- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The heart of nature is an eternal source of sin: [Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Matt. 15:19; James 3:8-12 ] It is itself enmity against God [Rom. 8:7] . Here, then, is an everlasting reason for punishment.
In short, the lost are doubly condemned ; for acts against the law of God and their own conscience; and because their characters are always full of sin. The wicked are condemned because of their acts and character jointly. They are punished for their evil nature as children of the devil, being tares and not wheat; and for their acts as "doers of iniquity :" [Matt. 13:38,41. Jesus condemns the Pharisees for their evil acts and characters. "Hypocrites!" "Serpents, generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" [Matt. 23:2-23]. -
Robert Govette
From [ Eternal Suffering of the Wicked and Hades by Robert Govette, Schoettle Publishing Co. pg. 169 ] my bolding, my brackets and Arabic numerals
Sonship, just wondering - would you be able to hold a discussion on this subject ONLY on the basis of your own opinion and normal, logical reasoning, without quoting anybody else and especially the Bible? That's right, no Bible quotations, just plain reasoning, pure and simple.
(I can just see it - you are already dying to respond: "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God..." and "God despises the wisdom of the wise", etc etc. But, just this once, suppress that urge and talk like a normal human being.
And THEN defend hellfire and brimstone...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by CalJustSonship, just wondering - would you be able to hold a discussion on this subject ONLY on the basis of your own opinion and normal, logical reasoning, without quoting anybody else and especially the Bible? That's right, no Bible quotations, just plain reasoning, pure and simple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I could. But I prefer not to. Besides, if I allude to something in the Bible which forms my opinion, I prefer to let people KNOW what that is. This way they can go and examine the passage, context, and see for themselves if I am reasonable in that interpretation.
So with this crucial matter I prefer not to take an approach - "Look everybody. I can say something original."
(I can just see it - you are already dying to respond: "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God..." and "God despises the wisdom of the wise", etc etc. But, just this once, suppress that urge and talk like a normal human being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The implication of your request is that "a normal human being" does not hold the Bible as authoritative on this matter.
The implication of your request is that "a normal human being" would not find pertinent to the matter One who died and rose from the dead. That is One who could speak to a man's death and afterwards.
Why should I think "a normal human being" would disregard the words of Jesus Christ and the Bible ?
So, perhaps I could discuss without reference to the Bible. I choose not to do that at this time.
I give divegeester the liberty to disagree. But I do not have to read his accusations of sadism and dishonesty on my part just because he considers my interpretation of Scripture here to be in error.
And THEN defend hellfire and brimstone...
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you have been reading this debate, I think on the other thread, I asked if SYMBOLISM could be used to depict something awful. If fire and brimestone are largly or partially symbolic in the Bible, the INTENT really does not change.
To be not forgiven, not reconciled to God, not redeemed, and guilty of rejecting His salvation, is very, very bad. In fact there is nothing worse. Upon this dreadful background the mercy and love of the Savior Jesus shines the more brightly.
Divegeester called me one of the "hell-fire preachers" or something like that. But you all who have been reading posts by jaywill / sonship know good and well, rarely did i present the Gospel or even a Spirituality themes dedicated to the subject of eternal punishment.
Some of response has been to people like divegeester who have challenged - IE. "Come argue with me about Hell, you sadists!" i [i]have[/I] responded to.
Originally posted by sonshipFMF to sonship's torturer God figure: Why would you need ~ for your "glory", or so I am told ~ to toss my neighbours, here where I live, into a furnace for eternity? Pious, generous, hard working, dignified humans ~ parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren. Why would you need ~ as a demonstration of "perfect justice", or so I am told ~ to toss them into a furnace and keep them alive there suffering for eternity? What is the purpose of that?
I don't think you'll be able to rebuke God that He didn't do enough.
So, sonship, in this thought experiment, what's the torturer God's answer?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFOh, you FMF. Let's see. Where did you in your thousands of posts say that you are living, thinking, reasoning because of some "lucky accident" ?
Come on, sonship. Where is this post in which I talked about some "lucky accident"?
Well, excuse me. Then take a moment and explain then what it IS that caused you to exist, think, choose, rationalize, love, hate, and generally have the ability to argue at all.
If I mistook you believing in a lucky accident not involving any Creator, then briefly outline your beliefs.
Try it without question marks, without innuendo-ed questions back to me. Try it without obfuscation. And I will accept "I don't have a clue" as a legitimate answer.
If that is the case, excuse me. I do have a clue, I have a belief about an Intelligent Creator God.
Originally posted by sonshipWhere is this post in which I talked about some "lucky accident"?
Oh, you FMF. Let's see. Where did you in your thousands of posts say that you are living, thinking, reasoning because of some "lucky accident" ?
Well, excuse me. Then take a moment and explain then what it IS that caused you to exist, think, choose, rationalize, love, hate, and generally have the ability to argue at all.
If I mistook you believing ...[text shortened]... that is the case, excuse me. I do have a clue, I have a belief about an Intelligent Creator God.
Originally posted by FMFHey, sonship. You haven't just bailed out of the thought experiment you set up, have you?
Why would you need ~ for your "glory", or so I am told ~ to toss my neighbours, here where I live, into a furnace for eternity? Pious, generous, hard working, dignified humans ~ parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren. Why would you need ~ as a demonstration of "perfect justice", or so I am told ~ to toss them into a furnace and keep them alive there suffering for eternity? What is the purpose of that?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
now divegeester, I want to see you put forth your opinion that God will not punish. Clean up eternal judgement in ANY manner you sincerely think it should be cleaned up.
I am going to give you all the space you need to put out your more agreeable viewpoint on the destiny of those who reject the crucified and resurrected Savior. Take a week. Take a couple to present your alternative take on the destiny of the rejector of the Son of God.
And after you do so, we will see if people like twhitehead, googlefudge, sonhouse, FMF, and other career anti-theists here move a millimeter closer to becomming believers in God.
I think you will probably find you have done nothing at all to make the Bible's God more palatable to them. You take a strong Universalist or Annhilationist interpretation of these matters. See if any of the standard career skeptics at Chessatwork, are given any incentive to take another look at the word of God.
I will now sit back on this subject and let you present your more humane viewpoint on not being written in the book of life. And please don't come back with "But I am not here to convince anyone of anything! I am not trying to win anyone over to my viewpoint. I'm tolerant you see? "
Spare me that excuse please.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFYou didn't write "lucky accident." I wrote what I said, saying of your alternative to God, explanation "I DON'T KNOW, LUCKY ACCIDENT?" or something close to that in essence.
Where is this post in which I talked about some "lucky accident"?
If your anti-Theist philosophy is not about a "lucky accident" then explain how then you are bestowed with the ability to live, reason, and even argue against God and choose to have nothing to do with God.
I said excuse me once.
I am not going to ask for excusing twice.
Stop arguing about process and get to your substance.
Originally posted by sonshipIf I were to ask your torturer God figure: "Why would you need ~ for your "glory", or so I am told ~ to toss my neighbours, here where I live, into a furnace for eternity? Pious, generous, hard working, dignified humans ~ parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren. Why would you need ~ as a demonstration of "perfect justice", or so I am told ~ to toss them into a furnace and keep them alive there suffering for eternity? What is the purpose of that?" What do you think His answer would be?
Stop arguing about process and get to your substance.
Originally posted by sonshipI do not have to somehow trump whatever you have in your imagination with some alternative supernatural fantasy in order to tell you that I find a lot of what you imagine and claim to be true to be either useless or incoherent.
You didn't write "lucky accident." I wrote what I said, saying of your [b]alternative to God, explanation "I DON'T KNOW, LUCKY ACCIDENT?" or something close to that in essence. [/b]
Originally posted by sonship
Maybe I could. But I prefer not to. Besides, if I allude to something in the Bible which forms my opinion, I prefer to let people KNOW what that is. This way they can go and examine the passage, context, and see for themselves if I am reasonable in my interpretation.
Let me explain what I mean.
In any argument, there has to be some common base of understanding, some common ground. So, between persons that hold the Bible to be the Word of God, there can be discussions about nuances, context and interpretation.
However, if somebody does NOT accept the Bible as the WoG, then there is no point in quoting it. You might as well quote from Alice in Wonderland.
Now, in missionary activities, it is most common to deal with people that have never heard of, never mind believe, the Bible. Yet that did not prevent Don Richardson, for example, to preach to the people in Papua New Guinea, starting from THEIR belief position (See The Peace Child ) . Paul, also, when talking to the Romans and Macedonians could not start with the Jewish scriptures, but from their own culture.
The Truths of the Bible (and I mean the Real Truths) are universal. They can be arrived at from first principles. These include Love, Justice, Mercy, Honesty, Stewardship, etc etc. they can be taught to anybody, even those who are atheists or agnostics. From logic. Again, the Ten Commandments are simply ways to order a humane society, and they have been used as a basis for many secular legal systems.
The implication of your request is that "a normal human being" does not hold the Bible as authoritative on this matter.
Exactly. If you want to reach non-believers, you must start from THEIR OWN frame of reference, and show them the Universal Truths.
Can you do that? Or do you just say that you are unwilling to do so?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by CalJustThe Truths of the Bible (and I mean the Real Truths) are universal. They can be arrived at from first principles. These include Love, Justice, Mercy, Honesty, Stewardship, etc etc. they can be taught to anybody, even those who are atheists or agnostics. From logic. Again, the Ten Commandments are simply ways to order a humane society, and they have been used as a basis for many secular legal systems.
Where is there any place in this for a Person living within millions of people for a union in lives between this Person and those mingled with Him ? No ethical system of mankind apart from revelation has any such concept.
The New Testament is too radical. And I seek to help people realize this. If I was just talking about going out to be good people on your own self reforming, self improvement, then maybe I could leave God's revelation out of it. But I am not arguing for that.
The implication of your request is that "a normal human being" does not hold the Bible as authoritative on this matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the game goes like this - it has no authority when using it to speak of Christ as Lord. But when it can be used to rationalize the agnostic or even atheist or anti-theistic philosophy, why not use it for what authority they are willing to grant it? That is how the game is played.
Skeptic - "We will quote as somewhat authoritative your Bible when it proves our atheist and agnostic points. When it points to Christ as Lord we will roll our eyes and say the Bible has no authority."
Exactly. If you want to reach non-believers, you must start from THEIR OWN frame of reference, and show them the Universal Truths.
Can you do that? Or do you just say that you are unwilling to do so?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is your desire then you are welcomed to do it. Give your own demonstration.
Can you do that? Or do you just say that you are unwilling to do so?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said I choose not to right now. I'll watch YOU do it since you know so much about it.
The floor is yours.