
Rolf,
Rolf, if you went on to quote the chapter in it’s entirety you would find Paul making reference to this belief in the physical resurrection as a matter of faith. Remember in the end of the chapter when he says something like (I don’t have a bible in front of me, Ima hafta paraphrase) “if he be not risen than our faith is in vain” or something along the lines of Christians being liars. Why would someone like Paul teach of the resurrection, one of the corner stones of the faith, as being a matter of faith? Why would it be so tenuous?
And why would Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:2-3 (not sure again, usin’ the old memory right now) say that he “received” the tradition of Christ’s resurrection when in Galations 1:11-12 he says that he never received any of his teachings from man, but from god himself?
Rolf you really need to stop picking and choosing which sections of my posts you read and respond to. From the beginning it’s been obvious that you only respond to the sections of my posts that you are capable of responding to. I have said a couple of times, sometimes even directly to you, I believe, that I went to Christian school. As for the rest of your post, it doesn’t impact our discussion at all and so I don’t think it really merits any attention. I don’t want you to get the impression that I’m backing down, but you’ve brought this to a point that it in no way impacts the thrust of our debate.
I’m also saying that they are not specific enough. They are too poetic, they could literally mean anything. That’s the reality of the bible, that’s the reality of Christianity. You could get a hundred Christians together to look at your verses, and chances are you’ll get a hundred different interpretations.
You’re asking me to accept your specific, personal interpretation of vague scriptural references (remember, you did say that you interpreted them according to your own opinion) as the way they ARE and MUST be interpreted without making any room for error. The fact is, the bible is not alone in making scientific observations, if what you have referenced is indeed scientific references (that is up for debate, I gave you enough slack to buy into the idea that they are in fact scientific references).
Your argument is based on a personal conviction of what the bible MAY be saying, not what the bible is empirically and one hundred percent declaring. You’ve taken ambiguous references and placed them into a category that a hundred other Christians may or may not place it in. There are hundreds of other far more ancient cultural scientific references that are far more specific than your poetic, biblical references, such as the observations made by Egyptians, chaldeans, Babylonians, virtually every ancient culture that ever existed, yet you expect me to cast them aside in favor of some shady biblical references that may or may not be referring to the phenomenon of frame dragging?
This effect is only now being able to be measured, so how could your ancient biblical authors have measured it, and if they were unable to as science dictates, and it was divine inspiration, what was the purpose? If you can point out the purpose of having this knowledge, if you can show a reason that dictates why it would follow for these ancient biblical authors to have this information, than that would be great. And if they did have divinely inspired, immeasurable knowledge of the universe, and if they knew it for a purpose, why were they so poetic and ambiguous in stating it?
Rolf, your entire argument is based on your personal conviction as to the interpretation of your biblical references. Mine is based on general scientific and archaeological observations of the scientific habits of ancient cultures. Your argument is very suspect, Rolf, very suspect in deed and could hardly be passed off as reliable.
If you want specifics of my argument, go on line and take a look for yourself. You have refused to spoon feed me, so I will refuse to spoon feed you.
I cannot believe how pretentious you are, Rolf. Or is it presumptuous? I’ll go with both. Everything you outlined as beliefs espoused by reformed Christians is stuff that I was beaten about the head with as a child. It’s not that I don’t know any of that, it’s that it doesn’t make sense to me anymore. I no longer believe anything the bible has to say, I no longer believe in what I was taught. From my perspective, it just doesn’t make sense, and it just doesn’t matter. Christians have been running around in circles for thousands of years but they have only ever been able to create problems.
So Rolf, before you start feeling too good about yourself, please remember, all of what you said about reformed theology, I know. I just don’t think it makes any sense anymore. I think it’s foolishness. I think it’s dissecting the idea of god to an irreparable degree. I think it’s caused more division than unity. I think you’re chasing your tails on a matter to which there is no answer. You can prove the existence of your questions, but you cannot prove the existence of your answers, so why should I care about the questions? Why do you think you can engage me when it comes to your theology if I don’t believe in the validity of it in the first place? How can you possibly use the bible against me if I disbelieve it?
You need to start coming up with some extra-biblical evidence as to the validity of the bible itself. I will not accept circular arguments. The bible may very well prove itself, but if this were a court case, it would be thrown out.
Try again Rolf.
So, my selfishness is more powerful than his ability to draw me to him? Either you’re giving me too much credit, or you’re not giving your god enough. Maybe a little bit of both? If my “sin” is more powerful than god’s grace, than your god is pretty lousy at what he does.
I was.
Not that I really care anymore, this is just curiosity, what out of context interpretations did they use? Maybe you should read the whole of Romans 9.
You rebutted nothing. You gave me a lousy excuse for why your god is incapable of doing a simple parlor trick to save one’s eternal soul. Your god is either powerless or hyper sensitive.
Once again, it’s your style that needs tweaking. What do you do for work? Do you interact with non-believers on a regular basis? I find it hard to believe that you are capable of functioning in a polite society. Unless this is just the way you talk on-line when you can get away with it, and you’re just a weakling in the real world.
Let your god fight his own battles than, LH. If he can. So far you’ve been excusing his absence by calling me blind and arrogant, but that doesn’t explain where he is. He’s not around, and no amount of name calling on your part is going to convince me that what cannot be proven to exist, exists.
You’re mistaking the fate of my immortal soul with amusement. Sorry, I don’t find this particularly amusing, nor would I find proof of your god’s existence amusing.
To give it some sort of validity. The fact is, there were plenty of mystical traditions contemporary with the time of Christ. If you do a little research (I know, it’s against your religion) you would be able to find many similarities between the Mithraic mystery cult and early Christianity. This leads many objective, critical (two attributes most Christians of your ilk lack) researchers to believe that Paul borrowed heavily upon comparable cults to invent his very spiritual, never physical, image of jesus, an image to be used as an image, not to be taken literally. Also, the fact that none of the epistles refer to Christ in a physical sense lends credence to many arguments that Christ was merely an invention of the later gospel writers. That and the four different accounts of the death and resurrection in the gospels are contradictory and are almost four completely different stories. Rolf pointed me in the direction of 1 Cor. 15, but I’ll get to that in a moment if you would care to pay attention.
You haven’t listed anything that I have done or said as being objectively disrespectful. Your definition of disrespectful is based on the criteria of a fairy tale, the very validity of which is up for debate if you would simply do some objective research. I know your bubble is very secure, but it’s not all that it’s cracked up to be.
I’ve been here the whole time, LH, and nothing you’ve said has been good enough. Everything you have to say is based on your own subjective point of view, therefore it is by default no good for anyone but those who agree with you.
And once again, I’m not an atheist. This joke is an immature attempt at making yourself look witty and smart at the expense of someone else. Please send that joke and your new catch phrase back to wherever you first heard them.
I said you were ACTING LIKE one, I never said that you WERE ONE. There’s actually a big difference, and I don’t like being misquoted.
You know Greek and Hebrew? That’s awesome! But not everyone does, LH. That’s not a benefit that lay men who buy into your bible story can afford. What about them? They’re not getting the real picture of what the bible says? Your book, which has been divinely inspired is lying to these good people?
Than you shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place, LH. Come on. You’re now threatening me with ugly “your mom” jokes? You’ve got childish catch phrases, you’re impudent, and you would dare to lecture me on hypocrisy and disrespect?
Rolf,
Rolf, if you went on to quote the chapter in it’s entirety you would find Paul making reference to this belief in the physical resurrection as a matter of faith. Remember in the end of the chapter when he says something like (I don’t have a bible in front of me, Ima hafta paraphrase) “if he be not risen than our faith is in vain” or something along the lines of Christians being liars. Why would someone like Paul teach of the resurrection, one of the corner stones of the faith, as being a matter of faith? Why would it be so tenuous?
And why would Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:2-3 (not sure again, usin’ the old memory right now) say that he “received” the tradition of Christ’s resurrection when in Galations 1:11-12 he says that he never received any of his teachings from man, but from god himself?
Rolf you really need to stop picking and choosing which sections of my posts you read and respond to. From the beginning it’s been obvious that you only respond to the sections of my posts that you are capable of responding to. I have said a couple of times, sometimes even directly to you, I believe, that I went to Christian school. As for the rest of your post, it doesn’t impact our discussion at all and so I don’t think it really merits any attention. I don’t want you to get the impression that I’m backing down, but you’ve brought this to a point that it in no way impacts the thrust of our debate.
I’m also saying that they are not specific enough. They are too poetic, they could literally mean anything. That’s the reality of the bible, that’s the reality of Christianity. You could get a hundred Christians together to look at your verses, and chances are you’ll get a hundred different interpretations.
You’re asking me to accept your specific, personal interpretation of vague scriptural references (remember, you did say that you interpreted them according to your own opinion) as the way they ARE and MUST be interpreted without making any room for error. The fact is, the bible is not alone in making scientific observations, if what you have referenced is indeed scientific references (that is up for debate, I gave you enough slack to buy into the idea that they are in fact scientific references).
Your argument is based on a personal conviction of what the bible MAY be saying, not what the bible is empirically and one hundred percent declaring. You’ve taken ambiguous references and placed them into a category that a hundred other Christians may or may not place it in. There are hundreds of other far more ancient cultural scientific references that are far more specific than your poetic, biblical references, such as the observations made by Egyptians, chaldeans, Babylonians, virtually every ancient culture that ever existed, yet you expect me to cast them aside in favor of some shady biblical references that may or may not be referring to the phenomenon of frame dragging?
This effect is only now being able to be measured, so how could your ancient biblical authors have measured it, and if they were unable to as science dictates, and it was divine inspiration, what was the purpose? If you can point out the purpose of having this knowledge, if you can show a reason that dictates why it would follow for these ancient biblical authors to have this information, than that would be great. And if they did have divinely inspired, immeasurable knowledge of the universe, and if they knew it for a purpose, why were they so poetic and ambiguous in stating it?
Rolf, your entire argument is based on your personal conviction as to the interpretation of your biblical references. Mine is based on general scientific and archaeological observations of the scientific habits of ancient cultures. Your argument is very suspect, Rolf, very suspect in deed and could hardly be passed off as reliable.
If you want specifics of my argument, go on line and take a look for yourself. You have refused to spoon feed me, so I will refuse to spoon feed you.
I cannot believe how pretentious you are, Rolf. Or is it presumptuous? I’ll go with both. Everything you outlined as beliefs espoused by reformed Christians is stuff that I was beaten about the head with as a child. It’s not that I don’t know any of that, it’s that it doesn’t make sense to me anymore. I no longer believe anything the bible has to say, I no longer believe in what I was taught. From my perspective, it just doesn’t make sense, and it just doesn’t matter. Christians have been running around in circles for thousands of years but they have only ever been able to create problems.
So Rolf, before you start feeling too good about yourself, please remember, all of what you said about reformed theology, I know. I just don’t think it makes any sense anymore. I think it’s foolishness. I think it’s dissecting the idea of god to an irreparable degree. I think it’s caused more division than unity. I think you’re chasing your tails on a matter to which there is no answer. You can prove the existence of your questions, but you cannot prove the existence of your answers, so why should I care about the questions? Why do you think you can engage me when it comes to your theology if I don’t believe in the validity of it in the first place? How can you possibly use the bible against me if I disbelieve it?
You need to start coming up with some extra-biblical evidence as to the validity of the bible itself. I will not accept circular arguments. The bible may very well prove itself, but if this were a court case, it would be thrown out.
Try again Rolf.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--be realistic. It is easy foir you to flippantly charge that the Bible would be thrown out of court for its lack of evidence. It is another thing to see it done. Before men became such blind and stony-hearted creatures, the bible evidences were used in universities to study the use of evidences in courts of law; but now people are so anti-God they are not even able to admit it.
Why don't you read "Who Moved the Stone" by Morrison, a lawyer whose high self-esteem (reminds me of you) caused him to dare tackle the job of PROVING WHAT YOU JUST CLAIMED. At least he had the courage to try to put his brain where his mouth was. HE LOST!
but you don't have the integrity to do something other than just make repetitious statements which are of neither weight nor backed with any substance. You don't even have the character it would take to read the results of his investigation with an open mind.
You are not an intellectual. You are a dilettante trying to pose as one. You think you have shown the validity of secular science comparable to the Bible when in reality you have done nothing more, absolutely nothing more, than cite some supposed sources whiuch say nothing insofar as to WHAT ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC FACT WAS DISPLAYED BY THOSE SOURCES. Then after I have given book chapter and verse where certain scientific FACTS are clearly stated millernia before "modern science" discovered them, many of them stated in a number of different places, and you say--maybe you really think--that is circular reasoning.
And you think your references to sources wherein nothing coherent is stated in regards to science is comparable to advanced scientific information clearly stated in scripture. Then you people think you deserve an award for reason and rationality.
Why don't you read "Who Moved the Stone" by Morrison, a lawyer whose high self-esteem (reminds me of you) caused him to dare tackle the job of PROVING WHAT YOU JUST CLAIMED. At least he had the courage to try to put his brain where his mouth was. HE LOST!
but you don't have the integrity to do something other than just make repetitious statements which are of neither weight nor backed with any substance. You don't even have the character it would take to read the results of his investigation with an open mind.
You are not an intellectual. You are a dilettante trying to pose as one. You think you have shown the validity of secular science comparable to the Bible when in reality you have done nothing more, absolutely nothing more, than cite some supposed sources whiuch say nothing insofar as to WHAT ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC FACT WAS DISPLAYED BY THOSE SOURCES. Then after I have given book chapter and verse where certain scientific FACTS are clearly stated millernia before "modern science" discovered them, many of them stated in a number of different places, and you say--maybe you really think--that is circular reasoning.
And you think your references to sources wherein nothing coherent is stated in regards to science is comparable to advanced scientific information clearly stated in scripture. Then you people think you deserve an award for reason and rationality.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--you make numerous errors throughout your posts, then you want me to respond to all of them. It takes much more space to explain things than it does to foul them up, so you are suggesting that I spend at least three times as long dealing with things you mention than you yourself spend on them. There is that arrogance showing up again in you, You arrogantly believe God should humor your childish whims for your own personal carnival sideshow, and now you sling errors all across the forum expecting me to clean up your messes.
'You have no right to make such demands of anyone. IF YOU WANT AN ANSWER TO SOME SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF YOURS, YOU SAY SO!!
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO REQUEST AN ANSWER TO SPECIFIC POINTS YOU MAKE, DON'T EXPECT ME TO LAUNDER ALL YOUR FILTHY R
REFUSE. I ANSWER THOSE STATEMENTS OF YOURS WHICH ARE MOST OUTRAGEOUS AND DANGEROUS TO THE HUMAN MIND.
'You have no right to make such demands of anyone. IF YOU WANT AN ANSWER TO SOME SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF YOURS, YOU SAY SO!!
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO REQUEST AN ANSWER TO SPECIFIC POINTS YOU MAKE, DON'T EXPECT ME TO LAUNDER ALL YOUR FILTHY R
REFUSE. I ANSWER THOSE STATEMENTS OF YOURS WHICH ARE MOST OUTRAGEOUS AND DANGEROUS TO THE HUMAN MIND.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Granite1010--Nothing I have said should lead you to a conclusion that I wish to be considered an intellectual, but I get the impression Prodigal would like to travel in those circles of society.
Rolf,
May I see chapter and verse of whatever sources you used to come to this conclusion? Perhaps you do have sound, objective sources for making this claim, but at the same time after ignoring what you don’t like in my posts and answering only that which tickles your fancy, I don’t expect much in the way of a satisfactory response.
Okay. I’ll see what I can do. But speaking of being realistic, maybe we should carry on while I continue my literary activities.
This is an attack against my character and adds nothing to the debate. Please quote me saying something that lacks integrity, and please quote me also making a statement that carries neither weight nor is backed with anything of substance.
Once again, an attack upon my character based upon an assumption you have made about me. You are both pretentious and presumptuous. I have never made any claims to fame about being an intellectual. I am a normal person looking for answers. You have provided none that I haven’t been able to find an opposing and equally weighty argument for. You have attacked my integrity and have insulted my character based upon your own assumptions of my character.
I said that your references are vague and open to different interpretations depending on the agenda of the people interpreting them. You have gone as far as to say that you have interpreted your references according to your own opinion. In my opinion, your bible references are vague and best and open to not only your own interpretation, but the interpretation of anyone who wishes to see what they would like to see within them.
Have you studied ancient astrolabe tablets? Do you know their contents? I never made any specific comment on the content of the ancient clay tablets whose existence you earlier denied. You are now making more specific statements in regards to the tablets whose existence you denied and have given no indication that you have even studied them. Rolf, you’re fuming again.
No, I think I deserve to get better answers than the ones you have provided. Where is the arrogance in wanting answers to questions? Rolf, have you ever considered the fact that if your answers had been good enough, I would have accepted them?
Probably not, and that’s the problem with entering a debate having already made up your mind. Not about the evidence, but about the person you are debating. It probably has never crossed your mind that I’m an objective person, not an intellectual, not a poseur who likes to pretend to be an intellectual, just a kid who wants to know why you believe what you believe. Now, I expect good answers, but if you’re going to ask a question, what else would you expect?
Your bible references are not scientifically specific, they are poetic and vague. They are open to different interpretation just as you yourself have interpreted them according to what you wish to find within them. You have told me your belief in the meaning of these references is your opinion. That’s subjective at best, and therefore, not a good enough answer.
The chaldeans recorded their findings of the helical cycles of planets. They recorded their findings on clay tablets. Here we have an example of an ancient people making scientific observations and then recording these observations.
You have quoted, subjective, poetic and vague bible references to an effect (as YOUR PERSONAL OPINION dictates) that could not possibly have been measured in their day and age, and even if these references are what you say they are, you have not been able to provide a good reason for why these people were divinely inspired to know that which they could not measure and that which would serve them no purpose to know.
Talking about my errors and showing me my errors are two completely different things. If you want me to stick my feet in my mouth, show me and I’ll do it.
You said that, I didn’t. If I made as many errors as you would leave me to believe, than it wouldn’t take that long to find one or two and call me on the carpet on them. I’ve already told LH on another thread that there’s plenty of room for feet in my mouth. He declined the challenge as you are now. Actually, LH didn’t even respond to my challenge, you’re just plain old copping out.
Actually, I expect you to humor my childish whims. Your god is a powerless, hyper-sensitive sadist who is incapable of making my pen spin around my desk but will send me to hell for pride. You on the other hand are making claims as to the errancy of my posts but will do nothing to correct them. I don’t even expect you to clean up my mess, but if you’re going to say I’ve made a mess and then not point it out, well, maybe you should devote your energy to something a little more worthwhile, like, uh…
Oh yeah, good answers to my questions.
First, you’re fuming again. Second, I have.
What’s more dangerous? Telling a human mind that a 2000 year old book filled with fantastical tales of the dead rising, the blind being made to see, demons, angels, heaven and hell, or telling a human mind that the quest for knowledge should never end, that the quest for knowledge lies in the secrets of the future, not the bigoted, narrow-minded past of a book whose authority is in constant question.
Please elaborate on this. I am curious as to how you have made this stretch.
Is that a specific enough request? How would you like me post my requests for elaboration?
Such as my constant request for elaboration on how you made the stretch from Einstein’s formula to your conclusion that it proves ex nihilo? I’ve made that request several times and I have made it very specifically.
Yes, if you could show me how you made this stretch, the stretch from the premise to the conclusion, that would be greatly appreciated.
Also if you could no longer made groundless assumptions as to my integrity and character, that would be great, mmm’kay?
Yours truly,
Prodigal
May I see chapter and verse of whatever sources you used to come to this conclusion? Perhaps you do have sound, objective sources for making this claim, but at the same time after ignoring what you don’t like in my posts and answering only that which tickles your fancy, I don’t expect much in the way of a satisfactory response.
Okay. I’ll see what I can do. But speaking of being realistic, maybe we should carry on while I continue my literary activities.
This is an attack against my character and adds nothing to the debate. Please quote me saying something that lacks integrity, and please quote me also making a statement that carries neither weight nor is backed with anything of substance.
Once again, an attack upon my character based upon an assumption you have made about me. You are both pretentious and presumptuous. I have never made any claims to fame about being an intellectual. I am a normal person looking for answers. You have provided none that I haven’t been able to find an opposing and equally weighty argument for. You have attacked my integrity and have insulted my character based upon your own assumptions of my character.
I said that your references are vague and open to different interpretations depending on the agenda of the people interpreting them. You have gone as far as to say that you have interpreted your references according to your own opinion. In my opinion, your bible references are vague and best and open to not only your own interpretation, but the interpretation of anyone who wishes to see what they would like to see within them.
Have you studied ancient astrolabe tablets? Do you know their contents? I never made any specific comment on the content of the ancient clay tablets whose existence you earlier denied. You are now making more specific statements in regards to the tablets whose existence you denied and have given no indication that you have even studied them. Rolf, you’re fuming again.
No, I think I deserve to get better answers than the ones you have provided. Where is the arrogance in wanting answers to questions? Rolf, have you ever considered the fact that if your answers had been good enough, I would have accepted them?
Probably not, and that’s the problem with entering a debate having already made up your mind. Not about the evidence, but about the person you are debating. It probably has never crossed your mind that I’m an objective person, not an intellectual, not a poseur who likes to pretend to be an intellectual, just a kid who wants to know why you believe what you believe. Now, I expect good answers, but if you’re going to ask a question, what else would you expect?
Your bible references are not scientifically specific, they are poetic and vague. They are open to different interpretation just as you yourself have interpreted them according to what you wish to find within them. You have told me your belief in the meaning of these references is your opinion. That’s subjective at best, and therefore, not a good enough answer.
The chaldeans recorded their findings of the helical cycles of planets. They recorded their findings on clay tablets. Here we have an example of an ancient people making scientific observations and then recording these observations.
You have quoted, subjective, poetic and vague bible references to an effect (as YOUR PERSONAL OPINION dictates) that could not possibly have been measured in their day and age, and even if these references are what you say they are, you have not been able to provide a good reason for why these people were divinely inspired to know that which they could not measure and that which would serve them no purpose to know.
Talking about my errors and showing me my errors are two completely different things. If you want me to stick my feet in my mouth, show me and I’ll do it.
You said that, I didn’t. If I made as many errors as you would leave me to believe, than it wouldn’t take that long to find one or two and call me on the carpet on them. I’ve already told LH on another thread that there’s plenty of room for feet in my mouth. He declined the challenge as you are now. Actually, LH didn’t even respond to my challenge, you’re just plain old copping out.
Actually, I expect you to humor my childish whims. Your god is a powerless, hyper-sensitive sadist who is incapable of making my pen spin around my desk but will send me to hell for pride. You on the other hand are making claims as to the errancy of my posts but will do nothing to correct them. I don’t even expect you to clean up my mess, but if you’re going to say I’ve made a mess and then not point it out, well, maybe you should devote your energy to something a little more worthwhile, like, uh…
Oh yeah, good answers to my questions.
First, you’re fuming again. Second, I have.
What’s more dangerous? Telling a human mind that a 2000 year old book filled with fantastical tales of the dead rising, the blind being made to see, demons, angels, heaven and hell, or telling a human mind that the quest for knowledge should never end, that the quest for knowledge lies in the secrets of the future, not the bigoted, narrow-minded past of a book whose authority is in constant question.
Please elaborate on this. I am curious as to how you have made this stretch.
Is that a specific enough request? How would you like me post my requests for elaboration?
Such as my constant request for elaboration on how you made the stretch from Einstein’s formula to your conclusion that it proves ex nihilo? I’ve made that request several times and I have made it very specifically.
Yes, if you could show me how you made this stretch, the stretch from the premise to the conclusion, that would be greatly appreciated.
Also if you could no longer made groundless assumptions as to my integrity and character, that would be great, mmm’kay?
Yours truly,
Prodigal
Also, in order to make one of your last points valid, you began to rely on scientists, which I found curious.
And when it comes to your ex nihilo argument, don't explain the math again. I understand the math/premise. Tell me how you got from the premise to the conclusion.
And when it comes to your ex nihilo argument, don't explain the math again. I understand the math/premise. Tell me how you got from the premise to the conclusion.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--I told you that I believed that the references in scripture to the curtains of heaven, the "like a garment," and a "vesture" which, in the end, would be folded up by Christ was referring to what scientists have just now discovered. When I would not make a definite statement that the discoveries and the tangible substance of space spoken of in scripture were the same, it did not mean that I doubted or had any lack of conviction that either of them was true. They are BOTH undoubtedly true. The scientific evidences have been confirmed. The biblical references are clear--they have been for millenia--that there is a tangible substance to space. But I will not yet definitely link what scientists have found to the statements of scripture. It is possible that what the scripture speaks of is something greater than what scientists are now studying--a greater something that scientists have not yet discovered. As I said, I BELIEVE right now that they are the same. The references in scripture fit (are in accord) what scientists are now saying. I simply refuse to make dogmatic assertions which link ongoing and changing new discoveries of science with the bible because scientists may be deluding themselves in what they believe they have found. In the end, the Bible will be proven true. I am just not ready to jump in the scientists bandwagon. Many so-called Christians jumped in the evolutionist's bandwagon who now realize they should have held back awhile. They swallowed Darwin and even claimed to have found evidence for his THEORY in the scripture.
There are certain scientific evidences in the Bible that both TESTIFY TO ITS VALIDITY and are recognized to be in full accord with what scientists say. For example, Jobs reference in Job 26:10 to the spherical earth, a body which was mostly covered with water--"He enscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary of day and night." First, the Bible testified to that fact, and the understanding of science has become equal to it. I am not yet sure the understanding of science concerning frame dragging is fully equal to the Bible's statement concerning what shall transpire in the heavens. In some regards, I KNOW that science has not fully caught up yet on the issue which has been in question. I say that because the BIBLE says, "They shall perish, but you shall remain, and they all shall wax old as does a garment; and as a vesture you shall fold them up and they shall be changed..." Heb.1:11,12
Your scientists would not right now realize the end result concerning the heavens. They may see an event in progress, but misinterpret it.
I KNOW that Christ will one day fold up the heavens. I KNOW that they are waxing old like a garment. Your scientists do not know either of those two scientific facts. They are just now reporting on some scientific fact which has been confirmed to exist, but their knowledge does not YET proceed to the ultimate end WHICH THE SCRIPTURE CLEARLY STATES. That is why I refuse to get in their bandwagon. The folding up of which the Bible speaks may be some event in the heavens that far eclipses anything of which the scientists
have yet seen signs.
Something else the Scripture said far in advance of the secular scientist's knowledge was, "He spreadeth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." When Job said that, the Egyptians credited an elephant with holding up the earth, and other groups of people thought other things concerning the earth. Only the Bible was correct. THAT IS irrefutable TESTIMONY TO THE VALIDITY OF SCRIPTURE even though you might refuse to acknowledge it to be so.
NOW science KNOWS that the earth's axis is oriented to the North, and it KNOWS that it is suspended in space. Therefore I can say without qualification that the scientists are agreed with this verse out of Job, and I can ride their bandwagon with confidence that they are not misreading the science they report in that regard.
Scientists are also far enough advanced (finally) to know that the earth turns upon its axis, a fact which the preacher in Ecclesiastes stated--"it is turned as clay to the seal and they stand out" referring to the rotation of the earth to daylight causing the things upon the earth to stand out in plain sight just as the marks of a seal stand out when an object is rotated against it. Ecclesiastes was written during the reign of Solomon.
So you see, on some things I have confidence that science is sufficiently advanced so that I can attribute their science as being advanced to the point of scripture knowledge. On other things (the fabric of space and its ultimate end), I do not have confidence that scientists have yet realized what the evidences are telling them, so I withhold from identifying with them. The lack of confidence is in scientists fully grasping the implications of what they are looking at.
There are certain scientific evidences in the Bible that both TESTIFY TO ITS VALIDITY and are recognized to be in full accord with what scientists say. For example, Jobs reference in Job 26:10 to the spherical earth, a body which was mostly covered with water--"He enscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary of day and night." First, the Bible testified to that fact, and the understanding of science has become equal to it. I am not yet sure the understanding of science concerning frame dragging is fully equal to the Bible's statement concerning what shall transpire in the heavens. In some regards, I KNOW that science has not fully caught up yet on the issue which has been in question. I say that because the BIBLE says, "They shall perish, but you shall remain, and they all shall wax old as does a garment; and as a vesture you shall fold them up and they shall be changed..." Heb.1:11,12
Your scientists would not right now realize the end result concerning the heavens. They may see an event in progress, but misinterpret it.
I KNOW that Christ will one day fold up the heavens. I KNOW that they are waxing old like a garment. Your scientists do not know either of those two scientific facts. They are just now reporting on some scientific fact which has been confirmed to exist, but their knowledge does not YET proceed to the ultimate end WHICH THE SCRIPTURE CLEARLY STATES. That is why I refuse to get in their bandwagon. The folding up of which the Bible speaks may be some event in the heavens that far eclipses anything of which the scientists
have yet seen signs.
Something else the Scripture said far in advance of the secular scientist's knowledge was, "He spreadeth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." When Job said that, the Egyptians credited an elephant with holding up the earth, and other groups of people thought other things concerning the earth. Only the Bible was correct. THAT IS irrefutable TESTIMONY TO THE VALIDITY OF SCRIPTURE even though you might refuse to acknowledge it to be so.
NOW science KNOWS that the earth's axis is oriented to the North, and it KNOWS that it is suspended in space. Therefore I can say without qualification that the scientists are agreed with this verse out of Job, and I can ride their bandwagon with confidence that they are not misreading the science they report in that regard.
Scientists are also far enough advanced (finally) to know that the earth turns upon its axis, a fact which the preacher in Ecclesiastes stated--"it is turned as clay to the seal and they stand out" referring to the rotation of the earth to daylight causing the things upon the earth to stand out in plain sight just as the marks of a seal stand out when an object is rotated against it. Ecclesiastes was written during the reign of Solomon.
So you see, on some things I have confidence that science is sufficiently advanced so that I can attribute their science as being advanced to the point of scripture knowledge. On other things (the fabric of space and its ultimate end), I do not have confidence that scientists have yet realized what the evidences are telling them, so I withhold from identifying with them. The lack of confidence is in scientists fully grasping the implications of what they are looking at.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Granite1010--I know i am not the only one, but I don't know how many there are who agree with me. Concerning the tangible substance of space, I always got that impression from what I read, but had no scientific evidence to back it up till just about 4 weeks ago when I heard an astronomer on the radio say that there was no such thing as empty space because all of space had a curtain like substance.
I had never heard another student of the Bible say anything about what they gathered from references to God spreading "out the heavens as a curtain, like a tent to dwell in" (From Jeremiah), and no one is yet, to my knowledge, agreeing with me; but I am speaking of it to some Christian people and they are listening with interest.
Here is another one that scientists and Job have within the last two decades come to agree upon: Job said, "he makes a way for the lightning." About twentysomething years ago as scientists were studying thunderstorms, they were using highspeed photography and caught what they began to refer to as the "leader stroke" on film.
They now know that every bolt of lightning is preceeded by a way which leads the bolt to its point of impact. Anyone could say, "well, sure! everybody knows that the opposite charge between cloud and ground or from cloud to cloud determines where the lightning goes,"
but they do not acknowledge that there are opposite charges between cloud and ground all over the place, and many opposite charges from cloud to cloud, BUT between all the charges, ONE way is selected for the bolt to travel, and sometimes lightning strikes objects that are contrary to what one might expect on the basis of science. It is not simply a matter of the tallest object or the most metallic object being struck. The point is that He "makes a way" for every bolt. As Job also said, "He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike the mark."
One time I was fishing off a spillway in Mississippi. The bass were really biting and I was busy getting a mess for supper, casting across the water with a metal rod while standing in water which reached to the top of my calves. It was not until the storm was directly south of me on its northeastern course that I realized how stupid that was of me.
I had never heard another student of the Bible say anything about what they gathered from references to God spreading "out the heavens as a curtain, like a tent to dwell in" (From Jeremiah), and no one is yet, to my knowledge, agreeing with me; but I am speaking of it to some Christian people and they are listening with interest.
Here is another one that scientists and Job have within the last two decades come to agree upon: Job said, "he makes a way for the lightning." About twentysomething years ago as scientists were studying thunderstorms, they were using highspeed photography and caught what they began to refer to as the "leader stroke" on film.
They now know that every bolt of lightning is preceeded by a way which leads the bolt to its point of impact. Anyone could say, "well, sure! everybody knows that the opposite charge between cloud and ground or from cloud to cloud determines where the lightning goes,"
but they do not acknowledge that there are opposite charges between cloud and ground all over the place, and many opposite charges from cloud to cloud, BUT between all the charges, ONE way is selected for the bolt to travel, and sometimes lightning strikes objects that are contrary to what one might expect on the basis of science. It is not simply a matter of the tallest object or the most metallic object being struck. The point is that He "makes a way" for every bolt. As Job also said, "He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike the mark."
One time I was fishing off a spillway in Mississippi. The bass were really biting and I was busy getting a mess for supper, casting across the water with a metal rod while standing in water which reached to the top of my calves. It was not until the storm was directly south of me on its northeastern course that I realized how stupid that was of me.
Last edited: