- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIn the final words of Revelation 21:8 the head of the list of the lost is the "cowardly" and "unbelieving".
The question is a fair one.
I think [b]1 Timothy 5:8 is about disgracing the Christian testimony before the world. That is being such a bad example that the faith is brought into disrepute before men.
In 3:7 Paul speaks of a good testimony to those who are "outside", meaning outside the household of community of faith.
Concern ...[text shortened]... lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev. 21:8) [/b] [/quote][/b]
Surely that list is in ascending order?!
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Feb 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukePerhaps it is in order of priority or severity of offense.
In the final words of [b] Revelation 21:8 the head of the list of the lost is the "cowardly" and "unbelieving".
Surely that list is in ascending order?!
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”[/b]
No doubt you will mention that "dogs" head the list in Revelation 22:15 ?
"Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the fornicators and the murderers etc. etc."
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipDogs are evil people so of course they head the list. Those allowed to enter the New Jerusalem are those who follow the commandments of Christ... take note of that, as it is not a doctrine that you preach.
Perhaps it is in order of priority or severity of offense.
No doubt you will mention that "dogs" head the list in [b]Revelation 22:15 ?
"Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the fornicators and the murderers etc. etc."[/b]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipBear in mind sir, you gave me grief when I said the same about becker.
I said that I would no longer dignify Rajk999's comments with either reading them or commenting on them.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI did ?
Bear in mind sir, you gave me grief when I said the same about becker.
Let me see it.
You may get an apology.
This better be good.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIt was recent. Do you honestly not remember?!
I did ?
Let me see it.
You may get an apology.
This better be good.
Go dig in your own forum history.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
It was recent. Do you honestly not remember?!
Go dig in your own forum history.
It was recent. Do you honestly not remember?!
I honestly do not recall.
Show me.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipSeriously sonship, i'm not going to do that anymore. Twice in the last 6 months, I dutifully did as you requested and both times retrieved the post you had apparently forgotten you had made. Such a retrieval is a nightmare due to the length of your average post. (I think you need to start remembering your own comments a little better and not view this as the task of other forum posters).It was recent. Do you honestly not remember?!
I honestly do not recall.
Show me.
If it helps, you went on to post that Dive and myself had conspired to say publically we would no longer be responding to becker. - Any bells ringing?
07 Feb 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfUh huh.
I often cut the same old same old diatribe about my supposed personal faults and just leave the bit that's on topic if there is any. I have never removed any words from a sentence of yours to change the content or meaning of the sentence.
Cut out all the stuff you don't like, you mean.
As if by ignoring it, it goes away.
Perhaps now I should be removing the weasel words you use in every reply to me which change the entirety of what I've said into however you want to represent me and shift what I've said into the realm of "unimportant". You know, because that's exactly what your words often are, the "same old same old" off-topic "diatribe".
Only you dribble it out, adverb by adjective, in small enough doses that it gets past people's sensors.