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 feel quite sure that Hmm is quite capable of responding to my posts on his own.
Churlish? Please show me where anything I posted is "rude in a mean-spirited and surly way."
I was not speaking about my posts to others but my posts addressed to you.I'm fulfilling your request:
I was not speaking about my posts to others but my posts addressed to you.
I feel quite sure that Hmm is quite capable of responding to my posts on his own.
Kinda plays hob with the normal meanings of words, that, doesn't it?The main flaw of this argument is assuming that there is something wrong/bad/evil with Hell. Hell is actually right/good/holy. God is good, righteous, and holy, thus everything that God creates is good, therefor Hell is good too.
God is love and Hell's loving purpose is to torment the enemies of God.
Rejecting the God-created Hell puts you on the opposite of good.
"...that he might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:32
"...that God may be all in all." First Corinthians 15:28, KJV
If it was a done deal Paul would not have used the subjunctive mood the mood of possibility and pontentiality he would have used the active indicative mood "that He shall have mercy" "God shall be all in all."
"...that he might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:32
"...that God may be all in all." First Corinthians 15:28, KJV
If it was a done deal Paul would not have used the subjunctive mood the mood of possibility and potentiality he would have used the active indicative mood "that He shall have mercy" "God shall be all in all."
I think that Jesus was doing the same thing when he chided his listeners for calling themselves good when only God is good. The world is always sure of its goodness. God thinks otherwise.Kinda plays hob with the normal meanings of words, that, doesn't it?
"...that God may be all in all." First Corinthians 15:28, KJV
If it was a done deal Paul would not have used the subjunctive mood the mood of possibility and pontentiality he would have used the active indicative mood "that He shall have mercy" "God shall be all in all."
Sounds like a Reformed bias. At the end of each day of creation God said it was good. Did he change his mind?The world is always sure of its goodness. God thinks otherwise.
Isn't it the first point in Calvinism? (TULIP) Total Depravity.Exactly.
Isn't it the first point in Calvinism? (TULIP) Total Depravity.
Nice to know that Father God views his children as worthless. - lol
I think it is parody time again.Yes, to come to such a conclusion requires a very convoluted, inverted even, and therefore man-made view of God. Again, this is all part of the Augustinan legacy, and certainly no more than that.
I think it is parody time again.
(parody)
Human: Hello Father God, how are you today?
God: I'm not talking to you.
Human: How come?
God: Isn't it obvious? You are totally depraved.
Human: But you created me this way, right?
God: Yes, that is correct.
Human: If you created me this way, why can't you accept me as I am?
God: That's a very good question. Let me give that some thought.
"When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all."
1 Corinthians 15:28
Without any deep study into that scripture, I have always understood it to mean that God the Father had turned all authority over to the God the Son (Jesus Christ), but that at the end of all things, Jesus (God the Son) would return all authority back to God the Father. In that way everything, all creation, would be back under the Father's authority and possession. Not sure if that is helpful, or not.I feel that dealing with DA objections to this verse has been a very negative experience because its been about trying to counteract a very miserable message that God won't be 'all in all' despite what the verse clearly says but will instead be only 'all in some', presumably those who are able to cite their sources adequately.
Without any deep study into that scripture, I have always understood it to mean that God the Father had turned all authority over to the God the Son (Jesus Christ), but that at the end of all things, Jesus (God the Son) would return all authority back to God the Father. In that way everything, all creation, would be back under the Father's authority and possession. Not sure if that is helpful, or not.
Hmm said: ↑
"When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all."
1 Corinthians 15:28
The context of the whole passage (and chapter) really proves it to be true.That's exactly how I read it too. It really is Good News! We won't be ourselves or have any of our loved ones undergoing ECT.
Secuse me, but isn't the idea that we're all eaten up with sin and desperately in need of saving the view of pretty much every Christian sect ever? What am I missing here?I think it is parody time again.
(parody)
Human: Hello Father God, how are you today?
God: I'm not talking to you.
Human: How come?
God: Isn't it obvious? You are totally depraved.
Human: But you created me this way, right?
God: Yes, that is correct.
Human: If you created me this way, why can't you accept me as I am?
God: That's a very good question. Let me give that some thought.
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?