Four Kinds of Forgiveness

@FMF

I am not interested in your passive aggression.

Of course not. You're interested in yours.

@FMF

All of us here are simply sharing perspectives.

The question is which perspectives are more true.

Sounds like in despair you have resigned to believe that none are.

So you're just waiting to rot and proud of it ?

@FMF

There is no "apathy" at my end. I have told you why it is morally and psychologically incoherent and therefore nonsensical and thus not credible.

As far as I can see you are just passing time here waiting proudly to rot back into the dust of the earth.

Now why is that ideology so superior to one in which what we do matters to the point of having eternal significance ?

Is your "no answer - waiting to dissolve" morally superior to existing for or against the kingdom of God ?

Is your clueless, positionless, lack of belief-ness, reward-less, judgement-less waiting to rot ideology morally better than the Christian Gospel ?

@FMF

No one is asking you to "to trust [my] authority". No one is aking you to trust me. You are reeling off rhetorical gimmicks.

I see! So when you come on saying Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition and none of the writers of the New Testament wrote except for years after mythical legends had been developed and Paul never met Jesus - why, you are not asking ANYONE to consider that you have a more authoritative historical explanation of the rise of the Christian church.

You're not implying anyone should consider your narrative more authoritative then what the New Testament records as the causes of the rise of the Christian church.

Along with your lifting "passive aggression" from whatever handy psychology text you are referring to, look to see what they might have on "cognitive dissonance" too.

I am sure your psychology text must describe the illusionary idealism of self denial that one is not foisting his opinion on others.

Check the glossary.

No one is asking you to "to trust [my] authority". No one is [asking] you to trust me.

So then if it is not your authority that I should deem reliable that eternal retribution is wrong, then on whose authority am I to trust that it cannot be ever morally valid ?

Which man or woman should I trust that the evaluation of the teaching of Christ on eternal judgment is immoral ?

If you don't want the responsibility, on who are you putting the responsibility ?

@sonship said
@FMF

No one is asking you to "to trust [my] authority". No one is aking you to trust me. You are reeling off rhetorical gimmicks.

I see! So when you come on saying Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition and none of the writers of the New Testament wrote except for years after mythical legends had been developed and Paul never met Jesus - why, you ...[text shortened]... alism of self denial that one is not foisting his opinion on others.

Check the glossary.

"Foisting"? Just sharing my perspective, that's all.

@sonship said
Is your clueless, positionless, lack of belief-ness, reward-less, judgement-less waiting to rot ideology morally better than the Christian Gospel ?

This is something for you to decide. If your Christian beliefs help you to avoid morally unsound behaviour, then I welcome it.

@sonship said
So then if it is not your authority that I should deem reliable that eternal retribution is wrong, then on whose authority am I to trust that it cannot be ever morally valid ?

You must decide for yourself. You must take responsibility for yourself. You should not look to me as an "authority".

@sonship said
Along with your lifting "passive aggression" from whatever handy psychology text you are referring to, look to see what they might have on "cognitive dissonance" too.

Asking me over and over and over again why I find torturer god ideology morally incoherent, when I have told you over and over again, is you being passive aggressive.

@sonship said
So when you come on saying Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition and none of the writers of the New Testament wrote except for years after mythical legends had been developed and Paul never met Jesus - why, you are not asking ANYONE to consider that you have a more authoritative historical explanation of the rise of the Christian church.

You are free to consider it and make of it what you will.

@sonship said
As far as I can see you are just passing time here waiting proudly to rot back into the dust of the earth.

RHP forums are social media. We are all "passing time" here. As for your concern about "rotting back into the dust of the earth" and seemingly trying to brandish it as some kind of taunt, I have two observations: [1] perhaps your religious beliefs are not giving you sufficient solace in the face of the inevitability of death [Why do you think citing an inescapable natural process works as a taunt?] and [2] if we are cremated, we become "dust" without rotting.

@sonship said
Now why is that ideology so superior to one in which what we do matters to the point of having eternal significance ?

The problem for me is not whether your contention that "what we do matters to the point of having eternal significance" is somehow superior or inferior to something else; the "problem" for me [in terms of you and I talking to each other about our perspectives] is that I lack belief in the claim that "what we do matters to the point of having eternal significance".

@divegeester said
Who has the key to Hades, Jesus or Satan?
Just a thought.... but the answer is part of my position on hell.

Revelation 1:18
"and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."

1 Corinthians 15:54-57
But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on i ...[text shortened]... orious and hell wasn't abolished.


I know you won't agree, but there it is for you to mull over.

Bump for sonship

@suzianne said
I was responding to divegeester, as I felt that he sort of danced all around it in his post about Rev. 20 without actually addressing annihilationism. I mean I get that his raison d'etre here seems to be the denial of eternal torture, and yet he himself has said that he doesn't fully accept annihilationism as the answer either. He has said that it could be, but that he jus ...[text shortened]... beyond his adamant argument that eternal torture is neither necessary or desirable to a loving God.

Correct.

But I'm pretty sure annihilation isn't right.

@suzianne said
I know that you went round and round with robbie carrobie over what he called "his ministry", but I do think every Christian should be prepared to speak on their beliefs and to perhaps be ready to offer a "ministry" of sorts. We are all called to testify the Good News. When I speak with people who consider themselves "lost" or "without God", I focus on how God's love has c ...[text shortened]... tayed because it was true.

"Lake of Fire" motivation not needed, and I've never known it to work.

Well said.