06 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you claim that you are being honest here when you say you don't know what Grampy Bobby's beliefs about "eternal suffering" are?
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.
06 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFI posted the reference anyone can read it for themselves, his stance is unclear whether he supports eternal torment or annihilation. This has nothing to do with my honesty or otherwise and your insistence that it does is another instance of your failure to argue the merits of an argument without reference to persona.
So you claim that you are being honest here when you say you don't know what Grampy Bobby's beliefs about "eternal suffering" are?
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMaybe this will clear it up -
I posted the reference anyone can read it for themselves, his stance is unclear whether he supports eternal torment or annihilation.
divegeester, there's no way around the fact that both Old and New Testaments integrate information regarding the Lake of Fire as sonship has summarized. Yes, it is an awful specter to realize the entire being of unbelievers will suffer excruciatingly for eternity, especially when a believer's family member or close friend have rejected the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, it's an emotional argument to disagree with any aspect of the Word of God because it's painful to accept. Past few days I've searched for biblical leeway but have found only confirmation. Annihilation of unbelievers is not part of God's Plan. "The second death" and the "lake of fire" are identical terms." Rev 20:14 I'll continue searching. -Bob
06 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou admit to using expedient and unprincipled arguments in debates and you describe trying to remain honest ["clean"] as "seriously deluded".
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.
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou think perhaps Grampy Bobby believes in "annihilation" and not "eternal torment"? That is an honest statement of your belief?
I posted the reference anyone can read it for themselves, his stance is unclear whether he supports eternal torment or annihilation.
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFwow from someone who has had multiple accounts with the sole intent to deceive others i would say that you dont have anything you can say about the integrity or honesty of others, dont you?
You admit to using expedient and unprincipled arguments in debates and you describe trying to remain honest ("clean"😉 as "seriously deluded".
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by Proper Knobthis is fine but if you read this post made after the reference to the lake of fire he specifically mentions the doctrine of annihilation.
Maybe this will clear it up -
divegeester, there's no way around the fact that both Old and New Testaments integrate information regarding the Lake of Fire as sonship has summarized. Yes, it is an awful specter to realize the entire being of unbelievers will suffer excruciatingly for eternity, especially when a believer's family member or clos ...[text shortened]... th" and the "lake of fire" are identical terms." Rev 20:14 I'll continue searching. -Bob
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStart a thread about it, robbie. The topic here is whether you are telling the truth about whether you think Grampy Bobby believes in "annihilation" and not "eternal torment".
wow from someone who has had multiple accounts with the sole intent to deceive others i would say that you dont have anything you can say about the integrity or honesty of others, dont you?
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFno i have never stated that I have used unprincipled arguments and I refuse to be lectured on morality by someone who is known to have intentionally deceived others through the use of multiple accounts.
You admit to using expedient and unprincipled arguments in debates and you describe trying to remain honest ["clean"] as "seriously deluded".
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you reckon Grampy Bobby has been "teaching" the concept of "annihilation" on this thread?
this is fine but if you read this post made after the reference to the lake of fire he specifically mentions the doctrine of annihilation.
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFno FMF, you cannot be trusted, you knowingly and wilfully deceive others through multiple accounts, who knowingly and wilfully released PMs to others and here you are lecturing me on honesty, wow. I refuse to be lectured on honesty by someone as clearly dishonest and deceitful as you.
Start a thread about it, robbie. The topic here is whether you are telling the truth about whether you think Grampy Bobby believes in "annihilation" and not "eternal torment".
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said "...I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time...". And you appear to have been lying about your understanding of Grampy Bobby's beliefs on this thread. If you can point out any lies I have posted on this thread, please feel free to do so.
no i have never stated that I have used unprincipled arguments and I refuse to be lectured on morality by someone who is known to have intentionally deceived others through the use of multiple accounts.
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFI have not stated that you have posted lies FMF i have merely drawn attention to your history of being deceitful through the use of multiple accounts and releasing PMs to the public. You deal with it, you did it.
You said [b]"...I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time...". And you appear to have been lying about your understanding of Grampy Bobby's beliefs on this thread. If you can point out any lies I have posted on this thread, please feel free to do so.[/b]