- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Divegeester,
If you don't want to answer this then at a least describe what a "checkmate question" is that you keep boasting about putting to other posters.
There is not much of a challenge to the entire teaching of the Bible.
Watch this.
Paul says that those disobeying the gospel will pay the penalty of eternal destruction in Second Thess. 1:9. If eternal destruction means non-existence, then are all who have never been born and do not exist, paying the penalty of eternal destruction ?
@sonship saidI've never used any kind of "escape hatch" with you. You flatter yourself, sonship. Perhaps you should preach to people who already agree with you - and have the facility to delete any attempts to discuss things and scrutinize what you say. Have you thought of starting a blog?
Since I expect you to jump down that final escape hatch, why waste the time?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@FMF
And you eventually do a sour grapes - "Well, I don't really care about it all anyway."
And what's wrong with preaching to people who agree with me ? Some of us are always opened to learn more, having accepted the basics.
@sonship saidYou can't claim, then, to be "saving souls". Preaching to people who agree with you - when you claim to think those who don't agree with you are going to be tortured by your god figure - would appear to be the most peculiar vanity project.
And what's wrong with preaching to people who agree with me ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
You're jumping subjects like a nervous grasshopper in a hen house. You were trying to heap shame on me for believing in eternal punishment.
Go on over to my new thread on Divegeester's Judgment Quandry and continue your comments there.
Let's leave the Galaxy thread to its own topic.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
So switching subjects and falling back on previous other debates is you handy-dandy excuse to evade your proving that "eternal destruction" as a penalty means non-existence.
This nuanced and compound complaint you have about filled with the spirit - trinity - salvation I have addressed before.
You didn't like my answers because you wanted to force a binary 1 for YES or a binary 0 for No.
To the nuanced compound issues of filled with the spirit - trinity - salvation) I gave several times reasonable answers. If your present issue was not shaky you wouldn't need to resort to dusting off old tactics.
They weren't that tried and true as you imagine them to be.