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.
"Eternal punishment" can mean that the result of the punishment (death) is eternal, but the method used for the punishment (fire) is temporary. In this sense I believe in eternal punishment.So you don't believe in the myth of Hell as a place if eternal punishment?
I realize that; I presented it the way I did just by way of analogy, not in order to suggest it was the Official Church Stance on full-immersion baptism.But a baptism symbolizes a "washing away of" sin. So "one huge, long baptism" of mankind would be a "washing away of" sinful men and women (imo), just as it was in Noah's flood.
"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" - 1 Peter 3:20-21.
Y'know Raze, people wouldn't have to assume what you mean if you actually just -said- what you mean. Vagueness is not a successful debate tactic.
You said you don't believe in infinite punishment, so I asked you if you belive Hell is eternal. How can you not follow the connection between the two?
YouTube - Charles Barkley - "That's turrible" The SongThis is a terrible excuse for assumption. Neither will I be controlled by your demand to write a book answering everything about existence in detail. Even if I could. The topic is things that are not clear, and language does not convey the subject matter well at all. And I'm not about to engage in debate. So ... your comment here seems pretty bankrupt, sorry to say.
there's a verse that says He deliberately bound everyone into disobedience for the purpose of having mercy on (that very same) everyone.
An analogy might be the pastor (representing God in this case) who deliberately submerges a baptizee (representing mankind in this case) under the water (sin in this case) for the purpose of bringing him back up out of it again (mercy in this case). Mainstream churchdom's stance on partial salvation would essentially have the pastor holding the person under the water till they drowned, never pulling them back up out of it again (a scenario I disagree with quite strongly).
So, in a way, I see the entire history of man from start to finish as one huge, long (for those of us still in the dimension of time & space) baptism. No one is going to be drowned; God will pull them all back up out of the water into new life (imo).
You'll get lots of different answers from christians. Some might say (oasis) that you will not be saved unless you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour, regardless of your "works" as they often like to say. Others will say that they believe good people go to heaven, and may not say you definitely need Jesus to do so. Some christians will say its not their place to judge so they can't be sure. So I am afraid your question may not get you anywhere, I think a more important one to ask is why there is so much diversion among Christians on these fundamental issues when they get all their knowledge from the same book.
Is there something that was not created by God? If "no", then everything in anyone is from God and therefore good. If "yes", then who is the creator?
Have you never thought that some items from the bible that people tend to have their own interpretation of that varies from group to group is stuff that really does not matter HOW you interpret it?
I do not claim to have a complete understanding of everything. I could not ever. There are some things we just don't know. I could interpret the bible as saying athiests are definitely not going to heaven, but it really wouldn't matter WHAT I interpret it as. As a person that follows the bible, I do all that I can to be a good person that follows the rules within it. The interpretation of whether or not athiests can go to heaven really has zero effect on my life and my trust in the bible. It's a need-to-know, and I don't need-to-know.
Why get so hung up on these things? It is not at all a "point" in the favor of athiesm. It just does not matter that people have different interpretations. Definitely missing the big picture.
This is a terrible excuse for assumption. Neither will I be controlled by your demand to write a book answering everything about existence in detail. Even if I could. The topic is things that are not clear, and language does not convey the subject matter well at all. And I'm not about to engage in debate. So ... your comment here seems pretty bankrupt, sorry to say.
I do agree with you that religion is characteristically divergent.Have you never thought that some items from the bible that people tend to have their own interpretation of that varies from group to group is stuff that really does not matter HOW you interpret it?
I do not claim to have a complete understanding of everything. I could not ever. There are some things we just don't know. I could interpret the bible as saying athiests are definitely not going to heaven, but it really wouldn't matter WHAT I interpret it as. As a person that follows the bible, I do all that I can to be a good person that follows the rules within it. The interpretation of whether or not athiests can go to heaven really has zero effect on my life and my trust in the bible. It's a need-to-know, and I don't need-to-know.
Why get so hung up on these things? It is not at all a "point" in the favor of athiesm. It just does not matter that people have different interpretations. Definitely missing the big picture.
When a person can't understand what you are saying, they are going to make an assumption based on what they could figure out.
If the way you depict the exchange were accurate, we'd have no problem. Instead, people (not saying you) project their assumptions, which are things I've already disagreed with. I find that inherently dishonest!
What you're observing is that I lurk and point out things that misrepresent what I'm knowledgeable about. Please don't mistake that for being able to transfer my experience to a whole online community, ok?
I really dislike the concept of Hell. I am really glad I don't have it in my belief system.
I thought Gehenna was where they burned trash on the outskirts of Jerusalem.actually, Hell is quite prominent in early Judaism. Have you read Josepheus's discourse on Hades to the Greeks?
Modern Judaism tried to stomp out the issue of Gehenna/hell because of its affinity with christianity. But throughout most early Jewish tradition the issue of Gehenna was quite real. You find it all over earlier Jewish literature like the Midrash, Talmud, Sefer Aggadah, and Louis Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews", which is a compendium of OT biblical tradition.
I thought Gehenna was where they burned trash on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
actually, Hell is quite prominent in early Judaism. Have you read Josepheus's discourse on Hades to the Greeks?
Modern Judaism tried to stomp out the issue of Gehenna/hell because of its affinity with christianity. But throughout most early Jewish tradition the issue of Gehenna was quite real. You find it all over earlier Jewish literature like the Midrash, Talmud, Sefer Aggadah, and Louis Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews", which is a compendium of OT biblical tradition.
IMO, this does fairly describe your exchanges. It's not a case of people necesarrily projecting assumptions, as it is actually trying to understand what it is you're saying. I don't think people are trying to misrepresent what you're saying, so much as they aren't sure what you're trying to say. And when you come up against someone with a valid counterpoint, you resort to condescending ad hom, and red herring. Most of us find this inherently dishonest.
If you're truly interested in promoting a discussion, you may want to take this to heart.
I'm not sure if I should say think you?
I do need to point out that a counterpoint with even a shred of validity, I address with excruciating thoroughness and patience.
What you see as red herring is comparing things you don't recognize as comparable,
and you choose not to look for the connection.
What you see as ad hom
is when I compare the error to a human trait, rather than a thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?