Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I love Steve Gregg, he is a great teacher, there is a forum debate where I debated Conditionalism, and other forms of eschatology with him on his forum for over a year:
What theological dictionary, encyclopedia, or lexicon are you getting that from, I dont have it anywhere... and I own over 50 of the best theological word dictionary reference books.
Perhaps that is the problem. Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was quite simple and summed up in two commandments. based on truth from the Father that stated His will when followed served others while our will served ourselves, the root of all evil..
There is no mention of worms in any of the references to The Greatest commandments: Mark 12:31, MT.12:39, LK.10:27, Lev.19:18, Dt.6:5, Rom.13:9, Ga.5:14, James 2:8... none of these mention 'worms'
Metaphor of what from where? In all the mentions of 'worm or worms' in scripture, there is no such reference to: adversity to the will of the Father' Nor are any of those words, neither do I see such in any word studies reference material.
The entire Bible from front to finish is about the Will of the Father over the will of man. It was Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom. The books are full of references directly and by way of metaphor and parable of the message, put out in many ways in the many ways human may perceive. It is the core theme and all religion should revolve around it.
I'll Chuck that one right back atcha. Scripture says the wages of sin is death, that the evil will dit, that God can destroy both body and sould in hell, and so on. Eternal life is purely the gift of God. Your lot turns it on its head and says that everyone has eternal life by default, and that thoe who sin will not only never die, but will live forever in torment. That not contradicts Scripture in two major ways: it turns eternal life that simply comes with having been born, and may ultimately be a curse from God rather than a gift. You also deny that God's "mercy endures forever", by saying that in fact His hatred and malice endure forever to torment those who haven't accepted our Lord's sacrifice as their own.Just for lagniappe y'all also believe that God's desire that all be saved is simply thwarted by most of His creatures, whom He therefore tortures for all eternity in His infinite and all-consuming anger.
So you cling to the repellent belief that if God behaves that all honest people would call monstrous and inhuman, that we must call it good. This idea sevtves one purpose only: to make it sound as though your doctrine isn't the barbarous falsehood that it is. You tell us that God that God behaves in a manner that worst horrify thateven the worst fiend human. So it's, "Yes, we believe that God behaves iin a whooly monstrous manner,, but we better not say so lest He get us too!"
No problem there at all - if you ignore SCripture as to the nature of God, and turn Him into a cosmic version of Jong-Un KIm; a disgusting tyrant who takes pleasure in human suffering.
As opposed to? What purpose does it serve? Rehabilitation? Nope, it's an eternal sentence without possibility of parole. Some arcane law that God somehow has to follow? Rubbish, there is no such thing. The uplift and enlightenment of the blessed? Fron the enjoyment they'll get out of watching the less fortunate scream in agony? Cui bono? God? If so, we're back to "for its own sake", aren't we?
Yeah, old farmer Chun who who lived in 19th century Joseon (Korea) is a good example. Took care of his family, helped out his neighbors at need, was generally accounted pretty decent old man, and considered Christianity, based on what little he'd heard about it, to be yet another foreign religion with yet another god that some folks believed in and paid it no mind. So God, in HIs Justice, condemned him to be tortured forever for his ghastly sins, whatever they may have been. Thanks be to God!, right? Old man Chun deserved to tortured forever for whatever had stuff he did, because whether it's old man Chun or Hitler (Hitler is the standard for evil, right?), it's eternity in the fire, and we better bloody well say that's a Good Thing unless we want to jon them!
Yes, I'm familiar with the effects of crucifixion. They're well recorded by history. The victims sometimes took days to die, since the Romans didn't have a way to make it last forever.
Explain to me how being crucified would be worse then being burned alive forever. I'm somehow not grokking that in fullness. I'm probably just not religious enough. Or at least callous enough.
Tell old man Chun how righteousnit is. He'll probably be a lot less sanguine about the whole thing. I expect the average poor benighted human has a hard time just what it was he did that made him deserve to be tormented forever.
A life sentence that included continuous torture? I'd like to think I'm a civilized enough human being to leave off the torture and settle for the a few years in the pen and then a lethal injection. I'm not merciful or compassionate enough to advocate for a lifetime of torture.
Because that's what it is simple cruelty that serves no purpose at all except to onclict torture. Again, who benefits from it? God? How? THis is just the remnants of medieval barbarism beng attributed to God. That anyone still embraces such a blasphemous image of God is beyond my understanding, especially when it means having to ignore so much Scripture and "interpret away" so much more. I hesitate to say it's diabolically inspired, but it does, in fact attribute diabolical behavior and motivations to God. You might want to ponder tha. (JK, I know you won't.)
THe problem is your vile unGodly blasphemous doctrine.
Right. Stuff in the Bible that runs contrary with your doctrine must Really Mean Something Else. So death can;t really mean death, because your doctrine depends on everyone living forever. (Nemmind that the Bible says no such thing,)
Because it has to you because your doctrine gives everyone eternal life.
Yeah, y'all just assume it means nothing t all.
Dead folks don't get much respect, do they? Anyway, your doctrine doesn't allow for anyone ever actually dying.
Too thin, matey. This is just a matter of y'all changing Scripture to fit your doctrine, and then posturing about "Y'all just don't believe the Bible!"
Except that part about God "destroying" both body and soul in hell. But I'm sure that Relly Means Something Else, right?
The wages of sin is...what was that again? Oh, I forgot, nobody ever really dies in your religion, do they?
And y'all are altering Scripture to fit your doctrine.
Yeah, it means " really does live forever", right?
Figurative speech, dude. We talk that same way today. Context, mate.
Trying too hard.
The difference being one of your own devising.
Yeah, really means "eternal life in torment", but St. Paul's Greek wsn't up to the task. Your entire doctrine is dependent on turning the language on it's head. Complete rubbish.
