- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Jun 18
But Whodey confirms how Hell, as a product of human imagination, inspires and normalizes (makes seem normal or ignorable) the sadistic treatment of people who happen to fall into the hand of those given license to abuse them here in the real world.
The banality of evil. That’s Whodey.
26 Jun 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhat I have said is that we were all designed to live forever, this life is short and has an end
The issue I have Kelly Is that this 'eternal suffering in hell' is incongruous to the nature of God presented in the NT and the message conveyed by Jesus. I am not judging God by my own concept of morality (which I agree is finite and limited) but by God's own morality clearly expressed in the Bible.
the next does not. Nothing of evil is going to pass into the Kingdom of God that is about to
come, nothing that causes sin, nothing that loves sin. Where does that leave sinners, not
in the Kingdom of God. The messaged conveyed by Jesus is that He took our sins upon
Himself to take the blame before us, because sin cannot just be forgotten there had to be
some just consequence for each thought, deed, and word. God being Just and Holy will
have had no choice to deal with us according to what we have done, instead He gave us
mercy through Jesus Christ, and in the mean time due to His long suffering He is putting
up with the world to save as many as possible until the time He puts an end to this place.
Once that happens, we all will give an account to Him, Jesus came to warn and save us,
and the warning was about a very real fate that is waiting for all outside the grace of God,
which is paying for our own sins.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeester
Ive made a 7 point argument on my op; simply claiming that it’s all literal doesn’t defeat one of those points, not even number 4
Ive made a 7 point argument on my op; simply claiming that it’s all literal doesn’t defeat one of those points, not even number 4
Before you point over there to some seven other arguments, let's be perfectly clear about what you've been claiming.
1.) You tried and failed to portray this poster as making conversant analysis of the triune nature of God a requirement for salvation in a definite way.
This defeats your attempt to project your sectarianism unto me because I teach about the Trinity.
2.) You misrepresented and failed to do the same with a belief in eternal punishment. Romans 10:9 doesn't need me to force a belief in the lake of fire as a criteria NOR have I ever attempted to force one on it.
You provided no evidence I EVER did.
I understand you want to send me off to have seven other arguments now. But maybe I don't think that is required to accomplish my goals - to correct your erroneous portrayals.
The foundation of the church is the revelation of Christ as the Son of God (Matt. 16:18). I never added TO that
a.) Full conversant acceptance of several doctrinal points about the nature of God's triune being.
b.) The belief in eternal damnation.
The one foundation of the church is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:10,11; Eph. 2:20). I never added to that -
a.) Full conversant acceptance of several doctrinal points about the nature of God's triune being.
b.) The belief in eternal damnation.
If your fooling with the nature of God includes denying that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, then to that extent you disbelieve statements about Father - Son - Holy Spirit you may well be lost.
But I've said fifty times that Jesus taught His disciples that they will not ALWAYS be able to tell genuine faith in Christ from imitations. (fifty times may be hyperbole. I have not counted)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jun 18
3 edits
Ive made a 7 point argument on my op; simply claiming that it’s all literal doesn’t defeat one of those points, not even number 4
For my purpose to expose your misrepresentations and errors there is no need for me to go now and have seven MORE debates about your OP.
If I choose to spend more time here with you, MAYBE I'll do some analysis of a few. I feel no such obligation to need to.
I've refuted your errors sufficiently already. You're moving the goalpost, that's all.
Oh dear...
Sonship lies:
“If your fooling with the nature of God includes denying that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, then to that extent you disbelieve statements about Father - Son - Holy Spirit you may well be lost. “
Are now so desperate that you have to claim that I deny that Jesus is Lord...?
You really are a weak person and a cowardly Christian sonship.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jun 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @divegeesterI stand by this statement because it should be obvious that it is not confessing Jesus as Lord and/or probably not believing that God raised Him from the dead.
Oh dear...
Sonship lies:
“If your fooling with the nature of God includes denying that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, then to that extent you disbelieve statements about Father - Son - Holy Spirit you may well be lost. “
Are now so desperate that you have to claim that I deny that Jesus is Lord...?
You really are a weak person and a cowardly Christian sonship.
“If your fooling with the nature of God includes denying that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, then to that extent you disbelieve statements about Father - Son - Holy Spirit you may well be lost. “
You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel now trying to salvage some face saving scraps on being exposed.
26 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonshipAre you going to answer my question sonship?
I stand by this statement because it should be obvious that it is not confessing Jesus as Lord and/or believing that God raised Him from the dead.
[quote] “If your fooling with the nature of God includes denying that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, then to that extent you disbelieve statements about Father - Son - Holy Spirit you may well be lost. ...[text shortened]... u're scrapping the bottom of the barrel now trying to salvage some face saving on being exposed.
None of you lot of hellers has the balls to say “no” you don’t think burning people alive for eternity is ok, or “yes” you do think it’s ok. You all hem and haw and deflect and dodge and hide behind some sort of mysterious god complex which allows it to be ok but you lack the courage to say so.
You are all spiritual cowards in my opinion, I’m not joking either. It is no wonder the atheists in here mock you.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jun 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterYou're welcomed to your opinion.
You haven’t refuted anything chap.
If I reject your teaching of eternal suffering, am I precluded from salvation?
Am I, or am I not?
Tough doctrinal question for you teacher...
.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @divegeesterGo ahead.
I know, and I’ll keep shouting it and calling you lot out with posts like OP and questions you cannot, or will not answer.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jun 18
7 edits
Folks Divegeester believes that God spoke in Jesus Christ Luke 12:5.
Apparently he also believes that the teaching of Luke 12:5 is:
1) God being "Morally abhorrent"
2.) God being involved in "Hypocrisy and bullying" .
3.) God rendering Luke 12:5 something else He said in John 3:16 as "Gospel incoherence" .
4.) So non-literal that it needn't concern us.
5.) Spoken by Jesus but a SELF slandering teaching of Jesus.
6.) Taught by Jesus but "a belief that [is] bad for you spiritually" .
I assume that Divegeester also thinks it was bad for Jesus Christ's spirituality to teach it.
7.) Not important because not mandatory to believe for receiving Christ as Savior. Not essential to being saved so to be not believed and dismissed as Christ's spiritually damaging teaching.
Remember, Divegeester admitted that Luke 12:5 is the word of God.
" But I will show you whom you should fear, fear Him who after killing, has the authority to cast into Gehenna,
yes, I tell you, fear this One." (Luke 12:5)