- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes.
You are being asked why you think it is just for God to inflict eternal suffering solely because of non-belief.
[b]"For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation." (Rom. 9:10) [/
Originally posted by sonshipBy "perish" you mean 'tortured' forever, right? What moral justification does your ideology offer for this torture? Simply asserting that the 'offence' is "unique" is not a moral argument as to its justness.
Not believing in the Lord Jesus is the unique sin that causes them to perish.
Originally posted by sonshipMy questions are not about "minute aspects" of your torturer God ideology. They are about its very basis and pertain to the fundamental nature of the supernatural figure you seek to depict and promote. They are not about "minute aspects" at all.
You are not the only one who can make questions or has considered special minute aspects of this message.
02 Jul 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI think the reason the term "darkness" is used is because darkness is something that does not actually exist.
"But many Israelites—those for whom the Kingdom was prepared—will be thrown into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8:12)
I wonder if this 'outer darkness' is an alternative to the 'lake of fire', where hell is simply loneliness, isolation and separation from God.
Darkness is merely the term used to denote the absence, or lack thereof, of light.
Darkness does not exist. It is a term that represents an absence of what exists.
02 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonshipFifth time of asking. What happens if a fellow believer goes ahead and takes your advice ~ and pours out his heart to God, like you did ~ to seek resolution to this doctrinal problem ~ and comes back having found that you are wrong about "eternal torture", and he is right? How will you react?
In the other thread I encouraged some (actually all) truth seekers to go spend time to pour out their hearts to God. I wonder if anyone has taken my advice. .
02 Jul 15
Originally posted by FMFHow convenient. So, you enjoy the luxury of peddling your own ideology (under the guise of questioning someone else) without feeling any onus of having to explain yourself... so what's the problem FMF, too lazy to engage or too small minded to deal with it?
If you peddle an ideology on a discussion and debate forum then the onus is on you to explain its coherence if it has any.
What exactly do you mean by 'coherence'? Do you mean coherent in that it all fits together, or coherent in the sense that it's understandable? I do not believe simply disagreeing with you and dive is able to constitute incoherence, so what definition of 'coherence' applies here?
Winnowing out what you and dive find personally offensive does not demonstrate co-herence. Or how about deciding for yourselves what is literal or not in spite of evidence to the contrary (page 15 Thread 164162). Do you honestly think your own self determined interpretations based on personal preferences can any way demonstrate 'coherency'?
If you and dive had really wanted to make a coherent argument against hell, then you both would have made an equally impassioned moral argument against heaven... if hell is morally wrong, then how can heaven be morally right?
