The god who burns people alive for eternity

@kellyjay said
And?

You're cool with Jesus looking on as people (including people you have known and cared for) suffer in eternal torment?

@fmf said
It would be "evil" today to execute people for adultery and homosexuality. In the past, it wasn't considered "evil" to do so.

What I do understand is that you are trying to disguise this fact with some flannel about theology and law.

Don't be silly. What is evil or good isn't determined by what was or is "considered" by man to be so, whether past, present or future.

What is defined as good or evil is determined by God.

The "flannel" is yours because you cannot produce an argument sufficient enough to dispel the simple truth of what is good or evil, or even why. All you have to say is your repeated objections for which you are at a loss to substantiate with reason or logic.

@fmf said
Would executing homosexuals and adulterers nowadays be "evil" in your God's eyes?

Don't you mean "your God figure's" eyes?

You're slipping FMF.

You know what the Bible says about how God views homosexuals and adulterers.

@fmf said
You don't seem to understand what I am asking you.

You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.

@fmf said
Something that was once considered not "evil" by those worshipping your God is now considered "evil". THAT is the change I am referring to.

Specifically, what "evil" are you referring to?

@secondson said
You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.

Has executing homosexuals gone from not "evil" to "evil" according to the God you worship?

@secondson said
You know what the Bible says about how God views homosexuals and adulterers.

Forget about local or national laws, would it be "evil" to put them to death nowadays?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I'm struggling. They will be tormented in the 'presence' of the lamb,...but he won't actually be there overseeing it?!

Do we have a different understanding of 'in the presence of?'

If God is omnipresent, what do you think "in the presence of" means relative to the verse in question?

It doesn't mean "Jesus is in hell". That idea defies reason.

I believe divegeester mischaracterized the language of that verse to say something it's not saying because he knows the verse is saying hell, and suffering in hell, is very real. Divegeester can't come to terms with the reality of everlasting punishment.

@secondson said
If God is omnipresent, what do you think "in the presence of" means relative to the verse in question?

Overlooking. Monitoring. Watching. Supervising.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Can 'any' Christian explain why 'in the presence of the lamb' doesn't actually mean the lamb is present.

It's too simple Ghost.

"In the presence of the lamb" does not mean "in hell" any more than if I said I was in the presence of a garbage dumpster meant I was in the garbage dumpster.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Revelation 14:10:

'They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.'

The 'presence' of the lamb is clearly referenced here. Own it.

There's nothing to "own".

It would be intellectually incoherent to suggest that "in the presence of" means anything other than that.

It's literally obtuse to think it means Jesus is actually in the burning sulfur with those who had received the mark of the beast.

Surely you're not going to continue to pursue that line of reasoning that says the verse means that!

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Your God clearly deems it important that those who rejected Christ 'see him' (during their torment) triumphant and vindicated.

A kind of 'I told you so' distinctly ungodlike.

They, those who rejected Christ, did so while still in this life in the face of the clear warning of the consequences of rejecting Christ.

Their predicament in hell would come as no surprise.

@fmf said
Overlooking. Monitoring. Watching. Supervising.

You do err again FMF.

enōpion ~ 'in the presence of', means none of that.

@secondson said
They, those who rejected Christ, did so while still in this life in the face of the clear warning of the consequences of rejecting Christ.

Their predicament in hell would come as no surprise.

Matt 25 - the goats rejected Christ and they will be cast into the lake of fire [not hell] along with the devil and his angels.

Hell is not the same as the lake of fire. If hell is cast into the lake of fire, [as REv 20 states] how can it be the same. Your church doctrine is a mass of confused nonsense.

@secondson said
.It's literally obtuse to think it means Jesus is actually in the burning sulfur with those who had received the mark of the beast.

Overlooking. Monitoring. Watching. Supervising... In the presence of those who are actually in the burning sulfur, right?