How many were spared?

Originally posted by @sonship
Spinning it any other way is not soberminded thinking...

To spin it any other way is deceptive...

While I really do appreciate your opinion on this topic, I really do find it difficult to be lectured on truth, dishonesty, doctrinal spin, sober thinking and what-not...from a person who plagiarises most of his forum messages, believes in aliens on other worlds, denies the moon-landings and pouts relentlessly when proved wrong. Sorry.

You see a judgmental condemning god who will "glory in the woe of the lost", I see a god of eternal mercy, unbridled compassion and love.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant to the point in my OP. They were ALL potentially spared, none were condemned.

But that "potential" was not realized, perhaps it could NOT have been realized.

Even Lot could not find one righteous man.

My point is that man has a terrible record of saving himself. This is why a savior is necessary.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, bearing in mind the following:

'Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because ...[text shortened]... 'all people' were corrupt and were to be destroyed. Surely a condemnation if ever there was one?

Here is some more to the story:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV)

Many Christians try to twist this passage to mean something lese, but if other books [not found in the Bible] are considered, then the meaning is clear. - that Jesus after his death [of his body[, went to preach to unrighteous souls [wherever they are .. in hell or wherever]. Obviously the preaching is to get them to repent

This passage [and others], is the reason for the belief in a purgatory, a place of repentance and correction so that the person may be eventually saved and avoid condemnation.

So although the flood killed these people, they are not necessarily eternally condemned.

Originally posted by @suzianne
But that "potential" was not realized, perhaps it could NOT have been realized.

Even Lot could not find one righteous man.

My point is that man has a terrible record of saving himself. This is why a savior is necessary.

There is no "but". The whole point here is that those people were found to be unrighteousness but were not condemned, they could easily have accessed God's provision of escape.

Originally posted by @divegeester
There is no "but". The whole point here is that those people were found to be unrighteousness but were not condemned, they could easily have accessed God's provision of escape.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh[c] and despise authority.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
I always find it odd when Christians point out something they find strange with each other. Let's face it, the whole of Christianity is based on 'strange beliefs'. Adam & Eve, talking serpents, the Biblical Flood, virgin births, miracles, people being resurrected from the dead etc. You have just as 'strange beliefs' as sonship and every other Christian. ...[text shortened]... hip beliefs any stranger than you believing Islam is the religion of Satan? That's pretty wacky.

Miracles. There are no miracles. Life is no miracle. All that occurred was some meteor came crashing down to earth that contained a soup of material that life spontaneously created itself into a living cell..........that took a span of millions of years involving crystals and such.

Goofy creationists.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
To believe any part of the Biblical flood story as true is a 'strange belief' full stop.

To believe that there was no flood is what is strange.

Every ancient culture has a flood story.

To even know what a flood is would mean they needed a point of reference.

Originally posted by @whodey
To believe that there was no flood is what is strange.

There have probably been millions of floods that primitive humans thought covered the whole world.

Originally posted by @whodey
To believe that there was no flood is what is strange.

Every ancient culture has a flood story.

To even know what a flood is would mean they needed a point of reference.

Just to clarify, you do know the difference between a local flood and a global flood?

Ancient cultures mention one big flood.

For that they all are in agreement. The only question becomes, how big?

Originally posted by @whodey
Ancient cultures mention one big flood.

For that they all are in agreement. The only question becomes, how big?

Well it wasn't global, thats for sure.

Originally posted by @divegeester

While I really do appreciate your opinion on this topic,

I don't care if you appreciate it or not.
The truth is clear enough - God spared Noah and the seven in the ark.
The others were not spared.

Second Timothy 2:2 says Paul told Timothy to commit these things to faithful men.

"And the things which you have heard from us through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also."

You're not faithful and not competent either.
Those who are you accuse of plagiarizing.

Once again, if you want to make a complaint of plagiarism formerly rather than just whining incessantly about it. Here's the business off of Living Stream Ministry, official publishers of books by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.


Living Stream Ministry
2431 W. La Palma Ave,
Anehiem, CA 92814

Let's get it on.
Bring it to the attention of the Business Office.

www.lsm.org

Make a complaint about your suspicion of plagiarism from one tag name sonship / jaywill at www.chessatwork.com

Put up or shut up.

He will not prove to be a careless faker.

If you don't do it then you must be a careless faker.
Don't be mad with God if He is not.

Originally posted by @sonship

While I really do appreciate your opinion on this topic,

I don't care if you appreciate it or not.
The truth is clear enough - God spared Noah and the seven in the ark.
The others were not spared.

[b] Second Timothy 2:2 says Paul told Timothy to commit these things to faithful men.

[quote] "And the things which you hav ...[text shortened]... you don't do it then you must be a [b] careless faker.
Don't be mad with God if He is not.[/b]

Hey, you're the one who stole the aliens on other worlds thing sonship.

Originally posted by @divegeester
There is no "but". The whole point here is that those people were found to be unrighteousness but were not condemned, they could easily have accessed God's provision of escape.

Yes, there IS a "but". Those people were already condemned because of their choices. Choices which were widely accepted at the time. Choices which made them 'unrighteous', and which disabled them from making the proper choices which would have enabled them to take advantage of the escape that was offered to them. They had lost their connection to God, and not a one of them took Noah up on his offer. In this way, they were already condemned by their own choice... there was no need to condemn them yet again.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Yes, there IS a "but". Those people were already condemned because of their choices. Choices which were widely accepted at the time. Choices which made them 'unrighteous', and which disabled them from making the proper choices which would have enabled them to take advantage of the escape that was offered to them. They had lost their connection to God, ...[text shortened]... they were already condemned by their own choice... there was no need to condemn them yet again.

They were not condemned or if they were then there was a reprieve because the ark was there. No one would have stopped some of them walking into the ark. Would they?