Hell no

[mymistake]

Just now, Thumbelina said:

 

Can they demonstrate something coming from nothing?  

 

 

 

Hello?  Scientist do not say something came from nothing.  Why do they need to demonstrate something they don't claim and don't believe?  If only I had a dime for every time I have to explain this to a Christian.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

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. 

Again you have to twist your brain into a pretzel and add your own interpretation to make the bible mean what you want it to mean, instead of just reading what it fucking says.  It says "die".  No mention of "terminal" or "process".  It fucking says "in the DAY you eat the fruit, you will surely DIE".  That means, "nom nom, thud."  Period.

[mymistake]

23 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

Just as the law of flight defies the law of gravity . . . 

 

 

Aerodynamics and gravity are both theories.  (A scientific theory isn't a hunch but rather an over all explanation that covers a multitude of observed and well-established facts.  A scientific law is a short and concise mathematical formula that describes only a tiny detail.)  The theory of aerodynamics does not defy the theory of gravity.  Aerodynamics would not work without gravity.  Gravity is what holds all the air close to the planet.  An air foil can cut through that air to create lift because gravity is pulling the air toward the planet.

 

I'll let RNP harpoon you on your claim of God not lying but the ignorance about science just burns.

[disillusioned]

4 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

Hawking used to do it & others do too.

 

...not exactly.

 

I'll be the first to say that some cosmologists sometimes speculate about things which are beyond the proper purview of science. But this is speculation, not scientific fact. Hawking, for example, proposed hypotheses explaining the potential origin of the Universe from nothing. But that's different from claiming knowledge that the Universe actually came from nothing.

[Thumbelina]

6 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

17 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

Hawking used to do it & others do too.

 

...not exactly.

 

I'll be the first to say that some cosmologists sometimes speculate about things which are beyond the proper purview of science. But this is speculation, not scientific fact. Hawking, for example, proposed hypotheses explaining the potential origin of the Universe from nothing. But that's different from claiming knowledge that the Universe actually came from nothing.

 

I've seen certain atheists (militant) assert there's no God & our origins are from nothing.

They quote their favorite guru etc.

Nothing cannot love us but when Christians experience God's love it gives, hope, joy & peace.

Militant atheists evangelize & try to destroy people's faith. There needs to be mutual respect on both sides.

 

[mymistake]

4 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I've seen certain atheists (militant) assert there's no God & our origins are from nothing.

 

 

You mean they say "we don't know".  Saying "we don't know" doesn't mean "we came from nothing".

 

And don't call atheists militant if all they do is talk.  Talking is not what militant means.  And don't talk about mutual respect.  Christianity has been waging war on other people's beliefs for as long as it existed.  If you had respect for other people's beliefs you would not be here right now trying to change our beliefs.   

[Thumbelina]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Again you have to twist your brain into a pretzel and add your own interpretation to make the bible mean what you want it to mean, instead of just reading what it fucking says.  It says "die".  No mention of "terminal" or "process".  It fucking says "in the DAY you eat the fruit, you will surely DIE".  That means, "nom nom, thud."  Period.

 

Not really.

 

"The phrase "you shall surely die" can be literally translated from the Hebrew  biblical text as "dying you shall die." In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of "you shall surely die"). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action." answersingenesis.org

 

[mymistake]

25 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

Not really.

 

"The phrase "you shall surely die" can be literally translated from the Hebrew  biblical text as "dying you shall die." In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of "you shall surely die"). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action." answersingenesis.org

 

 

 

Oh, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.  It's so simple!

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

37 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

Not really.

 

"The phrase "you shall surely die" can be literally translated from the Hebrew  biblical text as "dying you shall die." In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of "you shall surely die"). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action." answersingenesis.org

 

Isn't it interesting that the bible requires so many other books, apologists, websites, and cultural references just to be understood?  Isn't it supposed to be the revelation of god, who doesn't change, to all of us, irrespective of race, era, or culture?  Why can't the book just say what it means and mean what it says, like a book written by an omnipotent and omniscient god should be?  Shakespeare in Russian makes more sense than "fear means love" and "death means not really dying, but dying in death although there's a chance of not dying if you understand that dying actually means life."

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Thumbelina said:

 

Not really.

 

"The phrase "you shall surely die" can be literally translated from the Hebrew  biblical text as "dying you shall die." In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of "you shall surely die"). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action." answersingenesis.org

 

 

The general take-away from Thumbelina's current visit is that words and phrases mean whatever you want them to mean.

 

[florduh]

9 minutes ago, midniterider said:

The general take-away from Thumbelina's current visit is that words and phrases mean whatever you want them to mean.

I'm sure she's quite clear on her exegesis and honestly convinced of her conclusions.

 

It's an interesting phenomenon. I just watched the interview with Casey Anthony's parents. Dad thinks his daughter (probably accidentally) killed their granddaughter by sedating her and then she panicked. Mom, though, is in another universe. She cannot see any possibility of wrongdoing and can instantly explain away all evidence presented to her, some of which has surfaced after the trial where Casey was not found guilty. She makes excuses for her daughter, now free of any charges, for not visiting home and rarely even calling over the last ten years. Watching her process was so chillingly like watching Christian apologetics in action; a conclusion has been made and everything is twisted to fit that narrative. Spooky.

[midniterider]

20 minutes ago, florduh said:

I'm sure she's quite clear on her exegesis and honestly convinced of her conclusions.

 

It's an interesting phenomenon. I just watched the interview with Casey Anthony's parents. Dad thinks his daughter (probably accidentally) killed their granddaughter by sedating her and then she panicked. Mom, though, is in another universe. She cannot see any possibility of wrongdoing and can instantly explain away all evidence presented to her, some of which has surfaced after the trial where Casey was not found guilty. She makes excuses for her daughter, now free of any charges, for not visiting home and rarely even calling over the last ten years. Watching her process was so chillingly like watching Christian apologetics in action; a conclusion has been made and everything is twisted to fit that narrative. Spooky.

 

Their deeply held belief is a done deal.

[readyforchange]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:40 PM, Thumbelina said:

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

 

Yes, we agree there are different laws but for humans to coexist there needs to be moral laws. The moral laws come under the umbrella of God's ten commandments. Is stealing wrong? Is murder, slander, going around deliberately giving partners HIV? ... 

 

 

You agree with the bible when you say unbelievers have morals without believing in a God (Romans 2:14).

 

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.

 

I have to hand it to ya, you are thinking, you realize that antinomianism makes Christ & salvation unnecessary.

 

I do believe moral laws are necessary & ultimately we can't truly do good (with pure heart & motive) without God.

 

Edit: Good works and obedience are manifestations of  believers saving relationship with God. The believer never does (should never do)  works to be saved; that is legalism.

 

Thumbelina, how do you interpret the judging of the dead in Revelations 20, when the dead are judged according to their works?  Are these dead believers who were already saved through belief and faith in Jesus?  People who died before the resurrection of Jesus?  Is this a judgment that does not affect whether a person goes to heaven or hell - such as the works that the dead completed while alive help determine believers' place/status in the new kingdom?  

 

Revelation 20:12-15

¹² And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. ¹³ And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done. ¹⁴ Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; ¹⁵ and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Greetings, Thumbelina.

 

On 5/28/2018 at 6:55 PM, 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.

 

When the books were written is pretty much irrelevant when there's a clear timeline of when the events described are alleged to have happened. The Law was supposedly given to Moses on Mount Sinai, which didn't happen until many, many generations after the time of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Thus, there was no Law during that whole time between creation and Moses on Sinai.

 

On 5/28/2018 at 6:55 PM, Thumbelina said:

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.

 

That's pure speculation, but regardless, the fact is that oral tradition is irrelevant to the issue at hand when the Law had not been given yet. They could not orally repeat what they had not been given.

 

On 5/28/2018 at 6:55 PM, 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.

 

"Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) is a transliteration of the Latin translation of the Hebrew for "day star" or "morning star." The passage is explicitly addressing the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4); the entire passage makes no mention whatsoever of "Satan" or the "devil." This is just one of many examples of how Christians take Bible verses completely out of context.

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

10 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

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

 

Well, that's only true insomuch as an imaginary being can't actually do anything at all. However, the God character in the Bible does lie, according the the fictional stories contained in the Bible. In addition to TheRedneckProfessor's example of God lying to Adam and Eve about dying if they eat of the fruit, we also have God himself directly sending a "lying spirit" (I Kings 22:20-23) and a prediction that God himself will send a "strong delusion" (II Thesselonians 2:11). So much for your notion of lying not being a part of the nature of this God character.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

12 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Pops, I told you lions in the past that my experiences with God basically started with observing nature-- the beautiful parts.

 

So you ignore the ugly parts of nature? How convenient to pick and choose what you want.

 

12 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Then biblical morality attracted me-- was not impressed by what I saw around me.

 

Yeah, because happily dashing infants on rocks is such a great moral. [/sarcasm]

 

12 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Later I went to church & bible prophecy encouraged my belief further-- the predictions in Daniel 2 etc.

 

Ah, so you're impressed with a mere story of an alleged dream and interpretation, all written right together at the same time. Wow.

 

I used to be impressed with prophecy as well, though what I thought was strong evidence was the alleged OT prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled in the NT. However, the more I studied that, I started seeing a pattern of the Gospels repeatedly taking OT texts completely out of context in order to fabricate fulfillments of alleged prophecies that were not even remotely talking about what the NT writers claimed they were about. (Of course, it is also true that just because people claimed prophetic fulfillment doesn't mean that they couldn't have made up the stories of fulfillments, but the fact that they manipulated OT texts into things completely different from what they were actually saying totally obliterates the whole notion of impressive messianic prophetic fulfillments.)

 

[Thumbelina]

23 hours ago, florduh said:

I'm sure she's quite clear on her exegesis and honestly convinced of her conclusions.

 

It's an interesting phenomenon. I just watched the interview with Casey Anthony's parents. Dad thinks his daughter (probably accidentally) killed their granddaughter by sedating her and then she panicked. Mom, though, is in another universe. She cannot see any possibility of wrongdoing and can instantly explain away all evidence presented to her, some of which has surfaced after the trial where Casey was not found guilty. She makes excuses for her daughter, now free of any charges, for not visiting home and rarely even calling over the last ten years. Watching her process was so chillingly like watching Christian apologetics in action; a conclusion has been made and everything is twisted to fit that narrative. Spooky.

 

 

I say ditto, Pops. Believing a mosquito can "evolve" into an elephant - given enough time- & everything came from nothing with no intelligence behind it, may just be part of a person staying in their comfort zone.

Atheistic apologetics much?

I don't think many people truly believe that deep in their hearts; they're scared of God because they don't understand His love. ... His justice too.

[Thumbelina]

On 5/28/2018 at 9:19 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Isn't it interesting that the bible requires so many other books, apologists, websites, and cultural references just to be understood? 

What about atheistic explanations that require so many other books, apologists, websites & certain gobbledygook to prevent a divine foot from entering the door?

 

The bible interprets itself. If translators would just translate what was written then all will be fine.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

What about atheistic explanations that require so many other books, apologists, websites & certain gobbledygook to prevent a divine foot from entering the door?

 

The bible interprets itself. If translators would just translate what was written then all will be fine.

It's the absence of the divine foot that prevents it from entering the door; not Sam Harris saying exactly what he means.

[Thumbelina]

23 hours ago, readyforchange said:

 

Thumbelina, how do you interpret the judging of the dead in Revelations 20, when the dead are judged according to their works?  Are these dead believers who were already saved through belief and faith in Jesus?  People who died before the resurrection of Jesus?  Is this a judgment that does not affect whether a person goes to heaven or hell - such as the works that the dead completed while alive help determine believers' place/status in the new kingdom?  

 

Revelation 20:12-15

¹² And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. ¹³ And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done. ¹⁴ Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; ¹⁵ and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

The judgment is for EVERYONE; everyone from the past, present & future.

 

The bible is consistent & cohesive; one just has to prayerfully study it & learn how to cross reference the texts. The bible has many different authors, yet it harmonizes. There was no collusion & there's agreement.

Ecclesiastes 3:17 God will judge both the righteous man & the wicked man

 

As I said before, works sans God is useless but works with God is what a believer does.

See:

* Romans 6:1-2
* Ephesians 2:10 Created FOR good works
* John 15:5 Without  me you can do nothing
 

The judgment described in the texts you quoted decides who goes to heaven or hell.

[Thumbelina]

15 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It's the absence of the divine foot that prevents it from entering the door; not Sam Harris saying exactly what he means.

He is there. I'm sorry your misunderstanding of Him cause you to not see Him.

[mymistake]

33 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

I say ditto, Pops. Believing a mosquito can "evolve" into an elephant - given enough time-

 

Nobody believes that.

 

34 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

& everything came from nothing . . . 

 

Nobody believes that either.

 

You would be upset if one of us misrepresented Christians.  Now live the Golden Rule and stop misrepresenting scientists.

 

36 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

. . . may just be part of a person staying in their comfort zone.

 

No, the theory of evolution is about the evidence.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 Atheistic apologetics much?

I don't think many people truly believe that deep in their hearts; they're scared of God because they don't understand His love. ... His justice too.

 

Being scared of somebody is very different from suspecting they are imaginary.  It is almost impossible to be scared of somebody you think is imaginary.

 

 

Thumbelina, do you think that ignoring these points will make you look like you have the answers?

[mymistake]

4 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

He is there. I'm sorry your misunderstanding of Him cause you to not see Him.

 

 

Explain to me how is God tangibly different from an imaginary character?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

18 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

He is there. I'm sorry your misunderstanding of Him cause you to not see Him.

Demonstrate that he is there.

[Thumbelina]

17 hours ago, Citsonga said:

Greetings, Thumbelina.

 

 

When the books were written is pretty much irrelevant when there's a clear timeline of when the events described are alleged to have happened. The Law was supposedly given to Moses on Mount Sinai, which didn't happen until many, many generations after the time of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Thus, there was no Law during that whole time between creation and Moses on Sinai.

 

 

That's pure speculation, but regardless, the fact is that oral tradition is irrelevant to the issue at hand when the Law had not been given yet. They could not orally repeat what they had not been given.

 

 

"Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) is a transliteration of the Latin translation of the Hebrew for "day star" or "morning star." The passage is explicitly addressing the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4); the entire passage makes no mention whatsoever of "Satan" or the "devil." This is just one of many examples of how Christians take Bible verses completely out of context.

 

 

Hello .

 

Red neck 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."

 

Therefore, the chronological order statement was relevant.

 

The law (10 commandments) was written for Moses by God's own hand on Sinai. The law is eternal as God Himself. The added laws, like the ceremonial laws written by Moses, were ADDED because the people were transgressing the perfect 10. The perfect ten was the umbrella over those. The handwriting of ordinances were nailed to the cross but the ten commandments, written in  stone, are eternal. The principles are eternal.

 

Genesis 4:7 happened before Moses existed. God told Cain sin lieth at his door.

What is sin in that context? Cain did open the door wide to sin, what did he do that was considered sin?

 

Lucifer,-light bearer- became Satan-adversary.

The bible uses figurative language, metaphors, analogies etc., a LOT.

As God how will you explain to dumb people who do not quite understand the heineousnes of sin & it's origin, when the only frame of reference they have are what they observe?

God told Adam & Eve not to eat or they will be like God, knowing good & evil, except their knowledge was experiential.

 

Job, the first book written, mentions Satan. 

Satan, serpent ... that fiend is a stinker!

It seems the oral tradition was possible in those days prior to Moses writing down God's word.