Why an eternal hell?

[dies-l]

well then if you are sad, does that mean that your viewpoint is based on an emotionalistic appeal? No. It just means you are sad.

Ok.

 

[tankerG]

Yes, sin...which ultimately translates to coveting the throne of God, going after it willfully and seeking to dethrone and destroy the creator of the universe. If the destruction of the source of all life and all things good and the replacement of Him with something which cannot even compare (a created being) is not worthy of eternal punishment, then what is? It is an eternal crime, with eternal consequences...therefore warranting an eternal sentence.

Which pretty much sums up what Lucifer did and the reason for the creation of the eternal Lake of Fire!

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok.

what I was getting at is that you are stating an entire appeal is emotional because someone happens to be passioned for a moment during a dialogue. It's not the appeal that is emotional it is the person, and only for a moment. Don't you get it? You are accusing DB of emotionalism when it's really just a conversation.

 

[dollarsbill]

Not a personal attack at all, brother. I'm sorry that you took it that way.

Oh really?

"You seem to have a hurt that is too profound for you to see the depth of God's love at this point."

I suspect that is a violation of CF rules.

 

[Blessedj01]

Where is the violation and why is it so important that we get hung up on it?

 

[dies-l]

Oh really?

"You seem to have a hurt that is too profound for you to see the depth of God's love at this point."

I suspect that is a violation of CF rules.

I am sorry that you took it as an offense. It was never intended that way. Unfortunately, the internet is not the best means of communication. I have deleted the offending posts, brother.

 

[dies-l]

what I was getting at is that you are stating an entire appeal is emotional because someone happens to be passioned for a moment during a dialogue. It's not the appeal that is emotional it is the person, and only for a moment. Don't you get it? You are accusing DB of emotionalism when it's really just a conversation.

I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was trying to take the conversation to a deeper level than where we were, which was really just spitting prooftexts back and forth. I am sorry that db has taken such offense to that.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am sorry that db has taken such offense to that.

and rightly so, He should be. You were accusative.

 

[Blessedj01]

gradyll, how many times does someone have to say sorry (and delete the offending post) before you accept their apology and move on?

 

[createdtoworship]

Where is the violation and why is it so important that we get hung up on it?

because an appeal to emotion is not what was done. It's a false analogy to a fallacy that doesn't really exist in this debate.

 

[Blessedj01]

because an appeal to emotion is not what was done. It's a false analogy to a fallacy that doesn't really exist in this debate.

The post that offended you/him is gone and the "offender" has said sorry numerous times and tried to indicate that they meant no offence. I think that's enough for this argument to stop so that the thread can get back on track, right?

 

[createdtoworship]

The post that offended you/him is gone and the "offender" has said sorry numerous times and tried to indicate that they meant no offence. I think that's enough for this argument to stop so that the thread can get back on track, right?

I am sorry this offended you, is not the same as "I am sorry period"

the prior is all that was done.

so no it's not over until there is genuine repentance

 

[Blessedj01]

I don't think it's worth worrying about bro. Anyway, carry on as you were.

 

[dies-l]

I will stand by my remarks that the vengeful and angry god that is to be obeyed out of fear is not at all the God of Christianity and that I don't see how anyone can read the writings of John (or any of the New Testament) and come to that conception of God. And that is not about annihilation vs. eternal torment, as I know many Christians who embrace the doctrine of eternal torment (in fact of the Christians I know) who would flatly reject that conception of God.

 

[createdtoworship]

Whatever. My apology is to db. I do believe that it was misunderstood, but I accept my own responsibility for poor wording.

I will, however, stand by my remarks that the vengeful and angry god that is to be obeyed out of fear is not at all the God of Christianity and that I don't see how anyone can read the writings of John (or any of the New Testament) and come to that conception of God. And that is not about annihilation vs. eternal torment, as I know many Christians who embrace the doctrine of eternal torment (in fact of the Christians I know) who would flatly reject that conception of God.

Obey God out of fear? Well yes and no. God should not be our buddy, He should be our Heavenly Father, for one. We have to reverence and respect His commands and will. Secondly, we can come to Him with our problems and He will help us to do the right thing always.

 

[dies-l]

Obey God out of fear? Well yes and no. God should not be our buddy, He should be our Heavenly Father, for one. We have to reverence and respect His commands and will. Secondly, we can come to Him with our problems and He will help us to do the right thing always.

And, if you go back and look at what db and I were talking about, you will see that that is quite similar to the idea that I was expressing about the "fear of God". In fact my only disagreement with the above is that I do believe that wants to be and can be our friend. I'm not quite sure if "buddy" has a different connotation to you than "friend", but I tend to see the words as synonymous.

Incidentally, would you mind removing the slanderous misquote of me that you posted a few posts back?

 

[createdtoworship]

And, if you go back and look at what db and I were talking about, you will see that that is quite similar to the idea that I was expressing about the "fear of God". In fact my only disagreement with the above is that I do believe that wants to be and can be our friend. I'm not quite sure if "buddy" has a different connotation to you than "friend", but I tend to see the words as synonymous.

Incidentally, would you mind removing the slanderous misquote of me that you posted a few posts back?

sure I can do that, not sure where do delete so I will remove the content.

secondly, I am not sure what you think of Christs' Lordship over our lives, but that certainly doesn't mean He's our buddy and that we can treat him like a peep.

 

[dies-l]

secondly, I am not sure what you think of Christs' Lordship over our lives, but that certainly doesn't mean He's our buddy and that we can treat him like a peep.

I understand Christ's Lordship to relate to how we treat Him (obedience at all costs). I understand our friendship with Him to relate to how He treats us (as a kind, gentle, and loving friend who knows better than we do what is best for us). I am not sure what you mean by "treat him like a peep", but I can't say that I believe that God is offended if we speak to him informally, sing praises to him in a style of music that is meaningful to us, and otherwise ditch pretentiousness when we come to Him or speak of Him. If you mean that we can't treat him as a casual acquaintance that we only call on when we need a favor, then yeah, I would agree with you.

 

[holo]

The wrath of God is thoroughly taught throughout the Bible. Denying this can be perilous forever.

2 Kings 17:25 (NASB)
25 At the beginning of their living there, they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them which killed some of them.

Absolutely, and like I said it's fundamental to read each verse in context.

The wrath of God, yes.
Eternal suffering, no.

 

[holo]

I can and will. He was righteous in drowning all but 8, in burning Sodom alive and will still be righteous in burning forever those who rebel against Him.

How is that righteous?