‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @sonship
No, being reconciled to God is the issue.

You are hunting for a technicality or logical anomaly which makes it not important to not be reconciled to God. Such a thing does not exist.

And you are a fool to trust in your ability to concoct one.

You've got it wrong. I lack belief in this notion of having to be "reconciled" with this god figure that you just so happen to believe in. This is not a technicality or an anomaly. I simply don't believe the stuff you believe.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
There is no rejection of its existence without contemplation of its existence.

There is nothing left at that point but acceptance (His work as replacement of your work) or rejection (standing before God the quintessential self-made man).

I get what it is that you believe. But I have no reason to believe there is any "gift". The notion that there is a "gift" of "salvation" that I am "rejecting" is something that appeals to your imagination not mine. I also understand that you believe I will be sent to "hell" for this lack of belief. This supposed 'threat' by the god figure you believe in doesn't - to my mind, anyway - add any traction or credibility to your beliefs.

Originally posted by @sonship
It seems often the case to me, that those who don't believe Jesus is God also don't understand the enormity of the crime of rejecting Him.

Feel free to go on and on about it then. But it's as if you just don't understand what 'not believing' something actually entails. You perhaps should spend more time debating and discussing things with non-believers rather than thinking that simply lecturing them affects the reality of what they do and don't believe.

Originally posted by @fmf
I get what it is that you believe. But I have no reason to believe there is any "gift". The notion that there is a "gift" of "salvation" that I am "rejecting" is something that appeals to your imagination not mine. I also understand that you believe I will be sent to "hell" for this lack of belief. This supposed 'threat' by the god figure you believe in doesn't - to my mind, anyway - add any traction or credibility to your beliefs.

You have mistaken notion as to what constitutes belief.
Once you get that cleared up, you'll be able to have an intelligent conversation on the topic.

Originally posted by @sonship
Now people have to decide whether or not they regard Jesus Christ Who spoke these things to the world ... if He was a crackpot.

If He doesn't sound like or act like a biggest history's crackpot, then His words are to be taken seriously.

I am very familiar with the superstitious cult of personality that was carefully constructed around Jesus and which broke away from Judaism. I have never described those who did this as "crackpots". I have never called subscribers to it "crackpots". I have never called you a "crackpot". I have never used the word "crackpot" here. This is a word you have introduced, not me.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You have mistaken notion as to what constitutes belief.
Once you get that cleared up, you'll be able to have an intelligent conversation on the topic.

I know that I do not believe the same things as you believe. Do you understand and accept that as being true?

Originally posted by @fmf
I know that I do not believe the same things as you believe. Do you understand and accept that as being true?

I refuse to quibble with you over terms you already accept as true.

Be well.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I refuse to quibble with you over terms you already accept as true.

Be well.

Well, no one asked you to quibble. But if you're now going to stop, that's probably a good thing.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well, that only leaves 'lack of belief' as a reason to be sent to "hell" which substantiates the point that divegeester was making in his OP.

Or Freaky could just be wrong. But that wouldn't fit your agenda.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Or Freaky could just be wrong. But that wouldn't fit your agenda.

If you think FreakyKBH's wrong, say so. If you think he's right, say so. My "agenda" is debate and discussion. It ought to be yours too.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Why would you ever fear for someone else's perspective on any issue?

I fear that if you think that being right or wrong on these issues will make the difference between eternal salvation and eternal suffering, for you, this may cause you great turmoil in the here and now.

It does seem to be of such importance to you. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
No one goes to hell for their sin as sin has been completely removed from the situation.

Reply by @divegeester
Are you therefore claiming that there is going to be no one (human beings at least) in hell? If so then we are in agreement.

Bump for FKBH.
I’m still not clear on what your position is on he’ll and eternal suffering, as the comment I quoted in this post seems to imply that you don’t believe in it.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
God made something that runs on God.
Put something besides God in it, it ceases to run as designed.
Whether articulated thusly or not, those who choose to run on His are simply making a decision on what will fuel them.
A conscious decision against that operational status results in the same thing for everyone so inclined.

I'm sure that's a very clever analogy, but it doesn't really address the meat of the issue. (A polite way of saying you have fudged the topic under discussion).

The divine righteousness that will see Sonship saved is intrinsically infected by the eternal suffering of other poor souls, as it is this very same righteousness that sees them condemned to the fires of hell. (One can not exist without the other). On this issue a child could immediately realise that there is nothing righteous about a deity who tortures people for all eternity. Only a misguided adult who has over studied the topic and lost all grip on reality could think otherwise.

Originally posted by @js357
I fear that if you think that being right or wrong on these issues will make the difference between eternal salvation and eternal suffering, for you, this may cause you great turmoil in the here and now.

It does seem to be of such importance to you. Am I wrong?

Maybe it's just me, but I find it bizarre to think a person could/would be fearful how another person views anything.

Nonetheless, from every indication I have seen in the Scriptures, the only issue in salvation is acceptance or rejection of The Gift, i.e., rejecting one's own work and replacing it with the work done by the Christ on the cross.
This is God's offer: My work for your work.

Although I consider it a moral failing and a tragic condition on an epic scale for there to be such an extreme dearth of biblical knowledge/competency, God--- in His foresight and wisdom--- knew the depravity of man's conquest of ignorance and made certain not to base His plan on such weakness.
He made salvation as simple as the most basic of human functions: eating.

There are some who insist a person's doctrine be pure to achieve salvation and--- while that is certainly an excellent goal--- nothing in the Scripture indicates anything other than a person's decision regarding the work done on the cross by the Christ as the sole condition of salvation.

What is lost on some: everyone who receives physical life has their name written in the Book of Lives.
It is only by playing the game and consciously refusing the gift whereby a person can have their name removed from that book and placed into the Book of Records instead.
While the records are based on action, the only way to get into that ledger is to make a conscious decision to reject one's birthright.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Bump for FKBH.
I’m still not clear on what your position is on he’ll and eternal suffering, as the comment I quoted in this post seems to imply that you don’t believe in it.

Hell is existence without God, in the light of God's existence, i.e., knowledge that God exists and you are without Him.
Hell proves God gave man an inviolable free will.
Without hell, there is no point to any decision we make accordingly.