Hell no

[midniterider]

18 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

Yeah, but the 2nd death (which  eventually leads to oblivion) won't be peachy keen (understatement).

 

You get ten brownie points for understanding that death is a sleep (John 11:11-14). The dead are not conscious, they can't do anything.

 

 

Edit: You think death is a welcome friend and NOT a terrible foe?

 

Do you think nightly sleep is a terrible foe? I don't fear unconsciousness, no. If I'm dead/unconscious, I won't know it.

 

Though I might miss you a bit. (lol)

[Thumbelina]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

See, the thing is, you said earlier that without sin there would be no law.  Now you're saying that the law is irrelevant because of grace through faith.  If the law is unnecessary; then sin must also be irrelevant, since sin is what made the law necessary in the first place.  You have thus argued yourself right back to the meaninglessness of the cross, because both sin, and the law, are irrelevant.

 

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I'm sorry, did my bible-speak get you confused?

 

I was alluding to bible passages like the following:
Romans 4:15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

If-- the operative word in this hypothetical statement-- there's no law then God could not accuse anybody of sin. 
However, since people are accused of sin there MUST be a law.
It would be impossible to act unlawfully if there are no laws to break.

 

Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

The law can only accuse transgressors, the law CANNOT save anybody. The law is like a mirror that shows you all the dirt on yourself but just like a mirror cannot clean you, the law can't either. One needs soap & water to get clean. Jesus took our death upon Himself so He can pardon or cleanse us. An infinite law was broken & it took God Himself to fix it.

 

Contextualization is needed to interpret the bible correctly. We don't want those who are unstable & unlearned to wrest the scripture to their own destruction.

In that HISTORICAL context, Paul was addressing believers who thought they can use works to earn their way to heaven. He did not negate the need for works. He just wanted the church to know that our works could NEVER be enough to justify us (make us right in God's sight); only Jesus can do that.

 

There are some people who went/go too far with Paul's teaching of solar gratia (saved only by grace) & they decided/decide to say that there's no need for the law. It is those people who needed/need to be reasoned with. They need to look at the purpose of the mirror/law-- it points out sin; it creates boundaries so people can live harmoniously, with God & therefore, each other. Breaking the mirror does not get rid of the schmutz we have on us. The Savior has to be the one to wipe us clean.

 

You're good at reasoning but you need the Holy Spirit to help you understand more.

 

People who believe that the moral law was abolished because of grace need to be humbly told that:

 

If there's no sin it means there is no law; if there's no law, there's no need for grace. If there's no need for grace then there's no need for a savior. If there's no need for a savior then there's no need for a preacher & if there's no need for a preacher we might as well close down the church. 

 

I believe you understand the logical conclusion of not having law so you should agree with the above reasoning, right?

 

[mymistake]

30 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

Yeah, but the 2nd death (which  eventually leads to oblivion) won't be peachy keen (understatement).

 

You get ten brownie points for understanding that death is a sleep (John 11:11-14). The dead are not conscious, they can't do anything.

 

 

Edit: You think death is a welcome friend and NOT a terrible foe?

 

Death certainly will be a welcome friend after I am past 90 years old and my body has completely failed me in every way.  When life becomes unsustainable the suffering eventually ends.

 

 

What would be a terrible foe would be a church service that lasts for a trillion years followed by another trillion years and then again with another trillion years and on and on and on.  We have all been in a church service when the preacher started taking his sermon a bit too seriously and went over by 15 or 20 minutes.  We all started looking at our watches.  We all couldn't stop thinking about lunch.  Heaven would be that boring after a couple of hours.  And it never ends.  I couldn't even imagine a church service that lasts an entire day.  But one that is forever?  No way!

 

[Thumbelina]

17 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Do you think nightly sleep is a terrible foe? I don't fear unconsciousness, no. If I'm dead/unconscious, I won't know it.

 

Though I might miss you a bit. (lol)

 

Funny guy.

Night sleep, siestas etc., feel good cuz we're born terminal & get tired & need to recharge. However, how would you like to not wake up at all ... & you know you won't wake up beforehand? ... oh, oh, & it's cuz you took what Romeo & Juliet took & you were in a satanic trance when you did it (Revelation 12:9)?

 

[mymistake]

19 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I'm sorry, did my bible-speak get you confused?

 

I was alluding to bible passages like the following:
Romans 4:15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

If-- the operative word in this hypothetical statement-- there's no law then God could not accuse anybody of sin. 
 

 

 

Well I found God's mistake.  He shouldn't have created the law.  It seems that God sucks at planning.  

 

 

19 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

The law can only accuse transgressors, the law CANNOT save anybody.  

 

 

 

But not having a law would have saved everybody.  Kind of like God giving baby boys a forskin and then commanding the parents to cut it off (and this was before the invention of anesthetics).  Terrible planning but if God didn't do stupid things then God wouldn't need a law to clean it up.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

One needs soap & water to get clean.

 

 

See, again God screwed up.  God didn't need to create any condition other than clean.  Then everybody would always be clean.  God just sucks at this planning stuff.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

Contextualization is needed to interpret the bible correctly. We don't want those who are unstable & unlearned to wrest the scripture to their own destruction.

 

 

There are thousands and thousands of Christian sects who believe a wide range of things.  God should have created God's word so that it would be easy to understand.  God failed again.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

You're good at reasoning but you need the Holy Spirit to help you understand more.

 

 

Again, thousands and thousand of Christian sects and the Holy Spirit didn't help all the wrong ones figure out they should believe exactly what you believe.  The Holy Spirit fails.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

If there's no sin it means there is no law; if there's no law, there's no need for grace. If there's no need for grace then there's no need for a savior. If there's no need for a savior then there's no need for a preacher & if there's no need for a preacher we might as well close down the church. 

 

 

Now that is the plan God should have chosen from the very beginning!  Skip all the drama and suffering.  Go strait to the good part.  See, even you can come up with a better plan than God.

 

 

[florduh]

15 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

The thing is, humans are not saved by keeping the law, humans are saved by GRACE alone, through FAITH alone. God's standards are quite high & no man of himself can meet them. We have to yoke up with Christ to be perfected.

Thumbs! You haven't changed a bit!

 

You have yet to provide any evidence that such assertions have any basis in fact. None. It's what you have been taught, not unlike what Tom Cruise has been taught about Xenu.

 

Such assertions are nothing more than repeating what somebody else thought some religious book said. It is somebody's guess, somebody's interpretation, and a minority opinion at that, of ancient writings which  themselves have not been verified or even agreed upon by "believers."

 

Doctrinal disagreements are better aired on Christian forums. 

 

 

[Thumbelina]

39 minutes ago, florduh said:

Thumbs! You haven't changed a bit!

 

You have yet to provide any evidence that such assertions have any basis in fact. None. It's what you have been taught, not unlike what Tom Cruise has been taught about Xenu.

 

Such assertions are nothing more than repeating what somebody else thought some religious book said. It is somebody's guess, somebody's interpretation, and a minority opinion at that, of ancient writings which  themselves have not been verified or even agreed upon by "believers."

 

Doctrinal disagreements are better aired on Christian forums. 

 

 

 

Hey Pops, well, apparently you didn't change either . I'm answering questions posed by some of the lions;  I can't make them believe but I can sometimes answer as best as I can. I can pray for them, there are some fine, intelligent peopl on this site. I believe that they'll miss out on heaven & in my way, I try to prevent it.

[florduh]

19 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

I believe that they'll miss out on heaven & in my way, I try to prevent it.

I know you mean well, but WHY do you believe such a thing? Do you have any evidence, not just "the Bible says such and so and I know how to understand it correctly because so and so taught me and I belong to such and such sect and we have better understanding than those other believers who claim to know what God says he wants but they are all wrong" explanation?

 

Asking for a friend.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I'm sorry, did my bible-speak get you confused?

 

I was alluding to bible passages like the following:
Romans 4:15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

If-- the operative word in this hypothetical statement-- there's no law then God could not accuse anybody of sin. 
However, since people are accused of sin there MUST be a law.
It would be impossible to act unlawfully if there are no laws to break.

 

Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

The law can only accuse transgressors, the law CANNOT save anybody. The law is like a mirror that shows you all the dirt on yourself but just like a mirror cannot clean you, the law can't either. One needs soap & water to get clean. Jesus took our death upon Himself so He can pardon or cleanse us. An infinite law was broken & it took God Himself to fix it.

 

Contextualization is needed to interpret the bible correctly. We don't want those who are unstable & unlearned to wrest the scripture to their own destruction.

In that HISTORICAL context, Paul was addressing believers who thought they can use works to earn their way to heaven. He did not negate the need for works. He just wanted the church to know that our works could NEVER be enough to justify us (make us right in God's sight); only Jesus can do that.

 

There are some people who went/go too far with Paul's teaching of solar gratia (saved only by grace) & they decided/decide to say that there's no need for the law. It is those people who needed/need to be reasoned with. They need to look at the purpose of the mirror/law-- it points out sin; it creates boundaries so people can live harmoniously, with God & therefore, each other. Breaking the mirror does not get rid of the schmutz we have on us. The Savior has to be the one to wipe us clean.

 

You're good at reasoning but you need the Holy Spirit to help you understand more.

 

People who believe that the moral law was abolished because of grace need to be humbly told that:

 

If there's no sin it means there is no law; if there's no law, there's no need for grace. If there's no need for grace then there's no need for a savior. If there's no need for a savior then there's no need for a preacher & if there's no need for a preacher we might as well close down the church. 

 

I believe you understand the logical conclusion of not having law so you should agree with the above reasoning, right?

 

False.  god was accusing people of sin long before the law.  I'm sure you've heard of Adam and Everybody, right?

[Thumbelina]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

I know you mean well, but WHY do you believe such a thing? Do you have any evidence, not just "the Bible says such and so and I know how to understand it correctly because so and so taught me and I belong to such and such sect and we have better understanding than those other believers who claim to know what God says he wants but they are all wrong" explanation?

 

Asking for a friend.

 

Pops, I told you lions in the past that my experiences with God basically started with observing nature-- the beautiful parts. Then biblical morality attracted me-- was not impressed by what I saw around me. Later I went to church & bible prophecy encouraged my belief further-- the predictions in Daniel 2 etc. . I've experienced God's Providence during certain times in my life-- He gave me certain knowledge before trials just when I needed it & when my faith ebbed & then flowed He providentially picked up where we left off. So yeah, I believe based on my experiences & because of the biblical teachings.

The other alternative is believing we come from nothing & ultimately there is no real purpose for our very short lives. There is no evidence for macro evolution. People believe that by faith.

 

I agree with Peter in John 6:68.

[Thumbelina]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

False.  god was accusing people of sin long before the law.  I'm sure you've heard of Adam and Everybody, right?

 

I reiterate:

If-- the operative word in this hypothetical statement-- there's no law then God could not accuse anybody of sin. 
However, since people are accused of sin there MUST be a law.
It would be impossible to act unlawfully if there are no laws to break.

 

The law is eternal as God Himself. The law shows His character &  what He expects of His creation.

The law (10 commandments) were written in Adam & Eve's heart prior to the fall.

God told them not to eat of the tree. Did they not covet, steal, dishonor their Father, put the God of opinion before their creator, commit spiritual adultery? etc 

James 2:10 says if a person breaks one commandment then they're guilty of breaking all. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

[florduh]

28 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

There is no evidence for macro evolution. People believe that by faith.

You couldn't be more mistaken. The facts of science and reality just don't fit your preconceptions so you reject them. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I reiterate:

If-- the operative word in this hypothetical statement-- there's no law then God could not accuse anybody of sin. 
However, since people are accused of sin there MUST be a law.
It would be impossible to act unlawfully if there are no laws to break.

 

The law is eternal as God Himself. The law shows His character &  what He expects of His creation.

The law (10 commandments) were written in Adam & Eve's heart prior to the fall.

God told them not to eat of the tree. Did they not covet, steal, dishonor their Father, put the God of opinion before their creator, commit spiritual adultery? etc 

James 2:10 says if a person breaks one commandment then they're guilty of breaking all. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

So Cain's murder of his brother was not a sin because there was no law?  Or did god just accuse him for shits and giggles?

[Thumbelina]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So Cain's murder of his brother was not a sin because there was no law?  Or did god just accuse him for shits and giggles?

Dude, we seem to be talking past each other; I keep saying the law has ALWAYS been there, before sin existed. It's an eternal law. The principles of the law are everlasting.

Hell yeah, Cain sinned, God even told him sin lies at his door.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

Dude, we seem to be talking past each other; I keep saying the law has ALWAYS been there, before sin existed. It's an eternal law. The principles of the law are everlasting.

Hell yeah, Cain sinned, God even told him sin lies at his door.

In what bible does Leviticus come before genesis?  Because god was accusing people of sin long before he ever said a god damn word about any fucking law.

[Thumbelina]

59 minutes ago, florduh said:

You couldn't be more mistaken. The facts of science and reality just don't fit your preconceptions so you reject them. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

 

 

 

I'm going to read this later:

 

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

& maybe check out www.creation.com too.

 

Scientists do exactly what they accuse believers of doing, they did not witness something coming from nothing, just like Christians did not witness God creating the universe. Both positions are based on faith.

[mymistake]

18 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I'm going to read this later:

 

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

Scientists do exactly what they accuse believers of doing, they did not witness something coming from nothing just like Christians did not witness God creating the universe. Both positions are based on faith.

 

 

Uh, no.

 

 

Scientists do not accuse believers of using the scientific method to uncover the truth of reality.  So no, scientists are not doing the exact same thing as what they accuse believers of doing.  That is just silly.

 

 

You do realize scientist don't claim something came from nothing?  You must because you have been here long enough to have been reminded of this fact many times by now.  I will always be happy to remind you again should you ever forget . . . again.

 

 

Scientists do observe many many situations where evidence today is available for events that happened in the past.  It's not that hard to understand.  You would have to actively try in order to not understand.

 

 

 

 

[Thumbelina]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In what bible does Leviticus come before genesis?  Because god was accusing people of sin long before he ever said a god damn word about any fucking law.

 

You do know that the bible wasn't written in total chronological order, right? Scholars think Job was written by Moses & it was one of the first books written.

Those humans before the flood were mighty people, perhaps having photographic memory. Seems there was an oral tradition before folks degenerated & had to have things written down.

Anyway, Lucifer sinned, transgressed God's eternal law in heaven; that's why he got kicked out. He perpetually disrespected God's moral law. He started it, Jesus even said so in the NT-- called Satan a liar from the beginning & the Father of lies. Isn't not lying part of the 10 commandment moral law?

 

[mymistake]

11 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

Anyway, Lucifer sinned, transgressed God's eternal law in heaven; that's why he got kicked out. He perpetually disrespected God's moral law. He started it, Jesus even said so in the NT-- called Satan a liar from the beginning & the Father of lies. Isn't not lying part of the 10 commandment moral law?

 

 

 

But why did Lucifer start it?  He must have known that God was all powerful and that angels are not all powerful.  Why start a war you cannot win?  Was Lucifer stupid?  It makes no sense.  

 

But since God is much more powerful than Lucifer, then why will most humans end up being destroyed?  Seems like God got out smarted by a less powerful adversary.  This also makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

[florduh]

38 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

Scientists do exactly what they accuse believers of doing, they did not witness something coming from nothing just like Christians did not witness God creating the universe. Both positions are based on faith.

NO, just no. Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

You do know that the bible wasn't written in total chronological order, right? Scholars think Job was written by Moses & it was one of the first books written.

Those humans before the flood were mighty people, perhaps having photographic memory. Seems there was an oral tradition before folks degenerated & had to have things written down.

Anyway, Lucifer sinned, transgressed God's eternal law in heaven; that's why he got kicked out. He perpetually disrespected God's moral law. He started it, Jesus even said so in the NT-- called Satan a liar from the beginning & the Father of lies. Isn't not lying part of the 10 commandment moral law?

 

You mean like god lied when he said Adam would die in the day he ate of the fruit, yet we know from genesis 5 that Adam lived for 930 years?  That kind of lying?  (Cue the "spiritual death" defense).

 

Seems like even god wasn't sure what was and was not sin until he finally got around to writing it down.  Either that or he just enjoys randomly fucking people up.

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I'm going to read this later:

 

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

& maybe check out www.creation.com too.

 

Scientists do exactly what they accuse believers of doing, they did not witness something coming from nothing, just like Christians did not witness God creating the universe. Both positions are based on faith.

 

While you're on talk origins, check out the index to creationist claims.

 

Also, what you describe is not what scientists do. At all.

[Thumbelina]

34 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You mean like god lied when he said Adam would die in the day he ate of the fruit, yet we know from genesis 5 that Adam lived for 930 years?  That kind of lying?  (Cue the "spiritual death" defense).

 

Seems like even god wasn't sure what was and was not sin until he finally got around to writing it down.  Either that or he just enjoys randomly fucking people up.

Is lying not part of the 10 commandment moral law?

 

 

...............

 

God CANNOT lie. It's not part of His nature.

 

Just as the law of flight defies the law of gravity, the law of mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13).

The everlasting covenant was introduced just when Adam & Eve sinned. Jesus was to take their place; He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Adam & Eve were clothed, by God, with skins of a dead animal. Death started. Jesus's sacrifice was assured. They became terminal the day they sinned but God intervened. However, they surely died. I think some scholars say the original language for surely die means, in dying you will die. Yup, they started the death process that day. 

 

.............  

 

 

Edit: There's a child rapist around, your two year old, who has no frame of reference about sex, has to be taught not to let others touch her. Would you describe explicitly to the kid what rape entails? You wanted God to describe sin in great detail before Adam & Eve sinned? The instructions were SIMPLE, 'don't touch it!'

[Thumbelina]

9 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

Also, what you describe is not what scientists do. At all.

 

Hawking used to do it & others do too.

[Thumbelina]

33 minutes ago, florduh said:

NO, just no. Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to such a statement.

 

Can they demonstrate something coming from nothing? 

Even if they could, & then claim no intelligence was needed then they discredit themselves