05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMakes no sense in terms of my question. Don't worry let's let this piece pass and focus on why you think it is acceptable to burn people in an incinerator for eternity because they don't love you.
Originally posted by divegeester
What has "justice" got to do with burning people in a fire for eternity?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The Lake of Fire is part of God's Word. Absolute Justice and Perfect Righteousness [which equal Divine Integrity] are Immutable Attributes of God's Sovereign Character. God's Justice cannot deny i ...[text shortened]... n God's Absolute Justice and The Lake of Fire in this thread are also an example of "prominent".
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by divegeesterOriginally posted by divegeester
No, you asked suzi to take the topic of "annihilation" to another thread,I said you were wrong to do so because it's relevant to this thread, and now you are defending your position by showing that it was you who brought the topic up in the first place. Are you confused?
No, you asked suzi to take the topic of "annihilation" to another thread, I said you were wrong to do so because it's relevant to this thread, and now you are defending your position by showing that it was you who brought the topic up in the first place. Are you confused?
Originally posted by Suzianne
Since I consider myself perhaps one of the more vocal proponents of Annihilationism, consider this post only my first salvo in what may become an interesting conversation, and hopefully not just a "my opinion is obviously correct, and be quiet and learn" moment for you.
Sure, Suzi. May I suggest that you consider opening the topic of "Annihilationism"
up to a wider audience by giving it thread status of its own. I'll contribute.
.... suggested for the benefit of fresh eyes on the topic, not "asked".
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySure...whatever, let's focus [snaps fingers] on why you think burning people for eternity is a supportable doctrine.
Originally posted by divegeester
[b]No, you asked suzi to take the topic of "annihilation" to another thread, I said you were wrong to do so because it's relevant to this thread, and now you are defending your position by showing that it was you who brought the topic up in the first place. Are you confused?
[i]Originally posted by Suziann ...[text shortened]... [/b] I'll contribute.
.... suggested for the benefit of fresh eyes on the topic, not "asked".[/b]
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by divegeesterOriginally posted by divegeester
Makes no sense in terms of my question. Don't worry let's let this piece pass and focus on why you think it is acceptable to burn people in an incinerator for eternity because they don't love you.
Makes no sense in terms of my question. Don't worry let's let this piece pass and focus on why you think it is acceptable to burn people in an incinerator for eternity because they don't love you.
"why you think it is acceptable to burn people in an incinerator for eternity because they don't love you"
confuses the identity of yours truly with God Almighty and the human response of "love" with faith.
Thanks for the conversation. Good night....
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes, it must be very late where you are. Get some peaceful rest Bob and we can continue to argue to tomorrow if you feel like it.
Originally posted by divegeester
[b]Makes no sense in terms of my question. Don't worry let's let this piece pass and focus on why you think it is acceptable to burn people in an incinerator for eternity because they don't love you.
"why you think it is acceptable to burn people in an incinerator for eternity because they don't love you" ...[text shortened]... ghty and the human response of "love" with faith.
Thanks for the conversation. Good night....[/b]
🙂
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIt's not a prominent doctrine at all (of course), it is an erroneous medieval horror show which some believers have swallowed with the bait. The root of the problem is the finite interpretation of scripture outside of the perspective of a loving merciful god - evidenced by the many citing of "mercy triumphs over judgement".
One last try.
Bump for Grampy Bobby.
Trying to get to the bottom of the "prominence" question divegeester raised but which you have been dodging.
Of course we are talking about this within the Christian point of view, because the argument becomes moot on the plateaued perspective of -- why a flood, why the OT wars, why the fall and ultimately, why a god. For me the scriptural interpretation of eternal burning is totally unfounded in the text and completely against the nature of god, as I see him.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by divegeesterTell me this, from your understanding of Grampy Bobby's claims about "unbelievers" suffering in "eternal excruciating agony", does this 'fate' also apply to "believers" who do believe in Jesus but don't believe in the "suffering in eternal excruciating agony" thing?
It's not a prominent doctrine at all (of course), it is an erroneous medieval horror show which some believers have swallowed with the bait.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by divegeesterAgain tell me what you think, from your understanding of Grampy Bobby's "unbelievers" suffering in "eternal excruciating agony" thing.
For me the scriptural interpretation of eternal burning is totally unfounded in the text and completely against the nature of god, as I see him.
If my wife ~ after a lifetime of Christian belief and deeds ~ became an "unbeliever" while losing a battle with terminal cancer, would I ~ outliving her ~ have to accept every moment of my remaining days that she was not dead, as such, but was instead "suffering in eternal excruciating agony" ~ and that this was "Justice and Righteousness a.k.a. Divine Integrity"?
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFI think this is unclear so far but it's a good question. I'm often intrigued by what religionists think is "essential for salvation" doctrine.
Tell me this, from your understanding of Grampy Bobby's claims about "unbelievers" suffering in "eternal excruciating agony", does this 'fate' also apply to "believers" who [b]do believe in Jesus but don't believe in the "suffering in eternal excruciating agony" thing?[/b]
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by divegeesterWhen corporate Christianity added Revelation to the canon under dubious circumstances three or four hundred years after Jesus' death they were certainly equipping themselves with a whole set of smoke & mirror tools for browbeating, bamboozling and scaring the flock. [You don't need to agree with me that that was what they did].
I think this is unclear so far but it's a good question. I'm often intrigued by what religionists think is "essential for salvation" doctrine.