Originally posted by avalanchethecatGod wanted people that were good, but that also could love. Without the free will to choose, there could really be no love. However, with free will they were able to also choose evil over good and God must elimate evil and so God was forced to destroy those people that became to think about doing evil constantly in order to save the good ones from going extinct. 😏
So... what was the dealio creating people with free will and then destroying them all after they chose to do stuff that he didn't like? Seems like a pretty dodgy sort of god to me. Not even control freakery that, just a total dick-move.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieat least half of those quotes say plainly that everyone can be saved.
No he didn't you namby pamby soft sided underbelly of a gay dolphin called Lenny, he stated that there would be a great tribulation, that only those that exercise faith can be saved, etc etc
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heave ...[text shortened]... rational and reasoning person can discern the difference. Nothing Jesus ever said negates this.
none say that some are beyond saving.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo one has claimed that anyone is beyond saving, what was actually claimed was that those in the flood and other instances of Gods judicial action were killed because they were irredeemable.
at least half of those quotes say plainly that everyone can be saved.
none say that some are beyond saving.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou sure told me
If you are unable to discern the difference than I refuse to argue with such stupidity against which even the Gods themselves cannot contend.
"No one has claimed that anyone is beyond saving, what was actually claimed was that those in the flood and other instances of Gods judicial action were killed because they were irredeemable."
let me help you out:
"No one has claimed that anyone irredeemable, what was actually claimed was that those in the flood and other instances of Gods judicial action were killed because they were irredeemable."
Originally posted by ZahlanziThanks but if i ever need your help it will be time to call it a day and make for the nearest tall building with which to throw myself from.
you sure told me
"No one has claimed that anyone is beyond saving, what was actually claimed was that those in the flood and other instances of Gods judicial action were killed because they were irredeemable."
let me help you out:
"No one has claimed that anyone irredeemable, what was actually claimed was that those in the flood and other instances of Gods judicial action were killed because they were irredeemable."
Originally posted by ZahlanziYet another graduate of FMF's school of "Twist and Shout" debating.
you sure told me
"No one has claimed that anyone is beyond saving, what was actually claimed was that those in the flood and other instances of Gods judicial action were killed because they were irredeemable."
let me help you out:
"No one has claimed that anyone irredeemable, what was actually claimed was that those in the flood and other instances of Gods judicial action were killed because they were irredeemable."
Originally posted by ZahlanziAfter reading through this thread trying to figure out why you said that, I have concluded two things.
beyond saving and iredeemable are the same thing.
#1 You're right. Irredeemable and beyond saving mean the same thing.
#2 No one is beyond saving or irredeemable unless they're dead.
Personally, I don't think those that drowned in the flood were beyond saving. Noah preached to them the coming of God's judgement for 120 years. Apparently nobody was interested in being saved.
The same holds true for today. The offer of eternal life as a free gift is still available to anyone that believes.