Haven't read this whole long thread; did read some of the earlier ones, but maybe I missed it: did anyone quote this verse?
NRS Romans 5:18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for at least some, maybe many, of them, depending . . ..
Of course, this verse might be modified by contextualization—although I would think that a more emphatic and general statement such as this one would more likely set the parameters under which other statements must be interpreted. (Though I have no problem just observing that, just on a review of the texts, the biblical corpus—even in just the NT—offers multi-vocal views. Also, simple verse counts—this view has greater numbers than that one—would be a lazy and invalid way to determine such things across diverse authorship: e.g., just because Paul [a] write more, or [b] more of his writings have survived, does not mean that we can simply stack up all the Pauline quotes against, say, John).
Originally posted by sonshipYou are dodging the question. The question is about whether someone who cannot accept and so discards the torturer God ideology must therefore also discard the entire Christian ideology? The issue is your opinion on the doctrine and not whether or not I am a Christian.
You can discard your Bible at any time. Maybe you have already.
I don't think you're waiting for my advice.
Originally posted by sonshipDon't you not think the prospect of permanent death is "awful" compared to everlasting life? Why isn't "fire" a symbol for destruction ~ that's what fire does - it utterly destroys things permanently. A human dies very rapidly in fire. Isn't that "something awful"?
Concerning Revelation and symbolism:
Can there be symbolism for something awful ?
Can something dreadful be told to us by God through symbolism ?
Originally posted by sonshipI've seen no evidence of anything along these lines other than your admission that "knowing" that there will be people tortured for eternity makes your Christian life easier. If you have any examples of people who find your ideology morally incoherent suggesting that you are "eager for men to be damned" then either cite them or concede that people could be forgiven for thinking you're just making this up. Your real problem is that at the very heart of darkness in your ideology is ghastly, vindictive, vengeful torture and tritely labelling it "perfect justice" is simply not providing a justification for it ~ indeed, the label contains no moral substance.
The debate about eternal damnation waged by some people goes like this:
The more the Bible believer argues for a face value understanding of the passages about eternal punishment, the more the other party will portray him as eager for men to be damned.
Originally posted by FMFsonship, do you intend to sidestep this point blank response to your question?
Don't you not think the prospect of permanent death is "awful" compared to everlasting life? Why isn't "fire" a symbol for destruction ~ that's what fire does - it utterly destroys things permanently. A human dies very rapidly in fire. Isn't that "something awful"?
Originally posted by vistesdinvalid way to determine such things across diverse authorship: e.g., just because Paul [a] write more, or [b] more of his writings have survived, does not mean that we can simply stack up all the Pauline quotes against, say, John).
Haven't read this whole long thread; did read some of the earlier ones, but maybe I missed it: did anyone quote this verse?
NRS Romans 5:18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for [b]all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for at least some, maybe many, of them, depending . . ..
Of course ...[text shortened]... survived, does not mean that we can simply stack up all the Pauline quotes against, say, John).[/b]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you find some major discrepancy between Paul and John ?
I don't.