Biblical literalists and literalisms

Originally posted by @josephw
Everything is being recorded. Literally. Make no mistake about that.

Literally in a "book"?

Originally posted by @fmf
Presumably, something or things I've said during my participation here in this community can be construed as unforgivable "blaspheming the Holy Ghost", especially when, having been a Christian, I was aware of Luke 12:10. Does that mean that no conversion, no change of heart, no return to my former faith, no epiphany, and no repentance on my part, according to your ideology, can "save" me from "damnation" now?

Not if you're worried about it.

The one who blasphemes the Holy Ghost doesn't care. IMO.

Originally posted by @josephw
Not if you're worried about it.

The one who blasphemes the Holy Ghost doesn't care. IMO.

This does not answer my question.

Do you believe that there is no conversion, no change of heart, no return to former faith, no epiphany, and no repentance on my part, according to your ideology, that can "save" me from "damnation" now?

You saying "Not if you're worried about it" in answer to that question is just a non-sequitur.

Originally posted by @fmf
If they are not books as we humans know them, and the reference to them is in the languages that humans use, written by humans for humans (perhaps with inspiration from god), and they are "not the kind of books" that the word "book" refers to and are, instead, something beyond that which we can even imagine ~ then aren't we into the realm of allegory?

They are books. Not books allegorically.

Can you imagine how big the "books" must be that have recorded in them all the works of the dead that they are judged according to?

I think you've missed the meaning of the scriptures by straining at a gnat.

Originally posted by @fmf
Can we expect you to call on others here - sonship, for example - an "idiot" and an "internet reprobate" if he should ever "compare verses with verses outside their immediate context"?

Yes I would. I might even resort to using terms like "brood of vipers" or "whited wall" if necessary. 🙄

I might even use the term "pussy" like divegeester does.

Originally posted by @fmf
Literally in a "book"?

The book says books after all. Why not?

Do you think God doesn't use books?

Originally posted by @fmf
This does not answer my question.

Do you believe that there is no conversion, no change of heart, no return to former faith, no epiphany, and no repentance on my part, according to your ideology, that can "save" me from "damnation" now?

You saying "Not if you're worried about it" in answer to that question is just a non-sequitur.

No FMF. I do not believe you are beyond the reach of God's grace.

Do you?

Originally posted by @josephw
They are books. Not books allegorically.

Can you imagine how big the "books" must be that have recorded in them all the works of the dead that they are judged according to?

I think you've missed the meaning of the scriptures by straining at a gnat.

Describe these "books".

FMF: Can we expect you to call on others here - sonship, for example - an "idiot" and an "internet reprobate" if he should ever "compare verses with verses outside their immediate context"?

Originally posted by @josephw
[b]Yes I would. I might even resort to using terms like "brood of vipers" or "whited wall" if necessary./b]

You will, then, if it happens?

Originally posted by @josephw
No FMF. I do not believe you are beyond the reach of God's grace.

So what people does Luke 12:10 apply to?

Originally posted by @josephw
I do not believe you are beyond the reach of God's grace. Do you?

Why would you think I believed "God's grace" exists?

Originally posted by @josephw
I think you've missed the meaning of the scriptures by straining at a gnat.

The issue here is whether "the meaning of the scriptures" as they pertain to what we are talking about is delivered literally or allegorically.