Originally posted by KellyJayTomorrow morning I am going camping for a week in the bush (Darkest Africa!) where there is no Internet connectivity. So this will have to wait a while, and I may or may not pick it up again later, but most likely in a new thread, as sonship suggested.
You start, tell me what is you want from me hopefully I'll grasp your question and answer
it according to your satisfaction.
Btw, I notice again that the "definitions" in sonship's post are all in Christianese, which would be foreign to the man-in-the-street. I maintain that these concepts are first of all common words that are already understood in a certain way by most people, and we have to strip them of religious meaning first, before applying them to doctrine.
But, as I said, let's leave that for at least a week or ten days and after that let's see how we feel.
CJ out.
1 edit
-Removed-The point, which you seem determined to miss at every opportunity, is that your horrible belief ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A horrible belief can be a true one.
It is horrible to not be extricated from Satan's rebellion.
It is horrible to not be ever reconciled to God.
You want to make it not horrible but benign.
But Christ the Son of God, even God Himself incarnate passed through the most horrible redemptive act that we might be reconciled to God.
I believe that He became sin. He became your sin. He became my sin. He became the sin of the whole world that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
As I work through this post of yours, I will be looking to see if you answered my question yet. Do you think that your care for the salvation of the sinner is greater than the care of the Son of God?
No reply I see yet.
in this matter of eternal suffering, is insufficiently supported in scripture, is actually opposed to many scriptures, in contradition of the nature of God as revealed in scripture, is illogical, nonsensical and morally broken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the view of annihilation. I have studied the arguments of annihilation. I don't think they work.
It doesn't matter how many pages of blurb you write appealing to a sort of twisted "I'm only following orders" approach to scripture; you are still so in error it is almost laughable if the error wasn't so serious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are light on content always. You are heavy on emotional barbs.
You are light on substance and hefty on character attack.
i don't see too much substantive discussion from you divegeester. I see a lot of disdain, sucking of teeth, wagging of the finger, and looking contemptuously down your nose toward me.
I have two books full of annhilationists' and universalist arguments. If you're just going to sneer at me it is a better use of time for me to review those positions in those two books.
Anyway, I you have not responded to my questions as far as I can see. Do you think that your care for the salvation of the sinner is greater than the care of the Son of God?
As for "marching orders". I don't think a disciple of Jesus should be ashamed of Him or of His words, as He warned us (Luke 9:26; Mark 8:38). If you think that I misunderstand some of those words, you have to demonstrate where the proper understanding is.
Sneers and jeers and re-voicing your disgust don't do that job.
ps. I am likely to be away from the forum for a few days.
Originally posted by CalJustI am on vacation/sabbatical right now and I'm hit and miss with respect to access to the
Tomorrow morning I am going camping for a week in the bush (Darkest Africa!) where there is no Internet connectivity. So this will have to wait a while, and I may or may not pick it up again later, but most likely in a new thread, as sonship suggested.
Btw, I notice again that the "definitions" in sonship's post are all in Christianese, which would be for ...[text shortened]... et's leave that for at least a week or ten days and after that let's see how we feel.
CJ out.
internet too. I hope you have a great productive time on your trip!
-Removed-I tell you what.
Why don't you fill the time with posts celebrating the Good News of being a Christian, instead of endless posts taking others to task for their belief in a minor point of Christian doctrine?
Why don't you give us an example of why someone might actually want to share in the promise of the Gospels by becoming a Christian instead of constantly telling everyone who will listen that Christians are evil, nasty little gnomes who drool and giggle over the prospect of watching others "burn for eternity"?
All this hubris and arguing and bringing it up every single chance you get isn't exactly presenting Christianity as being a good thing. I mean you're almost as focused on this as Hinds is on "evilution", and as Zahlanzi is on the Canaanites, and as Rajk is on "works over grace" which just makes it seem like you're in the same insane boat as they are. They're not doing Christianity any favors, and neither are you.
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustIt might help in getting people to participate in the sort of debate you're looking for if you were to relax some of the controls you're insisting on, and stop trying to lead people to a foregone conclusion.
Tomorrow morning I am going camping for a week in the bush (Darkest Africa!) where there is no Internet connectivity. So this will have to wait a while, and I may or may not pick it up again later, but most likely in a new thread, as sonship suggested.
Btw, I notice again that the "definitions" in sonship's post are all in Christianese, which would be for ...[text shortened]... et's leave that for at least a week or ten days and after that let's see how we feel.
CJ out.
Most people can generally recognize when someone is attempting to control a discussion with conditions that can only lead to one conclusion. I for one have better things to do than to let myself be led around like a sheep who doesn't understand what you're trying to do, so can you see how this just might actually work to put people off rather than influence them to participate? I could be wrong about appears to be your unstated purpose here, but whether or not this is true it does seem you have an agenda with a foregone conclusion in mind. And it appears you want to exercise the sort of control that will insure the outcome you're looking for.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because you seem to want to talk about God and spiritual matters in much the same way an atheist will insist on restricting any argument to only naturalistic causes (aka, materialism). The problem with this strategy is that it is self defeating, and especially so if your purpose to convince believers in God they are wrong. Attempting to mix and match spiritualism with materialism and then insist only materialistic explanations are acceptable is precisely what it appears to be... it appears to be a strictly self serving argument, with only one intended goal or conclusion that can be derived from it. This would be like me saying you have a choice in what you can get for Christmas, but I've already made the choice for you... so you can either like what I've gotten for you, or you can go off into a corner and suck eggs.
Instead of trying to get those of us you seem to believe are too stupid to understand what you're doing to go along with you, why not instead assume we are all able to understand what it is you want us to know? I can't guarantee you will get anyone to go along with your point view if you were to start off by simply respecting (rather than insulting) their intelligence... but you will at least be able to earn the respect of those who disagree with you.
Originally posted by josephwTheir eyes? I thought their hair was supposed catch on fire. No one ever told me about their eyes burning out... or melting.
Do you think your eyes will burn out of your head if you ever tried reading what the Word of God actually says?
I finally went in to get a new prescription for glasses. The last time I went in for new glasses was about 11 years ago, and true to form I waited until the weather was so hot it felt like my eyes were beginning to melt... but the place was air conditioned and I had to wait for half an hour before getting my eyes checked, so my eyesight managed to clear up in time for getting a correct read.
11 years ago my eyesight was 20/35 in one eye and 20/40 in the other, and I expected the numbers to go up but now it's 20/25 in one eye and 20/30 the other. So it's no wonder I was having some trouble with my old prescription, because apparently my eyesight has improved... ? 😲
But these numbers are just one aspect of overall eyesight, and I'm sure there must have been some other problems needing correction, such as changes in astigmatism and/or focus flexibility. But what is puzzling about this is that I'm farsighted, and I thought only nearsightedness tended to self correct with age. So I don't know why any aspect of my eyesight would actually improve rather than get worse... I was so surprised by this I asked the doctor (twice) "Are you sure?" LOL
Anyway... so where am I? Oh yeah, Misc. Hell Responses... says so right above this little word box thingy. Uh, um... okay, their hair catches on fire if they read the Bible, but I think their eyes will melt after they've been dropped into hell... or maybe it's the other way around? 😕
I'm so confused!*
* After much deliberation and soul searching while staring into a candles flame I decided add a little something here for our resident trolls to agree with - you're welcome 😵
