-
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.
The Lake Of Fire
- Thread starter FineLinen
- Start date
- Status
Howdy Major: it is always a delight seeing you (even in virtual terms).
You are possibly aware that the theme of this link burns like a fire in my old broken bones?
God & us are made for each other.
"The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord."-- Prov. 20:27
THE essential connection between the life of God and the life of man is the great truth of the world; and that is the truth which Solomon sets forth in the striking words which I have chosen for my text this morning.
The picture which the words suggest is very simple.
An unlighted candle is standing in the darkness and some one comes to light it. A blazing bit of paper holds the fire at first, but it is vague and fitful. It flares and wavers and at any moment may go out.
But the vague, uncertain, flaring blaze touches the candle, and the candle catches fire and at once you have a steady flame. It burns straight and clear and constant. The candle gives the fire a manifestation-point for all the room which is illuminated by it. The candle is glorified by the fire and the fire is manifested by the candle.
The two bear witness that they were made for one another by the way in which they fulfil each other's life.
That fulfilment comes by the way in which the inferior substance renders obedience to its superior. The candle obeys the fire. The docile wax acknowledges that the subtle flame is its master and it yields to his power. -Philips Brooks-
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Howdy Major: it is always a delight seeing you (even in virtual terms).
You are possibly aware that the theme of this link burns like a fire in my old broken bones?
God & us are made for each other.
"The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord."-- Prov. 20:27
THE essential connection between the life of God and the life of man is the great truth of the world; and that is the truth which Solomon sets forth in the striking words which I have chosen for my text this morning.
The picture which the words suggest is very simple.
An unlighted candle is standing in the darkness and some one comes to light it. A blazing bit of paper holds the fire at first, but it is vague and fitful. It flares and wavers and at any moment may go out.
But the vague, uncertain, flaring blaze touches the candle, and the candle catches fire and at once you have a steady flame. It burns straight and clear and constant. The candle gives the fire a manifestation-point for all the room which is illuminated by it. The candle is glorified by the fire and the fire is manifested by the candle.
The two bear witness that they were made for one another by the way in which they fulfil each other's life.
That fulfilment comes by the way in which the inferior substance renders obedience to its superior. The candle obeys the fire. The docile wax acknowledges that the subtle flame is its master and it yields to his power. -Philips Brooks-
Always a joy FL.
I actually see that Scripture in Proverbs mush as you do.
IMO...."the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord."
Did you notice that it is called the candle/lamp OF Jehovah and NOT the LIGHT of Jehovah?
The spirit of man is only the lamp, the vessal that holds the light. Man is just a lamp until we are filled by the Holy Spirit of God....we do not become a light.....but we reflect light.
Remember the 10 virgins? Five were wise and five were foolish. They were just lamps and without the oil they could not reflect light.
Upvote
0
The virgins are not harlots, they are clean and pure. Foolish, but foolish virgins.
This is in complete harmony with the message to the seven churches in the Revelation "you do not know that in My sight you are blind and poor and naked.."
Upvote
0
A ghastly horrid notion !
And, as I say, I do in fact—and quite intentionally—use very strong language about certain teachings I find abominable.
I will not feign contrition on that score. Nor should I. My characterizations of the teaching of eternal conscious torment are perfectly apt and fair, and they are directed as much at me as at any other Christian.
I know how coarsened our consciences can become when trying to justify to ourselves what we think is required of us by faith and tradition. But, frankly, the burden of proof—and of a certain seemly reticence—falls quite on the other side of the room in this debate.
After all, why should anyone feel the need to apologize for denouncing an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle, one whose principal use down the centuries has arguably been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children?
Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse?
The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal dereliction, and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of eternal agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice?
Or the person who observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved?
Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them?
And which has a better right to moral indignation at what the other has said?
And, really, don’t these questions answer themselves?
A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.
And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.
It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible.
And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about it at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild. -David B. Hart-
And, as I say, I do in fact—and quite intentionally—use very strong language about certain teachings I find abominable.
I will not feign contrition on that score. Nor should I. My characterizations of the teaching of eternal conscious torment are perfectly apt and fair, and they are directed as much at me as at any other Christian.
I know how coarsened our consciences can become when trying to justify to ourselves what we think is required of us by faith and tradition. But, frankly, the burden of proof—and of a certain seemly reticence—falls quite on the other side of the room in this debate.
After all, why should anyone feel the need to apologize for denouncing an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle, one whose principal use down the centuries has arguably been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children?
Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse?
The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal dereliction, and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of eternal agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice?
Or the person who observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved?
Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them?
And which has a better right to moral indignation at what the other has said?
And, really, don’t these questions answer themselves?
A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.
And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.
It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible.
And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about it at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild. -David B. Hart-
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,762
- 1,269
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
A ghastly horrid notion !
And, as I say, I do in fact—and quite intentionally—use very strong language about certain teachings I find abominable.
I will not feign contrition on that score. Nor should I. My characterizations of the teaching of eternal conscious torment are perfectly apt and fair, and they are directed as much at me as at any other Christian.
I know how coarsened our consciences can become when trying to justify to ourselves what we think is required of us by faith and tradition. But, frankly, the burden of proof—and of a certain seemly reticence—falls quite on the other side of the room in this debate.
After all, why should anyone feel the need to apologize for denouncing an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle, one whose principal use down the centuries has arguably been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children?
Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse?
The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal dereliction, and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of eternal agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice?
Or the person who observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved?
Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them?
And which has a better right to moral indignation at what the other has said?
And, really, don’t these questions answer themselves?
A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.
And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.
It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible.
And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about it at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild. -David B. Hart-
Philosophy, sentimentalism and vain deceit do not a Biblical Doctrine make!
THE revealed Word of God as written makes for what God has to declare about eternal destinies, NO MATTER HOW HORRID, GHASTLY OR PERVERSE THEY MAY SEEM TO YOUR SENSIBILITIES!
Upvote
0
Dear sunshine: A new Day is breaking in excelling glory. It exceeds all days we have encountered in our wee journey back into Him. The stars we once beheld as mere pinpricks of light, are manifesting multitude additional stars and galaxies flowing from them!
What was once "limited" in scope is replaced with four letters, " M O R E."
His exceedingly abundantly more of all we can ask (or think).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Would you please post where I said the 10 virgins were harlots?????
Then as I think about what YOU added to what I said, I do not remember the Bible saying that they were CLEAN and PURE.
There were virgins, but they may have needed a bath...ya think?
The 10 virgins point is that we all need to be ready for the Lord's return for when ye think not, the Son of Man cometh!
AGAIN I aske all you UR believers...……...
Now you post the Scriptures which tell us that "ALL" of those individuals will accept Christ and be saved and then removed from the Lake of Fire" and delivered to Heaven with God.
That is exactly what all of you have been saying. NOW PROVE IT!
There has been more than enough words, and comments and this and that. Just post the Scriptures that validate your opinion and we can put all of this to bed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE UR believers will answer this question...….
Now you post the Scriptures which tell us that "ALL" of those individuals will accept Christ and be saved and then removed from the Lake of Fire" and delivered to Heaven with God.
That is exactly what all of you have been saying. NOW PROVE IT!
There has been more than enough words, and comments and this and that. Just post the Scriptures that validate your opinion and we can put all of this to bed.
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Now you post the Scriptures which tell us that "ALL" of those individuals will accept Christ and be saved and then removed from the Lake of Fire" and delivered to Heaven with God.
That is exactly what all of you have been saying. NOW PROVE IT!
There has been more than enough words, and comments and this and that. Just post the Scriptures that validate your opinion and we can put all of this to bed.
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Agree!
I do not like the facts of the flood in Genesis 6. Can we change it or remove it from the Scriptures because it is scary and depressing????
Upvote
0
Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
A ghastly horrid notion !
And, as I say, I do in fact—and quite intentionally—use very strong language about certain teachings I find abominable.
I will not feign contrition on that score. Nor should I. My characterizations of the teaching of eternal conscious torment are perfectly apt and fair, and they are directed as much at me as at any other Christian.
I know how coarsened our consciences can become when trying to justify to ourselves what we think is required of us by faith and tradition. But, frankly, the burden of proof—and of a certain seemly reticence—falls quite on the other side of the room in this debate.
After all, why should anyone feel the need to apologize for denouncing an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle, one whose principal use down the centuries has arguably been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children?
Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse?
The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal dereliction, and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of eternal agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice?
Or the person who observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved?
Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them?
And which has a better right to moral indignation at what the other has said?
And, really, don’t these questions answer themselves?
A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.
And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.
It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible.
And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about it at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild. -David B. Hart-
Lots of talk, thinking and philosophy. Now how about answering the question posed to ALL UR believers......
Now you post the Scriptures which tell us that "ALL" of those individuals will accept Christ and be saved and then removed from the Lake of Fire" and delivered to Heaven with God.
That is exactly what all of you have been saying. NOW PROVE IT!
There has been more than enough words, and comments and this and that. Just post the Scriptures that validate your opinion and we can put all of this to bed.
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,762
- 1,269
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Dear moonbeam:
Despite all the wonderful sounding emotion laden words you espouse, they are still not Scripture and will not stand before the holy loving God you misrepresent!
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,762
- 1,269
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Many believers have by simply calling ti a myth or parable. They think that "science" falsely so called has proven there was no global flood!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
