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

Originally posted by @divegeester
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.

[b]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?[/b]

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

LOL, You REALLY want me to take this personally, don't you?

Originally posted by @divegeester
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.

I think I'm enjoying watching this little struggle you and whoever else that seems to be getting a little miffed that Sonship and myself aren't just running our legs off to debate each other. You can view it in any fashion you want and if it means you advance to other levels of frustration, cool. I don't know about Sonship but I'm liking the attention. 🙂

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."

: "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."

I thought you already had a tag team partner in Divegeester the Unitarian. Do you need another one ??

If I debated with Galvaston it would more likely be about the Person of Christ.

Besides, the topic here is "Only God's judgment is infallible ..." . That's about God's judgment being absolutely without error whatever His final judgment turns out to be.

Maybe you want to make sure the subject is "God's torturing where there are shreaks, screams, and blood curdling groans is infallible."

I don't see the two topics as absolutely synonymous.

Even if someone were to persuade me that there is no unpleasantness awaiting the soul that goes into non-existence of annhilation (which I don't see) the point would still be whether or not the judgment is infallible.

Of course God is infallible.
That goes with the very definition of God.

A fallible god is not God, by definition.

At any rate if and when I discuss something with the returned poster Galveston, maybe it will be something else.

Do YOU think Jesus did not say Matt. 25:41,46 ?
Or will you again opt to concealing any commitment under the thick fog of apathy, "neutrality" and taking no position on that ?

Originally posted by @sonship

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

LOL, You REALLY want me to take this personally, don't you?

Another dodge noted sonship. We both know why don’t we.

Originally posted by @sonship

: "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."

I thought you already had a tag team partner in Divegeester the Unitarian. Do you need another one ??

If I debated with Galvaston it would more likely be about the Person of Christ.

Besides ...[text shortened]... ing any commitment under the thick fog of apathy, "neutrality" and taking no position on that ?

What about what galveston75 said about the source of your torturer-god-burning-people ideology?

Originally posted by @sonship
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.

What do you think saying this to a non-believer achieves?

Originally posted by @sonship
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.

So, you have your assertions about the existence of your god figure - assertions which give me no credible reason to believe he exists, as I have explained many times - and here you are now adding the assertion that I do in fact believe your god figure exists. This is no different from Dasa asserting that you know the Vedas are true even if you explain that you don't think they are.

Originally posted by @sonship
Maybe you want to make sure the subject is "God's torturing where there are shreaks, screams, and blood curdling groans is infallible."[/b]

Who are you quoting here? You have the words in quotation marks. If you are quoting me, which of my posts do you claim to be referring to? I think you're just making stuff up.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Another dodge noted sonship. We both know why don’t we.

Your completely ineffective stubbornness is noted, by me and by ThinkOfOne also, of all people.

Why are you carrying your pretense that you don't understand that he's answered your question to such a high level of ridiculousness?

Originally posted by @sonship
Your completely ineffective stubbornness is noted, by me and by ThinkOfOne also, of all people.

You haven’t answered my question sonship , and bringing up TOO (who just likes picking fights) is not a defence.

Here for the umpteenth time is the question you are dodging:

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

I’ll wait for your next waffley dodge or appeal to TOO for help.

It’s funny sonship, how you set yourself up as this sort of self-anointed minister of the forum, and yet you cannot bring yourself to answer a yes or no question based on your own interpretation of scripture.

Revelation 14:9-10
“If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives its mark on his forehead or hand, and he will be tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. “

Is this literal or not sonship.?

Another dodge coming...?

Originally posted by @divegeester[b]

It’s funny sonship, how you set yourself up as this sort of self-anointed minister of the forum,
---------------------------------------------------------------

What do you mean by "a self anointed minister" ?
Is that something like a "self anointed inquisitor" ?

What is a "self anointed minister" ? ... someone who likes to study the Bible with others, is a "self anointed minister" ?

and yet you cannot bring yourself to answer a yes or no question based on your own interpretation of scripture.

You're playing dumb as was pointed out.

Below you answer your own question.
I said OF COURSE, You answer your question with Revelation 14:9,10)

Revelation 14:9-10
“If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives its mark on his forehead or hand, and he will be tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. “

Is this literal or not sonship.?
---------------------------------------------

I already indicated pages ago that I took it literally. If you had not been so dense and obsessed with your own stubbornness I referred to Second Thessalonians 1:8,9 which seems to say the same thing basically.

"Rendering vengence to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His strength."

Pages ago I wrote.
Pages ago it was noticed that you were pushing your repeated question to the point of absurdity.

Another dodge coming...?
---------------------------------------

No, more dodging from Divegeester is coming.
Also coming from Divegeester is ignoring the question to you about God saying at least four times that His saints' eye should not pity under certain instances of judgment.

"And you shall devour all the peoples which Jehovah your God is giving you; your eye shall not pity them ..." (Deut. 7:16a)

"And your eye shall not pity; ... " (Duet. 19:21)

"You shall not yield to him nor listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare him or conceal him," (Duet. 13:8)

" ... your eye shall not pity her." (Duet. 25:12)

Do YOU think that Satan the slanderer and Devil is so evil that he could even take advantage of mankind through mankind's natural sense of pity and sympathy ?

Yes or No?

Do you think that there could be a form of forgiveness which is itself evil ?

Yes or No?

When the saints are fully conformed to the image of Christ as is guaranteed in Romans 8:29 -

"Because those whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers."

When every believer is finally fully conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son Christ, do you think they will see all things through the eyes of Christ or will they still have some controversy with Christ?

YES - the saved will share His view and His attitude?
NO - the saved will not share His view, perspective, and attitude?

If you turn out to be WRONG and God does punish forever will you decide that Satan was right, that God is unrighteous, and therefore decide to prefer to BE WITH SATAN in his final destiny ?

Yes - You will deem that the Devil's criticism of God's unrighteousness was right?

No - Christ was right and God's judgments are righteous ?

Your next post to me should directly and clearly address points.

Originally posted by @sonship
I already indicated pages ago that I took it literally. If you had not been so dense and obsessed with your own stubbornness I referred to Second Thessalonians 1:8,9 which seems to say the same thing basically.

You may think that you "indicated" something, but I've been asking you a specific question and you STILL won't answer it:

Will Jesus be observing the eternal suffering in the hell that he has created

YES of NO?

No "indications" straightforward and unequivocal please so we can move forward and discuss your response.