"Only God's judgment is infallible..."

Originally posted by @divegeester
Well I agree in principle, but it is sonship who you need to take it up with not me.

Well I'm here should he want to discuss it more.

Originally posted by @galveston75
Well I'm here should sonship want to discuss it more.

He may come along to lecture you. But I doubt he'll want to discuss it with you in any genuine sense.

Originally posted by @galveston75
I hate to disappoint most of you but I'm not here to argue with anyone.

How would you define "debate and discussion" then?

Originally posted by @fmf
How would you define "debate and discussion" then?

My definition would be to discuss and share one's thoughts and beliefs without it turning into rude comments. But then you'd probably want to argue about that definition? Who knows.....

Originally posted by @galveston75
Well I'm here should he want to discuss it more.

He may well pretend that he doesn’t need to discuss it further as you weren’t addressing him in your replies. As I said earlier, you can both pretend you’re not “arguing” by vicariously debating the the topic via replies to other posters in this ridiculous fashion.

Originally posted by @galveston75
My definition would be to discuss and share one's thoughts and beliefs without it turning into rude comments. But then you'd probably want to argue about that definition? Who knows.....

What rude comments have I made to you on this thread?

Originally posted by @divegeester
He may well pretend that he doesn’t need to discuss it further as you weren’t addressing him in your replies. As I said earlier, you can both pretend you’re not “arguing” by vicariously debating the the topic via replies to other posters in this ridiculous fashion.

Like I said..I'm here and he wants to discuss anything with me he knows how to do it. Again I'm sorry it bugs you so much that sonship and myself aren't discussing this topic. Just maybe he has nothing to say to me? If he doesn't, that's really OK you know.........

Originally posted by @galveston75
Again I'm sorry it bugs you so much that sonship and myself aren't discussing this topic.

It seems like neither of you have the courage to do so. As everyone here who's been following things over the last decade knows, sonship doesn't think you JWs are "real Christians" and you think that only JWs - or people who espouse very similar beliefs - are "real Christians" ~ in other words, that doesn't include sonship. That you are dancing around each other in such a craven/self-righteous way is down to a lack of discursive courage, I reckon.

Originally posted by @galveston75
Like I said..I'm here and he wants to discuss anything with me he knows how to do it. Again I'm sorry it bugs you so much that sonship and myself aren't discussing this topic. Just maybe he has nothing to say to me? If he doesn't, that's really OK you know.........

It doesn't bug me in the slightest, nor am I not "calm" as you suggested earlier.

I find your rather pretentious "I refuse to argue" stance as amusing as I do sonship's pouty refusal to answer on topic questions.

The two of you make a fine pair.

Originally posted by @divegeester
As you can read in this thread, I’ve been prsssing sonship on a particular point which he is hoping around. My repeated question to him is “will Jesus be spectating the eternal suffering in the hell he has created?”

Now, this question is one of those checkmate questions which the proponents of his eternal suffering teaching find difficult to answer b ...[text shortened]... tion and you have the above scenario but with Jesus predetermining who will be in hell with him.

As you can read in this thread, I’ve been prsssing sonship on a particular point which he is hoping around.
----------------------------------------------------------------

You are a liar there and a pompous self flatterer divegeester.

Even ThinkOfOne (with whom I have had much debate) noticed that you pressing your imagined repeated inquisition was to absurdity, it having been answered.

Originally posted by @fmf
How would you define "debate and discussion" then?

It can be defined as two things - debate, discussion.

You are the one pressing that debate HAS to occur.
That is not the sense of the Forum rules I get in this instruction about Spirituality as a forum:

Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

See? No "Thou Shalt Always Debate" there.

Debate AND general discussion.

Originally posted by @sonship
It can be defined as two things - debate, discussion.

You are the one pressing that debate HAS to occur.
That is not the sense of the Forum rules I get in this instruction about [b]Spirituality as a forum:

Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

See? No "Thou Shalt Always Debate" there.

Debate AND general discussion.[/b]

I am not much interested in your convoluted deflecting and dodging of what galveston75 claimed about your ideology, but I would be interested in your response - by way of discussion and debate - to what he said, which was: "The teaching of a burning place that wicked humans go to suffer forever is not a bible teaching but is from pagan religions of the past."

Originally posted by @sonship
Even ThinkOfOne ... noticed that you pressing your imagined repeated inquisition was to absurdity, it having been answered.

Don’t hide behind TOO who is always up fight in a telephone box!

Stand up for your own arguments mate have some balls and stop avoiding my on topic yes or no question with your typified waffle.

Yes or no...Will Jesus be observing the eternal suffering in the hell he has created?

Come on sonship, he will either be doing that or he won’t. Why won’t you be unequivocal?

Originally posted by @fmf
I am not much interested in your convoluted deflecting and dodging of what galveston75 claimed about your ideology, but I would be interested in your response - by way of discussion and debate - to what he said, which was: "The teaching of a burning place that wicked humans go to suffer forever is not a bible teaching but is from pagan religions of the past."

If and When I choose to write To or Concerning Galveston75's comments (which I may or may not have read), I will do so. You will not dictate to me IF and WHEN that time has to be.

Clear?
Got it?

We have talked extensively about many things in the past.
Interested parties can go back many pages and see what we'd typically respond to one another.


Generally, I find that people who have the most problem with the teaching of eternal punishment are also people who under appreciate WHO it was Who died on the cross for us.

The Bible says it was God incarnate as a man.

I think I notice that often people who have not SEEN this revelation are often those who cannot conceive of an offense so great as to merit eternal damnation.

Exceptions exist.

FMF,

Now, this is what I really think about you. yes you (though you'd like to delfect me off to talk to galvaston). I think that deep in your heart you are expecting to go to some kind of punishment from God.

You see the Bible says that the FOOL has said in his heart "There is no God." That is "in his heart" rather than his public posture and outward persona.

I still have a little doubt in me that you really are a fool.
I don't think you are that fool.
So I suspect that you know that God is.
And I further have a suspicion that you know that in some way you are in trouble with God.

That's what I think about FMF. And you resent other human beings telling you of the Gospel message, period. The Good News is bad news to you. You're a deceived man, deeply so.

Gaveston has been away from the forum for awhile.
I assume that he's done some studying and is prepared to discuss or debate.

No big deal that I have to talk to him right away just because you want it that way.