Are All Warnings Threats?

@FMF

You are so obliviously self-centred that you don't even realize, after 14 years, that BigDoggProblem is not a poster who can be "manipulated" simply by engaging what he said and engaging you about what you said.

My writing here has been "Christ centered". I think everybody knows that this poster wants to talk and talk about Jesus Christ.

You like to work to make those whom you disagree with self conscious. You bait. You taunt. You troll and make remarks aimed to make posters introspective. "Look at yourself." That's your major response to Christians in so many words here.

And I think you also like to talk about yourself for pages on end.

I like to be Christ centered. And I feel strongly about some things which I am willing to argue some about. Others are not that crucial.

Having said all this, I am human of course. But I think I quickly recognize your bating and turn the discussion back to what I want to write all about - Jesus the Son of God.

@sonship said
@divegeester
But you didn't prove to this poster that God keeps people alive for eternal punishment.

.

Why would I want to prove such a thing, this is your horrible belief, not mine.

@sonship said
Divegeesters says that I said I agreed with BigDogProblem in a deceitful way, putting words in his mouth.

No I didn't.

The question: Are All warnings Threats?

BDP's response:

Nope.

My agreement:

I agree. All warnings of impending harm are not threats.

I agreed with his "Nope". And I don't think me adding "A ...[text shortened]... against the authority of God's throne and eternal kingship.

There was nothing dishonest there.

This dishonesty is that he does not agree with you in the slightest that the “warning” from your version of god that he will burn people alive in the lake of fire, is a threat.

You know that his “nope” was NOT referring to that “warning” and yet you started your reply to him with “I agree with you”. It was casual dishonesty and you know it.

@fmf said
Separating the word "nope" from the content of his answer, and seizing on that and ignoring what he said, serves your rhetorical purpose but one couldn't characterize it as honest discourse on your part.

Exactly.

@sonship said
@FMF

If I had said "No (nope)" is ALL he wrote, that would be misrepresentative. I didn't.

You're saying his No was not No to that question.
If he meant to say YES, he could have said "Yep."

At any rate, I'll wait to hear from BDP. Since you boast that he doesn't need you, then demonstrate your confidence and butt out.

Your whole premise in your OP is to float the idea that that the “warning” by your version of god, that he will burn people alive for eternity for not believing in him, is NOT a “threat”. This is you pitch, right?

So, to isolate BDP’s “nope” and try to manipulate that word so that it supports your premise, when clearly BDP does NOT agree with your premise, is dishonesty. Pretending know that you can’t see what I’m saying and pretending that BDP will come along and somehow let you off of the hook is further dishonestly.

And you know it.

@divegeester

Why would I want to prove such a thing, this is your horrible belief, not mine.

I didn't set out to.

Whether you describe the revelation as horrible or terrible, evidently physical death in the Bible's revelation is not non-existence. You mustered no effort to show otherwise so as those in the second death cannot suffer.

You haven't the enthusiasm or the skill to demonstrate otherwise.
So we still have God as the Judge of the living and the dead. (Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tim. 4:1)

Sometime the natural man reacts to God's word saying that it is horrible.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Why would I want to prove such a thing, this is your horrible belief, not mine.

I didn't set out to.

Whether you describe the revelation as horrible or terrible, evidently death in the Bible's revelation is not non-existence.

You haven't the enthusiasm or the skill to demonstrate otherwise.
So we still have God as the J ...[text shortened]... :31; 2 Tim. 4:1) [/b]

Sometime the natural man reacts to God's word saying that it is horrible.

If your version of god will not be responsible for burning non Christians alive for eternity then just come out and say so.

@divegeester

If your version of god will not be responsible for burning non Christians alive for eternity then just come out and say so.

I have said dozens of time what we are told in Revelation 20:15

And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20:15)

That is the way I put the matter because that is the way the Bible finally puts the matter of the second death.

Do you disagree that that is what and how we are told of the "Whose Who" in the second death ?
The experiencers of the second death forever are those whose names are not found in the book of life at the commencement of the eternal age.

@sonship said
@divegeester

If your version of god will not be responsible for burning non Christians alive for eternity then just come out and say so.

I have said dozens of time what we are told in Revelation 20:15

And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20:15)

That is the way ...[text shortened]... ever are those whose names are not found in the book of life at the commencement of the eternal age.

What is your point with this particular exchange?

Presumably to distract from your dishonesty in this thread or your plagiarism in the other.

@divegeester

What is your point with this particular exchange?

Revelation 20:15. Is it in the Bible - Yes or No ?

If yes, do you have an interpretation that said lake of fire means the non-existence of the one sent there.

If you have such an interpretation explain it.
If not, no further questions to you.

@sonship
Don’t change the subject; here’s what you said:

@sonship said
@divegeester
“But you didn't prove to this poster that God keeps people alive for eternal punishment. “

I replied:
Why would I want to prove such a thing, this is your horrible belief, not mine.

@sonship said
@BigDoggProblem

Nope.

I agree. All warnings of impending harm are not threats.

Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.

God's warning of eternal punishment seems to me not to be given early in the Bible. The early warning in Genesis 3 is that man would ...[text shortened]...
I will go on in another post about another kind of warning approaching God's eternally punishing.

I think you may have meant to write, "Not all warnings of impending harm are threats".

Genesis is not clear as to why the humans die. Was it because the fruit itself was deadly to them in some way, or was it because God was going to punish them by killing them? If the former, then the warning was not a threat; if the latter, it was.

Interestingly, the end of Gen. 3 shows that it was by no means certain that the eaters of the tree would die:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

@BigDoggProblem

I think you may have meant to write, "Not all warnings of impending harm are threats".

"All warnings are not threats" or " Not all warnings are threats " appears to be only a difference in where the "not" is placed. It be interesting to diagram it out on a truth table. The second may be clearer. In "All warning are not threats" Some warnings would be, is what I meant at the time.

I think on further consideration I think HOW ones receives the warning has much to do with it. Two definitions I noticed of "threat"

threatDictionary result for threat
/THret/Submit
noun
1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
"members of her family have received death threats"
synonyms: threatening remark, warning, ultimatum, intimidating remark; More
2.
a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.
"hurricane damage poses a major threat to many coastal communities"

Was what God told Adam about the two trees (especially the forbidden one) taken as 1. or 2.?
And how do we the readers take it?

I think it is a threat in the second sense.
You bring out a very interesting point below.

Genesis is not clear as to why the humans die.

I'd agree that in the account alone it is not too clear. Many things need further revelation to make the matter clearer.

I think the first question I had upon reading Genesis for the first time was about why there should be a lying, conniving, subtle, deceiving serpent in what was described as a paradise. Everything in me thought that paradise should exclude such an evil being.

Only subsequently does the Bible fill in more facts to make the matter clearer.

But was Adam and eve's dying inflicted punishment or embraced misfortune or both?
You know in an older book of Job terrible things were done to Job by Satan in a contest between God and Satan. [bJob[/b] however seemed to have no doubt that God was the one responsible for his suffering.

" ... in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (2:17b) could only be permitted to happen in God's providence. I still though lean on "threat" in the second sense being more the indication up to that point.

Was it because the fruit itself was deadly to them in some way,

I believe that this should be the case. But it becomes clearer to me as the revelation of the Bible unfolds further.

They actually came into union with Satan the Devil. I don't understand everything about this.

Sometimes I point out that when Judas ate the morsel of food, we are told that Satan entered into him in some special way.

Jesus answered, It is he [the betrayer] for whom I will dip the morsel and to whom I will give it; And dipping the morsal, He gave it to Judas Isacariot, ... And at that moment, after the morsal, Satan entered into him.

Jesus therefore said to him, What you do, do quickly." (See John 13:26,27)

I do not understand everything about that fruit. But I think it was a kind of "line in the sand" over which Adam was not to step. When he did in disobedience a union between him and Satan came about. He stepped out from under God's reign into the kingdom of darkness.

It is not until the book of Romans that this is made that clear to me. But we know God's word was true. He died. And his descendants each - died. It impresses me the way the Bible repeats it about his descendants "and he died .... and he died ... and he died"

or was it because God was going to punish them by killing them? If the former, then the warning was not a threat; if the latter, it was.

Interestingly, the end of Gen. 3 shows that it was by no means certain that the eaters of the tree would die:

I'd like to comment latter.

Genesis is not clear as to why the humans die. Was it because the fruit itself was deadly to them in some way, or was it because God was going to punish them by killing them? If the former, then the warning was not a threat; if the latter, it was.

Interestingly, the end of Gen. 3 shows that it was by no means certain that the eaters of the tree would die:

From the whole revelation of the Bible I have decided that "the tree of life" stood for more than just an endless human life. In light of the rest of the Bible it means God living in man.

Neutral man was placed between two sources to which he could be joined.
He could take into himself God.
Or he could take into himself God's enemy Satan.

The two sources were mutually exclusive. If he took into himself Satan he could not receive God as life (apart from Christ's redemption which unfolds much latter).

If he took into him the tree of life he would be mingled with God.

There is not a warning that he would die if he FAILED to eat of the tree of life.
There was a warning that to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would cause him to die.

I have never been able to locate any other reason for man dying accept this being in union with Satan through eating of that forbidden tree.

But your point is noticed and I could be wrong. But it always appears to me, the way it is written, that there was no other reason Adam would physically die except that forbidden tree.

@sonship said
@BigDoggProblem

I think you may have meant to write, "Not all warnings of impending harm are threats".

"All warnings are not threats" or " Not all warnings are threats " appears to be only a difference in where the "not" is placed. It be interesting to diagram it out on a truth table. The second may be clearer. In "All warning are not threats" Some w ...[text shortened]... it is written, that there was no other reason Adam would physically die except that forbidden tree.

Compare:
All P's are not vowels.
Not all P's are vowels.
Statement 1 is true, but statement 2 is false, so their meaning can't be the same.

As for the rest, I don't have an opinion on whether the cause of death was natural or intentional. I am not a believer, so I'm not that motivated to find one.

@sonship said
Warning - High Voltage
Are all warnings to be taken as threats?

Examples:

1. “Warning — High voltage,” is a warning.
2. “50 dollars fine and 5 days in jail for touching the high voltage wire,” is a threat, assuming you live.
3. “A hurricane is about to make landfall in Florida,” is not a threat, nor is it a warning if you live in California. If you live in Florida, it is an implied warning.
4. “All residents are advised to evacuate immediately,” is an explicit warning.
5. “Residents who refuse to evacuate immediately will not be rescued later if they find themselves in trouble,” is a conditional threat.
6. “I will plunder your premises as soon as you leave,” is an unconditional threat.
7. “Your premises might be plundered as soon as you leave,” is an eventuality.
8. “Your premises will probably be damaged by the storm,” is a likelihood.
9. The difference between a likelihood and a threat is intention. Storms do not have intentions; thieves and burglars do.
10. “Judgement Day is nigh,” is an implied warning.
11. Mark 9:43 is an explicit threat, though the intention (God’s wrath) is only implied.