Pope abolishes hell

Originally posted by @secondson
Because, unlike you, I don't project into the narrative of scripture a presupposition that is contrary to the text.

Haha. Cornered by ToO

Originally posted by @secondson
Because, unlike you, I don't project into the narrative of scripture a presupposition that is contrary to the text.

Actually that's exactly what you do.

You've repeatedly shown that regardless of what Leviticus 25:44-46 actually says, you don't believe it since it's contrary to your conception of God.

In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as:
Expressly giving permission for Jews to buy slaves. Expressly stating that they are their property. Expressly stating that they can be bequeathed to their children. Expressly stating that they can be made slaves for life.

By the very definition that is chattel slavery and God is depicted as expressly condoning it.

Originally posted by @secondson
I certainly do.

Romans 10:8&9
But what saith it? [hidden] verse 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,..[/hidden] The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath r ...[text shortened]... sed him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I'm reasonably certain divegeester believes that.

The doctrine of cherry-picking mouth-worshipers.

Cherry-picking because you conveniently ignore all the times the very same Paul said to these bornagain Christian Saints in Chrsit who have the Holy Spirit that they are saved BUT if they do not live righteously they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Clearly you do not understand what the word SAVED means.

SAVED does not necessarily mean ETERNAL LIFE in the Kingdom of God.
Only the righteous saved Christians will enter the Kingdom of God
Unrighteous saved Christians will be cut off, destroyed, burnt like chaff.

Mouth worshipers because that doctrine of professing faith with the mouth leads people to refrain from good works, following Chrsit commandments and righteousness, and continue on with their lives under the delusion that regardless of their sins they will still enter the Kingdom of God

Not so said Paul. Read the Bible and stop cherrypicking.

Originally posted by @secondson
Because, unlike you, I don't project into the narrative of scripture a presupposition that is contrary to the text.

I am sure you do. Everyone does. The bible says anything we want.

Originally posted by @secondson
From what I've heard and read of divegeester it appears he has a watered-down view of the scriptures. I don't think divegeester really believes what the Bible says when it doesn't correspond with his own perceptions of reality.

You sincerely believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and that you are, therefore, "saved", and divegeester believes sincerely ~ "watered-down view" or not ~ that God raised Jesus from the dead and that this means he (divegeester) is therefore "saved". Both "saved", right? If not, what's the difference between you in terms of being "saved"?

The Vatican released a statement that said that this was just what the journalist said based off of unofficial conversations. It cannot be considered to be a direct quotation. Basically, the Vatican denounced what was said there.

How do you respond to that, Dive?

Originally posted by @fmf
You sincerely believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and that you are, therefore, "saved", and divegeester believes sincerely ~ "watered-down view" or not ~ that God raised Jesus from the dead and that this means he (divegeester) is therefore "saved". Both "saved", right? If not, what's the difference between you in terms of being "saved"?

Maybe you do no tlike it but it is entirely relevant to what extent Christianity is believed in by a person. It weakens the internal organization and religion if we have people that do not believe in the whole fo it but merely cherry pick it.

I am curious as to why you are White Knighting for Dive.

Originally posted by @philokalia
The Vatican released a statement that said that this was just what the journalist said based off of unofficial conversations. It cannot be considered to be a direct quotation. Basically, the Vatican denounced what was said there.

How do you respond to that, Dive?

Exactly as I responded to it in my OP had you bothered to read it.

The Papacy and the Vatican of course, are pressure testing the notion of getting rid of hell and Jesus eternally torturing billions of souls with fire. They realise this horrendous medieval concept has probalby become the biggest blocker to signing up new recruits.

They do their market research as all big corporations do. All this rhetoric around the Pope saying one thing and the Vatican saying another is whitewash for the masses.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Maybe you do no tlike it but it is entirely relevant to what extent Christianity is believed in by a person. It weakens the internal organization and religion if we have people that do not believe in the whole fo it but merely cherry pick it.

I am curious as to why you are White Knighting for Dive.

This stuff you've typed does not address the question I put to SecondSon about what he thinks it takes to be "saved".

Originally posted by @philokalia
Maybe you do no tlike it but it is entirely relevant to what extent Christianity is believed in by a person. It weakens the internal organization and religion if we have people that do not believe in the whole fo it but merely cherry pick it.

I am curious as to why you are White Knighting for Dive.

I’m saved through faith, secondson is saved through faith, you are presumably saved through faith...so what does it matter if I believe something different to you in terms of me being a Christian?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Haha. Cornered by ToO

Haha. Was not.

ThinkOfOne says the verses in Leviticus 25:44-46 means that God condones slavery.

They do not. ThinkOfOne's exegesis is flawed in one major respect. The chapter is a direct quote of God instructing the Jews concerning slavery. By inferring that God condones slavery, by saying God is "depicted" as condoning slavery, ThinkOfOne is saying God is depicting Himself as condoning slavery.

ThinkOfOne knows slavery is wrong. God knows slavery is wrong. How then can ThinkOfOne infer that God is depicting Himself as condoning slavery?

Twisted logic.

It's like saying God is a murderer because He told the Jews to kill everybody in the land He had promised to Abraham. God owns the real estate. God owns everybody and everything in the universe.

By extension, according the the logic ThinkOfOne uses, God is depicted in the scriptures as being an unjust monster condoning slavery, murder and the mistreatment of human beings by human beings.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

Originally posted by @rajk999
The doctrine of cherry-picking mouth-worshipers.

Cherry-picking because you conveniently ignore all the times the very same Paul said to these bornagain Christian Saints in Chrsit who have the Holy Spirit that they are saved BUT if they do not live righteously they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Clearly you do not understand what the word SAVED mea ...[text shortened]... will still enter the Kingdom of God

Not so said Paul. Read the Bible and stop cherrypicking.

By thinking you can add anything to the cross of Christ for salvation makes you a legalist. Paul would call you a judaizer. Jesus would call you a white washed tomb.

Originally posted by @secondson
Haha. Was not.

ThinkOfOne says the verses in Leviticus 25:44-46 means that God condones slavery.

They do not. ThinkOfOne's exegesis is flawed in one major respect. The chapter is a direct quote of God instructing the Jews concerning slavery. By inferring that God condones slavery, by saying God is "depicted" as condoning slavery, ThinkOfOne is sayin ...[text shortened]... and the mistreatment of human beings by human beings.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..

In Leviticus 25:44-46:
1) God.expressly gives permission for Jews to buy slaves. "...from them you may buy slaves".
2) God expressly states that they are their property. "...they will become your property"
3) God expressly states that they can be bequeathed to their children. "You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property..."
4) God expressly states that they can be made slaves for life. "... can make them slaves for life..."

By the very definition the above is chattel slavery and God is depicted as condoning it.

It says what it says. There's no reasonable way around this.

This is an example of what I had in mind when I wrote:
<<Though most refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner... Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. >>

SecondSon repeatedly shows himself to be a prime example.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them sla ...[text shortened]... hoose are disingenuous at best. >>

SecondSon repeatedly shows himself to be a prime example.

"Though most refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner... Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best."


With this in mind, why do you accept the teaching of Jesus (while he walked the Earth) but dismiss other parts of the Bible, and yet somehow stand outside your own accusation of disingenuous cherry picking?