Peeing on someone's back and the offer of an umbrella

@mike69 said
Whatever sunshine try pissing off and don’t forget your umbrella. The End bye

Blocked by Kenneth Eleven, quite a low point for you I would imagine.

@kellyjay said
Many people fixate on God is love, but He is also just and god, and according to scripture, He is one. The numerical number is most often thought of, but in the OT, that has more to do with He is total harmony with Himself. We can be conflicted in all we do, I want to do good, but I don't; I think this is right, but I'm doing that, not so God.

God is love, yes, and that l ...[text shortened]... and there will be no mercy mixed in with His wrath just as there is no condemnation with His grace.

Your three paragraphs of faith-speak notwithstanding, why would “God’s wrath” extend to supernaturally keeping people alive for an eternity of torture for simply not believing he exists?

@divegeester said
Your three paragraphs of faith-speak notwithstanding, why would “God’s wrath” extend to supernaturally keeping people alive for an eternity of torture for simply not believing he exists?

Calling something faith speech is not addressing points it’s simply avoiding what was said by displaying your distaste nothing more. If you have biblical cause to refute what was said than give your reasons. If you cannot or will not what good are you doing?

@kellyjay said
My version has us dying if you stay where we were, yours is being forced to do something against your will, and if left alone, you'd be fine. That isn't the case.

You did not sum up my version correctly.

The point is: you cannot be left alone. You must either take the gift, or take the bullet.

@bigdogg said
You did not sum up my version correctly.

The point is: you cannot be left alone. You must either take the gift, or take the bullet.

The gift is avoiding the bullet, if there is no danger it is only a threat.

@kellyjay said
The gift is avoiding the bullet, if there is no danger it is only a threat.

I give up.

It shouldn't be this hard to explain, or understand.

@bigdogg said
I give up.

It shouldn't be this hard to explain, or understand.

The danger is real if nothing is done all fall into condemnation and are condemned. You are treating the means for redemption as if that was the threat.

@divegeester said
Blocked by Kenneth Eleven, quite a low point for you I would imagine.

It’s just annoying when he makes you think it’s ok to type him and you waste your time doing so and nothing. He does it for giggles like a child as I’ve never said anything in a pm to even be blocked in the first place. It is my fault though I did fall for it twice🤷🏼‍♂️😁.

@bigdogg said
I give up.

It shouldn't be this hard to explain, or understand.

KellyJay is a master at deliberately misunderstanding replies made to him and following up with a block of waffly faith-speak which is usually a non sequitur.

@divegeester said
Your three paragraphs of faith-speak notwithstanding, why would “God’s wrath” extend to supernaturally keeping people alive for an eternity of torture for simply not believing he exists?

Lovecraft might have missed a beat there.

@bigdogg said
The bible says:

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

This sounds much closer to my version than yours.

But as antique threats go, that was a good one. Takes it to another level.

@divegeester said
Blocked by Kenneth Eleven, quite a low point for you I would imagine.

I might agree with you on this one. That would be about the fifth time?

P.S. -- I nearly wrote "concur" but I'm more of a cat.

@divegeester said
Your three paragraphs of faith-speak notwithstanding, why would “God’s wrath” extend to supernaturally keeping people alive for an eternity of torture for simply not believing he exists?

What exactly do you study in your home Bible-study group?

@divegeester said
KellyJay is a master at deliberately misunderstanding replies made to him and following up with a block of waffly faith-speak which is usually a non sequitur.

On many occasions, kindly waffling is much more preferable than critical analysis.