‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @sonship

Here you are sonship, reply to this one.

I think he did too (think that Jesus spoke the word about Lazarus in Luke that you have been quoting).

This is the rationale that the lesson of [b]Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. And its details should not be taken literally.

If it is a parable it is a singly unique one because in no other pa ...[text shortened]... dishonest and unrighteous for Jesus to have made the main characteristic of the account.[/b]

Is there somewhere in this parable that Jesus teaches eternal torment?

Originally posted by @rajk999
LOL .. You are a comedian. Eternal torment is your creation. The passages you continue to quote does not contain the expression eternal torment or any thing remotely resembling it.

The same Paul said that SAVED Christians can be cast out of the Kingdom of God. Here again you read part of Pauls writings and ignore the part you dont like. SAVED does no ...[text shortened]...
This is the definition of brainwashed. You cannot see. You cannot read. You cannot understand.

The weak case you made on both accounts is not strengthened by ad homs and laughing ridicule.

The more serious error is that you don't believe that sons of God can be produced in the church age. That I have to take as a doctrine of demons, probobly.

Folks don't be fooled by Rajk999's lies. What does the New Testament really teach about God imparting His life into people ?

" But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,

Who were BEGOTTEN not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12,13)

Begotten of God is regeneration for the believer. Otherwise he could not be one of the "children of God".

Rajk999 knows nothing about this kind of regeneration and wants to imagine that John 1:12,13 must be postponed to AFTER the end of the church age.

His mouth is big and loud but his spiritual eyes seem to have been plucked out. Empty sockets only remain.

Originally posted by @sonship
The weak case you made on both accounts is not strengthened by ad homs and laughing ridicule.

The more serious error is that you don't believe that sons of God can be produced in the church age. That I have to take as a doctrine of demons, probobly.

Folks don't be fooled by Rajk999's lies. What does the New Testament really teach about God imparting ...[text shortened]... is big and loud but his spiritual eyes seem to have been plucked out. Empty sockets only remain.

Rajk999 only repeats verbatim the words of Christ and of the bible in general.
Sonship adds to the words of the bible and produces his own doctrine.

Jesus said that regeneration takes place when he returns.

The wise believe in the words of Christ.
The foolish go their own way

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you are arguing from a position of no ultimate truth and you have nothing better to offer than Dasa you are frankly wasting everyone's time including your own. I on the other hand believe there has to be ultimate truth and if you would like to know I could tell you exactly why I believe Dasa's views make no sense using his own assumptions.

Dasa believed there is an ultimate supernatural truth - like you do - and based his assertions about morality on that belief - like you do.

So do you believe his religious beliefs created any moral imperatives for people like you and me?

Originally posted by @fmf
Dasa believed there is an ultimate supernatural truth - like you do - and based his assertions about morality on that belief - like you do.

So do you believe his religious beliefs created any moral imperatives for people like you and me?

The difference is that my belief is based upon the Bible. I have no reason to believe any other religious book is divinely inspired for the reasons I have already given. Some religious books contain truths that are in agreement with with the Bible, I guess you also agree with certain moral principles that are in the Bible don't you?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The difference is that my belief is based upon the Bible. I have no reason to believe any other religious book is divinely inspired for the reasons I have already given.

So Dasa's belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and moral imperatives stemming from it is subjective while your belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and the moral imperatives attendant thereto is objective, is that how your use of vocabulary works?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I guess you also agree with certain moral principles that are in the Bible don't you?

We have discussed this before. My views have not changed.

Originally posted by @fmf
So Dasa's belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and moral imperatives stemming from it is subjective while your belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and the moral imperatives attendant thereto is objective, is that how your use of vocabulary works?

No that is just you putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by @fmf
We have discussed this before. My views have not changed.

Ok it's obvious why you won't agree that there are actually things in the Bible that you still agree with.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No that is just you putting words in my mouth.

So, is Dasa's belief [in an ultimate supernatural truth and the moral imperatives stemming from that "truth"] objective?

Originally posted by @fmf
So, is Dasa's belief [in an ultimate supernatural truth and the moral imperatives stemming from that "truth"] objective?

From whose perspective?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ok it's obvious why you won't agree that there are actually things in the Bible that you still agree with.

We have discussed the considerable extent to which the Bible has shaped my morality before ~ in some detail ~ in relatively long posts that were not copy-pastes but that I took a moment or two to compose, expressly for you to read. As I say, my views on that have not changed. Why are you [1] pretending we haven't discussed it, and [2] asking me about it again?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
From whose perspective?

Well I asked you this question just now and you dodged it:

So Dasa's belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and moral imperatives stemming from it is subjective while your belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and the moral imperatives attendant thereto is objective, is that how your use of vocabulary works?

Can you really not work out whose perspective I am asking you about in this question that I asked you?

Originally posted by @fmf
We have discussed the considerable extent to which the Bible has shaped my morality before ~ in some detail ~ in relatively long posts that were not copy-pastes but that I took a moment or two to compose, expressly for you to read. As I say, my views on that have not changed. Why are you [1] pretending we haven't discussed it, and [2] asking me about it again?

I simply asked you whether at this point there is still anything in the Bible that you agree with. I did not ask you about how the Bible has shaped your morality before. Your reasons for dodging my question are quite obvious.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well I asked you this question just now and you dodged it:

[b]So Dasa's belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and moral imperatives stemming from it is subjective while your belief in an ultimate supernatural truth and the moral imperatives attendant thereto is objective, is that how your use of vocabulary works?

Can you really not work out whose perspective I am asking you about in this question that I asked you?[/b]

We have already discussed all of this before. Why are you asking me this again? You know what I believe about the Bible.