‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

It is clear to me that you, like Nicksten, do not agree at all with this aspect of the nature of your version of God but are in fact....just following orders.

A couple of comments are due at this juncture.

1.) A one hundred percent consistent argument may not be an argument for truth.

2.) An argument that is not one hundred percent consistent logically may be representative of truth still.

3.) One hundred percent agreement on a particular doctrine may not be proof of it being true.

4.) Less than universal agreement on the logic of an argument may not render its general pointing to truth unreliable.

Luke 12:4,5 is a direct teaching about the far reaching hand of God in judgement. It is anything but "nonsensical".

Originally posted by @nicksten
Disingenuous? Seriously? Where what how?

And again. What is it with you?

Originally posted by @fmf

I am not a believer. I am not a proponent of Annihilationism. It is not my ideology. So how can I be seen as regurgitating?

You reached back into your good memory or with the aid of some books, and you regurgitated.

Do you think those particular verses might be useful to a Christian who'd never heard of the concept of Annihilation? If there are some that I missed out, please add them.

Obviously, you regurgitated them because YOU thought they would help.

I use regurgitate the way you used it on me.
Quoting Bible passages, which is what you ridicule.

Don't look now but you just showed off how WELL old FMF can do too, everybody!

Clearly you personally do not find god’s action moral

Clearly, the New Testament teaches that some actions the Christian should reserve for God to do, since God is the only one so qualified.

Let's take judgment for example:

"So then do not judge anything before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts, ... " (1 Cor. 4:5)

There are a lot of passages like this.

The hidden counsels, the secrets of the heart, God is qualified to bring to light. Christians are not always able to judge.

So "You wouldn't burn anybody in judgment. So you condemn God as amoral who would." doesn't work here.

Originally posted by @fmf
And again. What is it with you?

I just don't get you FMF - you make false statements against me - and trying to put a spin on something I'm not getting. You're not easy to understand and I just don't get you. You're not answering questions instead trying to find ways to shift your arguments which is causing frustration and obviously not understanding what you're trying to say, do or mean. I've said so a few times now.

Originally posted by @sonship

You have admitted, in this thread, that you would not personally burn someone alive for rejecting you.

I can't see myself wanting to burn practically anyone.
There is nothing new in this. And certainly not for rejecting me as if I was the embodiment of the universal standard of goodness and rightness.

You have virtually admitted that ...[text shortened]... judge angels. Some will judge other humans apparently. I don't know if this involves executions.

So to summerise then, it is not ok for you to burn someone but it is ok for God to it?

Originally posted by @nicksten
I just don't get you FMF - you make false statements against me - and trying to put a spin on something I'm not getting. You're not easy to understand and I just don't get you. You're not answering questions instead trying to find ways to shift your arguments which is causing frustration and obviously not understanding what you're trying to say, do or mean. I've said so a few times now.

Sonship has declared that it is not morally acceptable for him to burn someone for rejecting him but it is morally acceptable for Jesus to do it. Do you agree with this premise?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Sonship has declared that it is not morally acceptable for him to burn someone for rejecting him but it is morally acceptable for Jesus to do it. Do you agree with this premise?

I think you already asked me this question - my answer is I agree.
The way people will be judged is up to God and not up to me.

Originally posted by @nicksten
I think you already asked me this question - my answer is I agree.
The way people will be judged is up to God and not up to me.

I had not asked you before, but that is irrelevant.

Im not talking about judgment I’m talking about the punishment; I have noticed how you hellfire-torture supporters always conflate the two. I’m talking about the PUNISHMENT fitting the crime, not gods judiciary judgment.

It is interesting how you, sonship (and Becker I believe) hold the punishment of burning someone alive for eternity, forever and ever, to be amoral, and yet your version of God god holds it to be moral. In fact sonship calls it “perfect justice”.

It’s quite revolting actually.

Originally posted by @divegeester
So to summerise then, it is not ok for you to burn someone but it is ok for God to it?

Would you care to explain why it wouldn’t be ok for God to do as He saw fit? And while you’re at it throw in why the rules that apply to the creation also have to apply to the creator.

Originally posted by @nicksten
No why would we want to be each other? dj2becker is just as awesome as I am.

We just believe in the very same thing 😉 well - at least I believe so dj2becker?

I’m sure dj2becker will be along shortly to either confirm or deny whether he agrees with you or not...

Originally posted by @divegeester
I had not asked you before, but that is irrelevant.

Im not talking about judgment I’m talking about the punishment; I have noticed how you hellfire-torture supporters always conflate the two. I’m talking about the PUNISHMENT fitting the crime, not gods judiciary judgment.

It is interesting how you, sonship (and Becker I believe) hold the punishm ...[text shortened]... ds it to be moral. In fact sonship calls it “perfect justice”.

It’s quite revolting actually.

The fact that the man is hesitant to tell you clearly what he believes but instead provides a link with detailed explanation supporting eternal torment, say clearly what he secretly believes.

Originally posted by @rajk999
The fact that the man is hesitant to tell you clearly what he believes but instead provides a link with detailed explanation supporting eternal torment, say clearly what he secretly believes.

I find the frivolity from those posters who claim to believe that torturing people for eternity is morally acceptable to be quite revolting.

Originally posted by @rajk999
The fact that the man is hesitant to tell you clearly what he believes but instead provides a link with detailed explanation supporting eternal torment, say clearly what he secretly believes.

Hesitant to WHAT?!
Have I not given my answers???? And if not WHERE didn't I??

Originally posted by @nicksten
Hesitant to WHAT?!
Have I not given my answers???? And if not WHERE didn't I??

Not to my questions...


(I put it down to atheist anxiety).