- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Jun 16
5 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterI'm not hysterical, as you put it, nor am I "poisoning the well", as you put it. These are your words because you don't like being challenged on your beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not say you were hysterical. I said that you insinuate that the urgency of keeping people from burning alive from Jesus should nearly drive the Christian who believes so to hysteria.
Saying you "do not feel guilty for believe the New Testament" as an excuse to propagate eternal suffering, just makes you sound like, Galveston75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it is a direct response to the accusations you launch which amount to condemning Christian who take certain teachings of the New Testament as they appear to communicate something.
We do not have to like it in order to believe it.
You make choices about how you have interpreted the NT as all Christians and the cults do, from those choices comes the flavour of the gospel we preach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have studied Universalist and Unitarian interpretations more than you know.
I have given them a chance to adopt their annihilationist interpretations.
I acknowledge some points they make which are worth acknowledging.
But they didn't succeed in causing me to believe the NT intends to communicate that it will be very bad for those who reject Christ.
I have a number of contributing factors from the Bible which cause me to think some things are not as cut and dry as might be portrayed by some fire and brimstone presentations. Nevertheless, none of these caveats reduce my expectation that for those whose names are not recorded in the Lamb's book of life, it will be the very bad.
The entire proposition of not being reconciled to God should be avoided. Plan and simple.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Jun 16
You choose a gospel where your version of a loving God subsequently chooses to burn people alive in an eternal inferno for not accepting him, I don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The details I cannot scientifically describe.
The overall implication is clear - "You DO NOT want to remain un-reconciled to God."
Creatures made by God should be reconciled to God and justified by Him.
No creature refusing to be reconciled to God can win.
"Remain un-reconciled to God and WIN" - I have no hope in.
Let me ask you about those who live through the 1,000 years of peace, prosperity, mercy and goodness in Revlation 20. HOW can some of them possibly witness these good things from God's blessings and still conspire to afterwards join Satan ?
How?
How could they, after viewing such world-wide salvation and divine blessing, then be deceived to amass a huge army to oppose God the Author of that blessed time ?
" And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison.
And will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war. Their number is like that of the sand of the sea.
And they went up upon the breadth of the earth and surrounding the camp of the saints and the beloved city; and fire came down out of heaven and devoured them." (Rev. 20:1-9)
You under estimate the capacity for some humans not to want to have God. After witnessing the blessings of the millennium they are again deceived to count Satan as the hero and God as the enemy.
Is it not God's love too that such be separated from the saved who want a righteous universe ?
God has a place for all those who want nothing to do with God. They will be all together. The physics of this I cannot explain. You can add in your imagined details and try to shove them into my mouth.
I just ascertain that that place is to be avoided by God's salvation. You cannot go there and be a winner.
Originally posted by sonshipThe final analysis is that you present a nonsensical version of God who chooses to keep unbelievers alive for eternity in a place especially created by him, in order to burn them alive. These are the same people he loved so much he died for them. It makes no sense whatsoever, it is abominable in essence and worse than any jihadist terrorist brutality. You can wrap it up in whatever pseudo-Christian flim-flam about how I don't understand how much people don't want to know God. Stop and think about it for a moment - a person rejects Christ and decides to wilfully live a life of sin but without even hurting anyone else, just sin. You say that your version of God says that this person deserves to be burnt alive for all eternity by the very God who loves them.
[b]
You choose a gospel where your version of a loving God subsequently chooses to burn people alive in an eternal inferno for not accepting him, I don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The details I cannot scientifically describe.
The overall implication is clear - "You DO NOT want to remain un- ...[text shortened]... ertain that that place is to be avoided by God's salvation. You cannot go there and be a winner.[/b]
Just stop and think about that. I'm not an atheist asking you to reject Christ, I'm just asking you to stop and think.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by divegeesterI do not see any answer for my question about the rescued and saved nations re-joining Satan after the 1,000 years.
The final analysis is that you present a nonsensical version of God who chooses to keep unbelievers alive for eternity in a place especially created by him, in order to burn them alive. These are the same people he loved so much he died for them. It makes no sense whatsoever, it is abominable in essence and worse than any jihadist terrorist brutality. Y ...[text shortened]... out that. I'm not an atheist asking you to reject Christ, I'm just asking you to stop and think.
So when the Bible says -
"All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ... " ( 2 Timothy 2:16)
For you that does not include Revelation 20:10-15 ?
That portion of the Scripture you condemn as -
Not God breathed,
Not profitable for teaching,
Not profitable for ... correction,
Not profitable for ... conviction,
and Not profitable for ... instruction in righteousness.
Is that your position ?
And say Matthew 25:32-46 also you condemn as -
Not God breathed,
Not profitable for teaching,
Not profitable for ... correction,
Not profitable for ... conviction,
and Not profitable for ... instruction in righteousness.
And Luke 12:5 also you condemn as -
Not God breathed,
Not profitable for teaching,
Not profitable for ... correction,
Not profitable for ... conviction,
and Not profitable for ... instruction in righteousness.
All Scripture excludes these scriptures ?
Then I consider your exclusion of passages like these as your being affected by the modern apostate age. And for you I contemplate this sorry state -
"For the time will come when they will not tolerate healthy teaching; but according to their own lusts they will heap up to themselves teachers, having itching ears.
And they will turn away their ear from the truth and will turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3,4)
You go ahead and turn aside to the teachers you have heaped up for yourself if you want to. I will not be joining you.
Originally posted by sonship
I do not see any answer for my question about the rescued and saved nations re-joining Satan after the 1,000 years.
So when the Bible says -
[b] "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ... " ( 2 Timothy 2:16)
For you that does not include Re ...[text shortened]... side to the teachers you have heaped up for yourself if you want to. I will not be joining you.It is YOUR interpretation of those passages that are incorrect.
One example. The only reference to torture is with regard to the devil, the Beast and the False Prophet. These apparently are tortured while others are cast into the lake of fire.
YOU have ADDED the part where others are tortured.
You lack the ability to see that Fire can do both things
- burn and destroy completely
- burn and torture.without destroying
You assume that the Lake of Fire is just to torture.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by divegeesterBecause I don't agree with you, does not mean I'm "turning aside"
Because I don't agree with you, does not mean I'm "turning aside"
Nor does it mean I'm "poisoning the well" Or any of the other snarks you stuck in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think I'm concerned with you turning away your ear (as it says) from me personally?
You sure are seeking to turn disciple' of Jesus ears aaway from passages about final eternal punishment. You want to turn aside from Matthew 25, Revelation 14. and Revelation 20, and other passages.
You also have not the case to argue against them as far as I can see, aside from strong emotional appeals. Having failed on that front you opt to trying to argue that the challenged Christian should instead go away from defending his belief and spend that time frantic in the street.
That's a convenient way out of not being able to refute them
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Nor does it mean I'm "poisoning the well" Or any of the other snarks you stuck in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "snarks" come hard, fast and frequent from YOU divegeester, I think most everyone can plainly see that in this Forum. You most quickly resort to character attacking.
Sure you do Divegeester. How many times do you try to cash in to the maximum what I wrote years ago about the bad angels being in chains (quoting Jude I believe) ?
You pass no opportunity to get as much mileage out of the talk as you can.
I think you must hate those Christians who take several passages in the New Testament as they appear to communicate eternal punishment.
My approach to comprehend such passages is different. Rather than labor to deny them I seek a fullest possible contextural understanding. I seek to discover the scope and the whys of such a severe sentence.
We usually do not get into these matters because you are too busy framing descriptions to place into my mouth and working on dire emotional appeals and guilt trips.
I do think you genuinely have hateful contempt for Christians who take at face value certain words in the New Testament. And to me your tactics do appear as intentionally poisoning the well of fellowship, at least, between two supposedly followers of Jesus Christ.
12 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipI don't deny that the scriptures exist.
[b] Because I don't agree with you, does not mean I'm "turning aside"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think I'm concerned with you turning aside from me personally?
You sure are seeking to turn disciples of Jesus aside from passages about final eternal punishment ...[text shortened]... spend that time in the street.
That's a convenient way out of not being able to refute them[/b]
I claim that you interpret them incorrectly because is suits your wrapped moral mind-map. You have said yourself that the knowledge that those who mistreat you will be burning alive in eternity helps you to forgive them.
It is you who clearly has the "emotional" appeal to the this horrible teaching.
I notice that none of your cronies like Suzianne, for example, are rushing to your defence as they often do when you find yourself under fire for some silliness you have posted.
Originally posted by sonshipFeel free to demonstrate anywhere I have attacked you personally.
[b]
Nor does it mean I'm "poisoning the well" Or any of the other snarks you stuck in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "snarks" come hard, fast and frequent from YOU divegeester, I think most everyone can plainly see that in this Forum. You most quickly resort to cha ...[text shortened]... ly poisoning the well of fellowship, at least, between two supposedly followers of Jesus Christ.[/b]
You accuse me of "poisoning the well" of the forum discussion of "hateful contempt" of other Christians and now of "poisoning" the relationship between other Christians.
You are just pouting because you don't like having your horrible beliefs challenged. I'm a Christian, I don't believe this stuff you believe, I'm not going to go to hell for it, everyone thinks it is awful...except you for some reason.
Originally posted by sonshipYes, I know exactly what you meant.
What the passage says is turning aside their ear from the truth.
That is the much more salient point.
And my reply was explaining to you, that YOU are not the truth. In fact I think you are in gross error. My disagreeing with you is not me "turning aside" and I find it quite amusing that you think it is.
12 Jun 16
Originally posted by divegeesterYour MO is exactly as described.
Feel free to demonstrate anywhere I have attacked you personally.
You accuse me of "poisoning the well" of the forum discussion of "hateful contempt" of other Christians and now of "poisoning" the relationship between other Christians.
You are just pouting because you don't like having your horrible beliefs challenged. I'm a Christian, I don't be ...[text shortened]... e, I'm not going to go to hell for it, everyone thinks it is awful...except you for some reason.
Perhaps seeing it written out somehow makes you realize you don't wish to be seen in that light, but that is the truth, nonetheless.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by divegeester
[b]I don't deny that the scriptures exist.
I claim that you interpret them incorrectly because is suits your wrapped moral mind-map. You have said yourself that the knowledge that those who mistreat you will be burning alive in eternity helps you to forgive them.
It is you who clearly has the "emotional" appeal to the this horrible teaching.
I don't deny that the scriptures exist.
That is good. Do you deny that they have no business in the New Testament cannon ?
Well, let me go through the NT and pick out all the stuff that I too personally wish wasn't there. Who likes everything they read in the Bible ?
I claim that you interpret them incorrectly because is suits your wrapped moral mind-map. You have said yourself that the knowledge that those who mistreat you will be burning alive in eternity helps you to forgive them.
That is allowed of course - that you think the passages are being misinterpreted.
But you don't seem to be able to make that point which i am willing to consider, without the special effects ie. Jesus has nothing else to do forever but gaze into the torture of the followers of Antichrist.
It is you who clearly has the "emotional" appeal to the this horrible teaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. If I adopted the tactic which you are fond of I would extrapolate on you. I might discribe how gleefully happy you are that Satan is running loose unpunished, and his followers too.
"So then rather than chains, you want the Devil to be forever free to continue his thing, and all those following him too. That's the thing that drives your happiness?"
That's probably what I would resort to if I reflected exactly your approach to me.
]
I notice that none of your cronies like Suzianne, for example, are rushing to your defence as they often do when you find yourself under fire for some silliness you have posted.
These are time wasting issues. Accustations of "cronies" and such things are time wasting destractions.
I am very tempted to create one of my monologues and pose the difficult questions MYSELF framed by Universalism or Annhilationist Unitarianism and DEAL with them without the antics and distractions you employ.
And if some poster remains quiet to examine the arguments carefully, what's wrong with that ?
I notice that none of your cronies like Suzianne, for example, are rushing to your defence as they often do when you find yourself under fire for some silliness you have posted.
Sideshows, time wasting snarks, distractions Divegeester. As a matter of fact I expect Suzianne to be more sympathetic towards some form of annhilationism, frankly.