1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfI do not feel that that paragraph i wrote, loosely paraphrasing the author of a book, I have to defend as if it were the word of God. That paragraph, while I see no major reason to back down from it, I do not purport is the utterance of the Bible exactly.
How does the "endless woe" visited by a being on another being "glorify" that being? To answer "God expressed" is an evasive non-sequitur.
The Bible says that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to the glory of God, Jesus Christ is Lord.
" That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth, and under the earth.
And every tongue should openly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:10,11)
Every created being, therefore, in this state or that state, in this destiny or that destiny, or any in-between in any unknown circumstances will have this in common - they will exemplify the glory of God.
You can get your Thesaurus or Dictionary out and split semantic hairs. But I think the point is plain.
Every creature will result in the glory of God.
Every creature will confess Jesus is Lord.
I see universal unconditional surrender to the God-man Who died and rose for our salvation. It will bring expression to God - glorify God.
And that because it all conforms to reality.
" No lie can live forever. "
Originally posted by @sonshipIt's not splitting hairs at all, sonship. Should an English language dictionary, to your way of thinking, include an additional definition of the word "glorify" that is along the lines of 'to increase admiration for a supernatural being who tortures humans by burning them (alive) and hanging them out in chains in revenge for their lack of belief'?
You can get your Thesaurus or Dictionary out and split semantic hairs. But I think the point is plain.
Originally posted by @sonshipI am not asking about this. I am not asking about how (or whether) people who believe/surrender to the god figure generates "glory" for it/him. I am asking about how wrathfully and vengefully torturing people who don't believe can possibly "glorify" the god figure.
I see universal unconditional surrender to the God-man Who died and rose for our salvation. It will bring expression to God - glorify God.
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfA "lack of belief" has been a latter development.
It's the definition of the English language word "atheism" you asked for.
While its accepted its also recognized as a revision of the classic definition.
What is your definition of the word "glorify" in the context you use it where it is caused to happen by people being hung out on chains, burning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think poetic language as I used has to be a scientific description of the exact physical circumstances.
Evil looses and loses forever.
God and truth prevail after eons of longsuffering and patience.
And He prevails forever.
In that is the glory of God.
Eternal punishment in the belief of Islam find incoherent.
But in the Christian faith it is not because the One who died on the cross was God (as far as it is possible for us to understand).
For protection from the consequences of our sins God went so far that we would be justified. Whereas you seem to think rejecting Christ is just a insignificant mental thought matter of having another idea. God counts it as an eternal sin.
1 edit
I don't think exploiting my poetic language to portray God as a sadist is a strong enough maneuver to persuade me that Jesus Christ lied about final judgment.
Yes, I did say "hung in chains". It is not a biblical phrase.
Though some evil angels the Bible says are in eternal bonds (or chains).
The precise condition of the lost I do not know. But the confinement of the rebellion in some way is virtually "chains" restricting the further spread of the wickedness.
The main thing is that God is vindicated and expressed in His overcoming Satan's ancient rebellion. The bad angels, the demon beings and the deceived human beings co-share Satan's total defeat. This brings splendor and majesty to the truth.
Your philosophy is that it doesn't matter if we are not reconciled to God.
It is no big deal if we are not justified before God. But it matters that we be reconciled to God.
Whether I fully understand or not, by viewing the Gospels I can see that to the Son of God it mattered that people be reconciled to His Father.
You act and argue that it is inconsequential. But there is one name Jesus who lived and died as it was supremely consequential that sinners be reconciled to God.
I have to choose whether to follow the nonchalant attitude of an Atheist who claims he ditched Jesus for atheism or Jesus's attitude that He as God incarnate laid down everything that we would be justified before "Perfect".
I trust in Christ over your arguments.
Originally posted by @sonshipNone of this has anything to do with rendering a coherent or morally valid definition of what the word "glorify" means in the English language.
I don't think exploiting my poetic language to portray God as a sadist is a strong enough maneuver to persuade me that Jesus Christ lied about final judgment.
Yes, I did say "hung in chains". It is not a biblical phrase.
Though some evil angels the Bible says are in eternal bonds (or chains).
The precise condition of the lost I do not know. But th ...[text shortened]... verything that we would be justified before "Perfect".
I trust in Christ over your arguments.
Originally posted by @sonshipYou think you have to choose whether or not to "follow" me? What nonsense is this?
I have to choose whether to follow the nonchalant attitude of an Atheist who claims he ditched Jesus for atheism or Jesus's attitude that He as God incarnate laid down everything that we would be justified before "Perfect".
Originally posted by @fmfBy "coherent" you mean agreeable to you.
None of this has anything to do with rendering a coherent or morally valid definition of what the word "glorify" means in the English language.
I don't expect God being glorified in His final judgment to be agreeable to you or "coherent".
Originally posted by @fmfI wrote this -
You think you have to choose whether or not to "follow" me? What nonsense is this?
I trust in Christ over your arguments.
That's not nonsense at all.
Originally posted by @sonshipIt is surely you who is portraying your notion of a god figure as being a moral monster ... a being who you think is somehow made glorious by the suffering of the non-believers he tortures because of his anger and vengeance? It's you ["poetic" language or not] who has portrayed your god figure - and therefore your own moral compass - to be depraved and incoherent, not me.
I don't think exploiting my poetic language to portray God as a sadist is a strong enough maneuver to persuade me that Jesus Christ lied about final judgment.
Originally posted by @sonshipWhat moral lesson can humans learn from it that they can apply to how they administer justice and the role of wrath and revenge in punishments they mete out for thoughtcrimes? None. "Incoherent" in that sense. The "morality" and "justice" you tout as perfect is in fact monstrous.
By "coherent" you mean agreeable to you.
I don't expect God being glorified in His final judgment to be agreeable to you or "coherent".
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmf
The notion that I expect or want you to "follow" me is utter nonsense.
I trust in Christ over your arguments.
Regardless of your expectation or want, the sentence is not utter nonsense.
If you expect me to not "follow" you or to not care or whatever, it still holds as perfectly meaningful -
I trust in Christ over your arguments.
