Annihilationism

[aiki]

"But, put the fire in a room and see if it dispels the darkness. The point is that "hell" and outer darkness are not connect."

I just don't see that as true. I have had a towering fire going at night but the darkness of the night is not dispelled. Even with the light of the fire, it is still unmistakably night - and dark.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

I tell you what, I'll answer this query if you answer all my previous questions that you've avoided.

What questions have I avoided? Please be specific.

 

[expos4ever]

So you actually admit to being manipulative?

Indeed. I am "manipulating" in the sense of forcing you to deal with the incoherence of your position.

 

[expos4ever]

Those kind of comments don't really help because they only come across as condescending and self-righteous so if you want to elevate the level of debate here then stop making supercilious statements. I have no problem reciprocating in kind, no matter what the kind is.

Do you want me to cull out and paste all your patronizing statements, including those where you claim I don't know the Bible simply because I do not agree with you? Happy to do so.

 

[StanJ]

What questions have I avoided? Please be specific.

If you paid attention and stopped trying to manipulate everybody you would know what they were. Look back, they're all there.

 

[StanJ]

Indeed. I am "manipulating" in the sense of forcing you to deal with the incoherence of your position.

Consider me unmanipulated and move on or I will report you for harassment.

 

[StanJ]

Do you want me to cull out and paste all your patronizing statements, including those where you claim I don't know the Bible simply because I do not agree with you? Happy to do so.

Well if you can do that then you can look at all the questions I ask you that you haven't answered, and answer them.

 

[StanJ]

http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/af/annix.php

 

[expos4ever]

Well David Malick would be one. You can read the following out of the Expositors Bible Commentary;
5-11 The apostle speaks plainly in order to startle Jews out of their lethargy of self-deception.

Indeed, and he does so by describing a universal judgment of all humanity!

Nowhere in the quote does Malick say that the judgment is only for Jews. Yes, Paul is addressing the Jew and perhaps emphasizing the judgment of the Jew, but that is not the same thing as saying the judgment is limited to the Jew!

 

[expos4ever]

http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/af/annix.php

Gish gallop - flood your opponent with material to effectively make it impossible for him to respond.

Here is what has happened. I have asked you a single, clear question that you have repeatedly refused to answer. You then insist that I deal with two lengthy posts as a pre-condition to answering your questions. I did a search; between the two links, there are almost 70 questions!

Your tactics are juvenile - faced with a single clear question, you barrage me with 70 questions and insist that I answer them as a pre-condition to answering a single question I initially posed to you.

Have you no shame?

 

[expos4ever]

The following is from Matthew Henry... you may have heard of him.
This is especially applicable to the Jews, who had singular tokens of the divine favour. Means are mercies, and the more light we sin against the more love we sin against. Low and mean thoughts of the divine goodness are at the bottom of a great deal of sin. There is in every wilful sin an interpretative contempt of the goodness of God; it is spurning at his bowels, particularly the goodness of his patience, his forbearance and long-suffering, taking occasion thence to be so much the more bold in sin.

There is nothing in the above quote that indicates that the Romans 2 judgement is about Israel to the exclusion of the Gentile.

 

[expos4ever]

I tell you what, I'll answer this query if you answer all my previous questions that you've avoided.

I am curious as to how you rationalize your refusal to answer a simple, single question to yourself. Do you think you are above the unwritten rules of honest debate where clear, well-formed questions deserve an answer?

 

[StanJ]

Indeed, and he does so by describing a universal judgment of all humanity!
Nowhere in the quote does Malick say that the judgment is only for Jews. Yes, Paul is addressing the Jew and perhaps emphasizing the judgment of the Jew, but that is not the same thing as saying the judgment is limited to the Jew!

That wasn't Malick I quoted, I said Malick does, you'll have to look him up, which you probably won't do.
You really don't pay attention even when I make my posts short. It really is becoming increasingly difficult to get anywhere with you. But that's not my problem it's yours. Never actually ever said that the judgment is limited to the Jews I said Paul and that verse was addressing the Jews and that was the context. You seem to have a real problem with common English vernacular.

 

[expos4ever]

Consider me unmanipulated and move on or I will report you for harassment.

Go nuts - report away. I cannot possibly imagine how an impartial moderator will not see that you are the one who is manipulating the entire debate here:

1. You claim to have answered my question when you have not.
2. You repeatedly evade clear questions.
3. You patronize others like its a national sport.

 

[StanJ]

There is nothing in the above quote that indicates that the Romans 2 judgement is about Israel to the exclusion of the Gentile.

Never said it was to the exclusion of the Gentile but again you appear to have a problem with comprehending what I do say. I've been addressing the context not the content. you continually use Rom 2 out of context and I was trying to make you see the context, but apparently that's not possible.

 

[expos4ever]

That wasn't Malick I quoted, I said Malick does, you'll have to look him up, which you probably won't do.

And, yes, number 4 - you try to get others to do your own homework.

Never actually ever said that the judgment is limited to the Jews I said Paul and that verse was addressing the Jews and that was the context.

False. Here is what you posted:

Paul is referring to the Judgment of Israel in Romans 2 not the judgement or punishment of individuals.

 

[StanJ]

Go nuts - report away. I cannot possibly imagine how an impartial moderator will not see that you are the one who is manipulating the entire debate here:

1. You claim to have answered my question when you have not.
2. You repeatedly evade clear questions.
3. You patronize others like its a national sport.

Done.

 

[StanJ]

And, yes, number 4 - you try to get others to do your own homework.
False. Here is what you posted:

Well I'm sure not going to do your homework for you and what I said was in the context of what you were referring to which was verse 5. Again lack of comprehension of common English vernacular is your basic problem.

 

[expos4ever]

Never said it was to the exclusion of the Gentile

You indeed effectively said this when you posted:

Paul is referring to the Judgment of Israel in Romans 2 not the judgement or punishment of individuals.

But either way, you are clearly mistaken in your assertion that the punishment of individuals is not the topic. Paul could not possibly be more clear about this:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil

 

[StanJ]

You indeed effectively said this when you posted:

Again another false accusation that abound plentifully here apparently.

But either way, you are clearly mistaken in your assertion that the punishment of individuals is not the topic. Paul could not possibly be more clear about this:
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil

That's right, even though you taking it out of context. Again no sense in continuing to reiterate something you don't understand or won't accept.