- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117411
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonshipI apologise for being rude and I will read what you write if you keep it brief. However you have had the same complaint levied against you many times from different posters over the years. You seem to think that long extrapolated monologues containing convoluted ideas and concepts somehow makes your posts fascinating, it doesn't. - if anyone disagrees I'd be happy to hold up my hands and say I'm wrong.I'm not reading all this stuff sonship - all I see is "blah blah blah." You need to be more concise, honestly.
Then you are not up to the task of giving a good reply.
This is your Argument from Boredom.
Get out of the way, and let someone answer who has something serious to consider as a reply.
[quote]
Just please ...[text shortened]... m not going to write more to you if you warn me that you are not going to READ anything I write.
I am not prepared to read through the thousands of words you write, not because of the content but because of the volume. I make my points as discretely and concisely as I can on order to attract maximum readership with minimum effort to the reader in an online forum where many people dip in and out.
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterIm pretty sure you and others have said this already to sonship... 🙂
I apologise for being rude and I will read what you write if you keep it brief. However you have had the same complaint levied against you many times from different posters over the years. You seem to think that long extrapolated monologues containing convoluted ideas and concepts somehow makes your posts fascinating, it doesn't. - if anyone disagrees ...[text shortened]... eadership with minimum effort to the reader in an online forum where many people dip in and out.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeester
I apologise for being rude and I will read what you write if you keep it brief.
Its forgiven.
However you have had the same complaint levied against you many times from different posters over the years.
You seem to think that long extrapolated monologues containing convoluted ideas and concepts somehow makes your posts fascinating, it doesn't. - if anyone disagrees I'd be happy to hold up my hands and say I'm wrong.
I am not prepared to read through the thousands of words you write, not because of the content but because of the volume. I make my points as discretely and concisely as I can on order to attract maximum readership with minimum effort to the reader in an online forum where many people dip in and out.
The simple answer to your question is that the second death is not described as non-existence.
It is described. And it is NOT described as annhilatinists think it should be described - as non-existence.
If that is not concise enough for you, I doubt that I can make it any briefer.
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonshipDeath needs no further description.I apologise for being rude and I will read what you write if you keep it brief.
Its forgiven.
[quote]
However you have had the same complaint levied against you many times from different posters over the years.
You seem to think that long extrapolated monologues containing convoluted ideas and concepts somehow makes your pos ...[text shortened]... n-existence.
If that is not concise enough for you, I doubt that I can make it any briefer.
Its the end.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117411
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonshipWell that was brief, thank you. But if doesn't make much sense?I apologise for being rude and I will read what you write if you keep it brief.
Its forgiven.
[quote]
However you have had the same complaint levied against you many times from different posters over the years.
You seem to think that long extrapolated monologues containing convoluted ideas and concepts somehow makes your pos ...[text shortened]... n-existence.
If that is not concise enough for you, I doubt that I can make it any briefer.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
Well that was brief, thank you. But if doesn't make much sense?
Well that was brief, thank you. But if doesn't make much sense?
Your complaint doesn't make much sense.
Put forth then your biblical description of the second death which describes non-existence.
It would necessarily have to negate the following -
" And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimestone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)
"And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire, This is the second death, the lake of fire." (v.14)
Where is your description from the New Testament, of the second death - the lake of fire, speaking of non-existence in as stark and unequivocal terms ?
02 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonshipDoes Revelations say anyone else is in the lake of fire with the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet?Well that was brief, thank you. But if doesn't make much sense?
Your complaint doesn't make much sense.
Put forth then your [b]biblical description of the second death which describes non-existence.
It would necessarily have to negate the following -
" And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire ...[text shortened]... d death - the lake of fire, speaking of non-existence in as stark and unequivocal terms ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Aug 14
Originally posted by Rajk999
Death needs no further description.
Its the end.
This requires some explanation -
"Let the dead bury their own dead." (Luke 9:60)
And so does this -
"And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne ... " (Rev. 20:12)
As well as this verse also -
"And you, though dead in your offenses ... He made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our offenses." (Col. 2:13)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Aug 14
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
Does Revelations say anyone else is in the lake of fire with the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet?
Yes, it appears so.
"And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (v.15)
"But the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all the false, their part will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (21:8)
"Outside [of the city New Jerusalem] are the dogs and the sorcerers and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolators and everyone who loves and makes a lie." (22:15)
The most logical interpretation of outside is "outside" specifically in the lake of fire (21:8).
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117411
02 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonshipThe problem and the reason why it makes no sense is that the bible terms it the second death and yet you still believe that despite a person being dead from this death, they will still be alive suffering for eternity. It's nonsense.Well that was brief, thank you. But if doesn't make much sense?
Your complaint doesn't make much sense.
Put forth then your [b]biblical description of the second death which describes non-existence.
It would necessarily have to negate the following -
" And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire ...[text shortened]... d death - the lake of fire, speaking of non-existence in as stark and unequivocal terms ?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117411
02 Aug 14
If one takes this eternal suffering doctrine and combines it with the doctrine that one can lose their salvation, it is possible to make a cult which believes that you can live a good life, mess up at the end and then burn forever in an incinerator while the "merciful god" of john 3:16 watches with his angels.
Unbelievable what cognitive dissonance will lead people into.
02 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterJust like with other mysteries of godliness and the kingdom of God and Heaven that are not explained so humans can understand without the experience, so is the mystery of death and eternal death. We can only speculate for we see only partly as looking through a darkened glass that is dimly lit as the apostle Paul stated.
I'm not reading all this stuff sonship - all I see is "blah blah blah." You need to be more concise, honestly.
Just please explain in brief simple concise terms how a 2nd death -- i.e. it’s a [b]“death” as in the 1st “death”, so it is the end, finito, over, it is an ex life etc…
How can this “death” possibly be eternally living/existing i.e not being “dead” in a burning hell?[/b]
We have a good idea of the death of the body, because we have seen others die and are buried. We do not have a good idea about the soul or the spirit of man. The first death seems to be the death of the body only. The Holy Bible says the spirit returns to God, who gave it. But what about the soul?
From various accounts in the Holy Bible, at the death of the body, the soul continues to live or at least exist in some mysterious way to experience pleasure or agony. This is the first death.
Being cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone is referred to as the second death that takes place after the final judgment by God. But first there is a resurrection of the body to the soul. Those judged as righteous are resurrected to eternal life and the wicked are resurrected to eternal death and thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone where they are tormented day and night forever and ever.
How this is possible is a mystery and we are left to only speculate and to accept or reject it by faith.
02 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterDo you think God's grace and mercy are, to put it mildy beyond great?
The problem and the reason why it makes no sense is that the bible terms it the second death and yet you still believe that despite a person being dead from this death, they will still be alive suffering for eternity. It's nonsense.
If so, do you think God's wrath would be, to put it mildy beyond great?
Why would God's wrath be any less bad as how good His mercy is?
I don't see disappearing from reality as something to fear, many think
that is what is coming anyway, and they think who cares!
Kelly
02 Aug 14
Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think God's grace and mercy are, to put it mildy beyond great?
If so, do you think God's wrath would be, to put it mildy beyond great?
Why would God's wrath be any less bad as how good His mercy is?
I don't see disappearing from reality as something to fear, many think
that is what is coming anyway, and they think who cares!
Kelly
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
(Proverbs 9:10 NASB)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
The problem and the reason why it makes no sense is that the bible terms it the second death and yet you still believe that despite a person being dead from this death, they will still be alive suffering for eternity. It's nonsense.
This is your refusal to accept the Bible's description of the second death - "the lake of fire" .
This is nothing more than your unwillingness to believe the description God has provided.
You don't want to believe that God would punish eternally.
That which cannot be sensed as a loss is not punishment.
You want to regard death as escape from the sense of loss.
Because the description of "the second death" does not provide for you that sense of escape from loss, it offends you to the point that you refuse to accept it.
I would write more for to attempt to help you, but you don't do well with my longer posts.