How is eternity expressed mathematically?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie to divegeester
If you have produced any scriptural references on the matter then please point me in their direction and ill be happy to discuss them.

BUMP. Why don't you want to discuss any of Grampy Bobby's "scriptural references on the matter"?

Originally posted by FMF
Why don't you want to discuss any of Grampy Bobby's "scriptural references on the matter"?

Bob has made a few references and his position is unclear to me whether he supports eternal torment or eternal annihilation. The two are not synonymous and anyway his attempts to introduce Scripture were met with derisive tones of 'hiding behind Scripture' and I have no reason to believe that my scriptural references will be received any differently.

Originally posted by FMF
BUMP. Why don't you want to discuss any of Grampy Bobby's "scriptural references on the matter"?

Patience please I am texting on smartphone.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Bob has made a few references and his position is unclear to me whether he supports eternal torment or eternal annihilation. The two are not synonymous and anyway his attempts to introduce Scripture were met with derisive tones of 'hiding behind Scripture' and I have no reason to believe that my scriptural references will be received any differently.

He clearly supports "eternal torment". Can you rebut his position using scripture?

Originally posted by FMF
He clearly supports "eternal torment". Can you rebut his position using scripture?

He has also made reference to annihilation if you read his posts carefully.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He has also made reference to annihilation if you read his posts carefully.

He clearly rejects that in favour of "eternal torment". Have you not being following Grampy Bobby's "teaching" here?

Originally posted by FMF
He clearly rejects that in favour of "eternal torment". Have you not being following Grampy Bobby's "teaching" here?

It is not clear to me which he supports. Sorry got to drive.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is not clear to me which he supports. Sorry got to drive.

Is this one of your "expedient" and "unprincipled" posts?

Originally posted by FMF
Is this one of your "expedient" and "unprincipled" posts?

I have never claimed to make unprincipled posts FMF.

Here GB states and I quote verbatim, 'If "yes", let's wait for Suzi to weigh in as agreed; if not and you're an unbeliever the topic of Annihilation is meaningless.'

A clear reference to the doctrine of annihilation. Whether he favours one over the other I cannot say, either way, why dont you rebut the doctrine yourself instead of trying to recruit other people to do your dirty work?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have never claimed to make unprincipled posts FMF.

But you admitted this... "Anyone who enters a melee thinking that they will come away clean I think is seriously deluded. I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time, its a much more reactionary stance rather than a calculating one" ...only a few days ago.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Whether he favours one over the other I cannot say...

Surely you are lying when you say this? I won't post your PMs here of course, but it is clear that you were either lying in your PMs to me or you are now lying here in public about what your view on Grampy Bobby's stance is.

Originally posted by FMF
But you admitted this... [b]"Anyone who enters a melee thinking that they will come away clean I think is seriously deluded. I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time, its a much more reactionary stance rather than a calculating one" ...only a few days ago.[/b]

yes FMF I know what I said, never the less, not completely without principle can hardly be construed as unprincipled in the same way that hardly ugly may be construed as fair of face, you interpret it how you like, bring it up time and again as much as you like, retrospective trolling has its place in your armoury of technique to discredit others, this is clear, but i will not be a recruit in your pack of rabid hyenas nor do your dirty work for you.

Originally posted by FMF
Surely you are lying when you say this? I won't post your PMs here of course, but it is clear that you were either lying in your PMs to me or you are now lying here in public about what your view on Grampy Bobby's stance is.

hardly GBs reference to annihilation was made well after you sent those PMs trying to recruit me to refute the doctrine and do your dirty work for you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...retrospective trolling has its place in your armoury of technique to discredit others...

Surely it is not this thing you call "retrospective trolling" that discredits you, but it is what you yourself posted on this forum only a few days ago that discredits you?

Originally posted by FMF
Surely it is not this thing you call "retrospective trolling" that discredits you, but it is what you yourself posted on this forum only a few days ago that discredits you?

I see nothing within my post which discredits me, in fact its a brutally honest self appraisal, but you use it as you see fit. I am afraid FMF you will still by a dynamic duo, dick dastardly and mutley, FMF and divesgeester.