What Should We Expect During A Time Of Grace

[dangitbobby83]

Too bad his beliefs includes condemning the rest of us to endless suffering, but you can't have everything I guess.

 

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

If your beliefs include condemning others, both now and in the "afterlife", then you open yourself to critical analysis by your own standards. That's the way I see it. 

[Guest end3]

 

Too bad his beliefs includes condemning the rest of us to endless suffering, but you can't have everything I guess.

 

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

If your beliefs include condemning others, both now and in the "afterlife", then you open yourself to critical analysis by your own standards. That's the way I see it.

 

Bob, people here said they made there own decisions. I don't believe in condemning others.

[rjn]

No one ever chose eternal damnation, people choose to follow their conscience and intellect. Your version of Christianity doesn't include true free will, but at best a form of blackmail. Think about it.

[Thumbelina]

"god couldn't even be bothered to explain the difference between good and evil to Adam and Eve in the garden,..."

 

He did too, they surely died. What frame of reference did they have, prior to sinning, in order to know what pain & death was? The only knowledge they got were experiential; God did NOT want that

[Thumbelina]

 

Why do you bother responding?

Good question. I'll stop.

 

Hi, I missed you, my smart-alecky friend!

[Thumbelina]

I think the intelligent folks on here like to solve "puzzles" so some food for thought: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD Genesis 6:8

[♦ ficino ♦]

THUMBELINA!! You may ask, after all this time, why is ficino still on Ex-C? Just waiting for your return! heh heh

 

You oughtta go over to Preston Sprinkle's blog on Patheos, where they're debating whether sinners undergo eternal conscious torment. The hardliners over there say, yes, they do - but maybe those guys are failing to trace doctrines throughout the Bible.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/

 

 

Anyway, I hope things are well.

 

-- f

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"god couldn't even be bothered to explain the difference between good and evil to Adam and Eve in the garden,..."

 

He did too, they surely died. What frame of reference did they have, prior to sinning, in order to know what pain & death was? The only knowledge they got were experiential; God did NOT want that

"They surely died..."  some 900 odd years later.  But god told them they would die the day they ate the fruit.  god is a liar.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think the intelligent folks on here like to solve "puzzles" so some food for thought: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD Genesis 6:8

After the "sons of god" came down and polluted the human genome by having sex with the daughters of men.  god didn't save Noah because he was "righteous"; god saved him because his family was the only one god's sons hadn't infiltrated.  It was a massive cover-up and all of humanity got caught in the crossfire.  No puzzle to solve here... move along.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Oh, and, welcome back Thumperina.  Nice to hear from you again.  Slim pickings on the christian front lately.

[Thumbelina]

THUMBELINA!! You may ask, after all this time, why is ficino still on Ex-C? Just waiting for your return! heh heh

 

You oughtta go over to Preston Sprinkle's blog on Patheos, where they're debating whether sinners undergo eternal conscious torment. The hardliners over there say, yes, they do - but maybe those guys are failing to trace doctrines throughout the Bible.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/

 

 

Anyway, I hope things are well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- f

 

 

 

 

Awwww Shucks *blushes*, you missed me!!!

 

Wow, another positive trait you displayed that's in keeping with Christian standards- you're longsuffering lol. Considering what many of you have been or are going through, you've been nice to me.

 

You're good, they are failing to rightly trace that doctrine. Eternal hell is not even eye for eye, tooth for tooth, it's life for fingernail and then some! It's a damnable doctrine that creates atheists or timeservers.

 

I'm Ok, hope you are too!

[bornagainathiest]

"god couldn't even be bothered to explain the difference between good and evil to Adam and Eve in the garden,..."

 

He did too, they surely died. What frame of reference did they have, prior to sinning, in order to know what pain & death was? The only knowledge they got were experiential; God did NOT want that

 

Exactly, Thumbelina.

 

A warning about Good and Evil and Death is only meaningful and useful if the persons being warned can understand it's meaning.

 

Otherwise it's useless and meaningless to them.

 

It appears that God did NOT want them to understand what Good and Evil and Death when He warned them.

 

So the only way they could discover and understand what these things were was by the experiential route.

 

They had to break God's ruling in order to discover what He meant in His warning. 

 

So, I'm afraid you're quite wrong.

 

God DID want them to gain knowledge the experiential way.

[Thumbelina]

 

"god couldn't even be bothered to explain the difference between good and evil to Adam and Eve in the garden,..."

 

He did too, they surely died. What frame of reference did they have, prior to sinning, in order to know what pain & death was? The only knowledge they got were experiential; God did NOT want that

"They surely died..."  some 900 odd years later.  But god told them they would die the day they ate the fruit.  god is a liar.

 

Man, I don't want to debate, though I do miss the bantering and I pray for the lot of you.

Yes, the text said that, they started the dying process that very day. Some scholars say the original language states - In dying you shall die, which is what happened.

God CANNOT lie!

[Thumbelina]

 

I think the intelligent folks on here like to solve "puzzles" so some food for thought: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD Genesis 6:8

After the "sons of god" came down and polluted the human genome by having sex with the daughters of men.  god didn't save Noah because he was "righteous"; god saved him because his family was the only one god's sons hadn't infiltrated.  It was a massive cover-up and all of humanity got caught in the crossfire.  No puzzle to solve here... move along.

 

Hope you realize the daughters of men is figurative language for apostates & folk who did not see the Creator God as sovereign.

 

God CANNOT & will not force people to love & serve Him. Noah was willing.

[Thumbelina]

Oh, and, welcome back Thumperina.  Nice to hear from you again.  Slim pickings on the christian front lately.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know you have to put on the tough lion front I'm not back, back, I wasn't on here for awhile & I really wanted to check in on you lions .

[bornagainathiest]

Btw, Thumbelina...

 

I'm partway thru compiling a list of the assumptions that Biblical literalists have to (or should) make about the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

I'm not finished, but seeing as you're here, I reckon that now would be an opportune time for me to post it.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That the entire universe came into existence from nothing, fully formed, in under a week.

That the Sun and Moon came into existence from nothing, fully formed, in under a week.

That the planet Earth came into existence from nothing, fully formed, in under a week.

That the Earth's oceans came into existence, fully formed, in under a week.

 

That the rivers Tigris and Euphrates have existed, fully formed, from the creation of the world.

 

That all plant life came into existence, fully formed, in under a week.

That all animal life came into existence, fully formed, in under a week.

That human life came into existence, fully formed, in under a week.

That the first human came into existence, directly made from dirt.

 

That the first human came into existence alone.

That the second human came into existence from material harvested from the first.

That the first humans were originally vegetarians.

That all the animals, fish and birds were originally vegetarians.

 

That death did not exist among the animals, fish or birds.

That decrepitude did not exist among the animals, fish or birds.

That disease did not exist among the animals, fish and birds.

That deformity did not exist among the animals, fish and birds.

 

That death did not exist for the first humans.

That decrepitude did not exist for the first humans.

That disease did not exist for the first humans.

That deformity did not exist for the first humans.

 

That the first humans did not know what good and evil are.

That the first humans did not know what death was.

That the first humans did not know what decrepitude was.

That the first humans did not know what disease was.

That the first humans did not know what deformity was.

 

That the first humans did not understand the meaning of God's warning about the penalty for eating from the forbidden tree.

That the first humans were not informed by God that He made them without a moral sense.

That the first humans could only understand God's warning if He had made them with a moral sense.

That the first humans could only understand God's warning once they'd broken it.

 

That the first humans were not informed by God that he planned to link the fate of his entire creation to their actions.

That the first humans were not informed by God that he planned to curse them in a gender-specific way.

That the first humans were not informed by God that he planned to banish them from the only home they'd known.

 

That while the first humans could think, could speak and could understand each other and God - they lacked any moral sense.

That the serpent could think, could speak and could understand the first humans and God - but did have a moral sense.

That the woman had a poor understanding of what God's commands about the forbidden tree actually meant.

That the serpent had an excellent understanding of what God's commands about the forbidden tree actually meant.

 

 

 

 

 

[rjn]

I can actually appreciate the Garden of Eden-myths as a coming of age-tale, the death of innocence and the birth of the ego. Indeed, I believe this is the way many Jews and less literal, more esoterically inclined Christians choose to interpret it. But a purely literal approach? That's retarded.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

"god couldn't even be bothered to explain the difference between good and evil to Adam and Eve in the garden,..."

 

He did too, they surely died. What frame of reference did they have, prior to sinning, in order to know what pain & death was? The only knowledge they got were experiential; God did NOT want that

"They surely died..."  some 900 odd years later.  But god told them they would die the day they ate the fruit.  god is a liar.

 

Man, I don't want to debate, though I do miss the bantering and I pray for the lot of you.

Yes, the text said that, they started the dying process that very day. Some scholars say the original language states - In dying you shall die, which is what happened.

God CANNOT lie!

 

False.  The text says that there was a morning and an evening and THAT constituted a day.  "In that day, you will surely die" plainly means to Adam and Eve that sometime between morning and evening death would come.  god IS a liar.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I think the intelligent folks on here like to solve "puzzles" so some food for thought: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD Genesis 6:8

After the "sons of god" came down and polluted the human genome by having sex with the daughters of men.  god didn't save Noah because he was "righteous"; god saved him because his family was the only one god's sons hadn't infiltrated.  It was a massive cover-up and all of humanity got caught in the crossfire.  No puzzle to solve here... move along.

 

Hope you realize the daughters of men is figurative language for apostates & folk who did not see the Creator God as sovereign.

 

God CANNOT & will not force people to love & serve Him. Noah was willing.

 

So, you're suggesting that god's sons were having sex with sinners?  "And the two shall become one flesh..." where does that leave the Son of god^TM?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Incidentally, Thumperina, while you're here:

 

1.  Are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

2.  How can you serve a god who justifies slavery?

3.  How can the immortal soul of a sinful wretch be annihilated and still be immortal?

4.  Where are the mud wrestling photos?

 

I'm sure there are other questions you've dodged; but these are the ones I can currently remember.  Thanks.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I think the intelligent folks on here like to solve "puzzles" so some food for thought: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD Genesis 6:8

After the "sons of god" came down and polluted the human genome by having sex with the daughters of men.  god didn't save Noah because he was "righteous"; god saved him because his family was the only one god's sons hadn't infiltrated.  It was a massive cover-up and all of humanity got caught in the crossfire.  No puzzle to solve here... move along.

 

Hope you realize the daughters of men is figurative language for apostates & folk who did not see the Creator God as sovereign.

 

God CANNOT & will not force people to love & serve Him. Noah was willing.

 

So, you're suggesting that god's sons were having sex with sinners?  "And the two shall become one flesh..." where does that leave the Son of god^TM?

 

 

Prof,

 

These particular sons of God from Genesis are considered to be the fallen angels referred to in Revelation 12 : 7 - 9.

 

7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 

8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 

9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

 

As such these sons of God are demons and not to be confused with Jesus, the Son of God.

 

Yes, it's confusing.

[florduh]

Prof, I can help you with #4.

 

 

[florduh]

Sorry, Thumbs. I couldn't help it; the devil made me do it. You're probably a hottie.

[Guest Furball]

Prof, I can help you with #4.

 

the-type-of-mud-wrestling-i-avoid_20120522222428.jpg

Is that from your personal stash?

[Guest Furball]

 

God CANNOT lie!

 

This is typical with pew-parrots that simply repeat what the pastor tells them without actually checking the facts themselves. God lied about multiple prophecies in the bible.

 

I realize on this forum, christians hate facts that disprove the bible, but I will list a few anyways. Here are a few examples of God lying through prophecy.

 

Isaiah 19:5-7 claims the river nile will dry up. The passage was written almost three thousand years ago and was clearly meant for his time. Yet to this date, the nile has yet to dry up.

 

Isaiah 17:1-2 asserts Damascus will cease to be a city forever. People living in Damascus, the capital city of Syria, would find such a prophecy quite funny.

 

Ezekiel predicted (26:7-14) that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the city of Tyre. Yet even by the prophet's own later admission, the prophesy failed (Ezekiel 29:17-20).

 

Ezekiel tried his hand again at prophecy when he predicted that Egypt will become desolate, completely uninhabited, and that Egyptians will be scattered to other countries (Ezekiel 29:8-12). Yet Egypt has never been desolate, or completely uninhabited, and there never was an Egyptian diaspora.

 

Ezekiel, for a third time, tried it again. He predicted that Nebuchadnezzar will conquer Egypt (29:19-20). Nebuchadnezzar never did this.

 

Jeremiah 36:30 prophesied that Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, shall have no successor. Yet 2 Kings 24:6 says he was succeeded by his son, Jehoiachin. 

 

Modern psychics use what is called postdiction. This involves claiming after the occurrence of something sensational that you predicted the event before it happened, but for some reason the prediction had been ignored or missed. This happens within the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel presents itself as having been written by the prophet around the sixth century BCE. As early as the third century, pagan critics such as Porphyry (234-ca.305) had already pointed out that Daniel's prophecy was remarkably accurate for events leading up to the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem in 167 BCE, but totally off for events following that. Modern scholars agree that Daniel was written a year or two after 167 BCE. Daniel did this so that he could some of his postdictions as accurate, people would give more credence to his book and to its predictions of the future. 

 

Daniel's prediction of the death of Antiochus IV (ca. 215-164 BCE) has been shown to be dead wrong. Daniel 11:45 predicted that Antiochus IV would die in a location between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea, but he instead died in Persia.