Subduction Zone
Regular Member
I made no error and you could never respond to your failure. That is why I can claim that you did not respond to me. If you do not defend your claims it is the same as if you did not respond to me.
Upvote
0
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 made no error and you could never respond to your failure. That is why I can claim that you did not respond to me. If you do not defend your claims it is the same as if you did not respond to me.Ive responded every time you’ve posted to me. Now your just deflecting because I exposed your error. If I accused someone of contradicting their self and they denied it I would be more than eager to quote their contradiction for all to see.
Maybe you should check your bible. Surely, if it says it's eternal then who are you to challenge the word of God?
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment.
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire...'
Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah... serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Revelation 20:10
...and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
I made no error and you could never respond to your failure. That is why I can claim that you did not respond to me. If you do not defend your claims it is the same as if you did not respond to me.
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Why do so again? I will give the quick version. You claimed that God is just but also believe in an eternal punishment. Those two beliefs are self contradictory.Like I said if I were in your situation I would be ALL TOO EAGER TO QUOTE MY CONTRADICTION and prove it to everyone here. You don’t seem very willing to do that because you can’t.
It remains to be seen whether that puts you in the majority or minority.
Shouldn't you be asking what I mean by that statement first...
So you are now questioning the relevancy despite defending Deuteronomy 20's treatment towards women.A better question is how is this related in any way shape or form to the discussion of this thread?
Maybe you should check your lexicon because the word aeon doesn’t always mean something eternal it can also mean for a set amount of time like an age.
Aeon was never mentioned. And can mean 'an age'. But eternal means eternal. That's why I quoted biblical verses containing that specific word. As in 'eternal punishment'. You know, for ever and ever.
And you say that you doubt what the bible tells you?
Aeon was never mentioned. And can mean 'an age'. But eternal means eternal. That's why I quoted biblical verses containing that specific word. As in 'eternal punishment'. You know, for ever and ever.
And you say that you doubt what the bible tells you?
The evidence for both sides of the debate are inconclusive and insufficient to make any sort of definitive conclusion.
Yes, that is what I meant. How I meant it still remains to be spelled out, though.I thought you meant that you were crediting Jesus of Nazareth for much of the ideological and ethical (re)direction in the world.
If you remember from the previous posts, I didn't say that Jesus came to give ideas that were utterly unique and new. Obviously, we can cull out some bits and pieces of similar wisdom from the likes of Confucius or Siddhartha Guatama and make comparisons with Jesus, but that's not what I'm getting at. I still think Jesus goes further than simply telling us to "Do unto others ..."I'm trying to think of any ethical direction (let alone redirection) He gave that hadn't already been suggested by others.
You're basing your opinion on evidence? I'm going to need a new Irony Meter.
And you may well argue that some passages are not necessarily transcribed exactly as the author might have meant and could possibly be translated in a way that will subtly change the meaning. In which case one would look elsewhere for some confirmation one way or the other. And Revelation settles the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.
If you doubt that hell is eternal then you are doubting a portion of scripture that tells you in no uncertain terms that it is. If Revelation had not been written then you'd have a point. It was and so you don't.
Yes, that is what I meant. How I meant it still remains to be spelled out, though.
If you remember from the previous posts, I didn't say that Jesus came to give ideas that were utterly unique and new. Obviously, we can cull out some bits and pieces of similar wisdom from the likes of Confucius or Siddhartha Guatama and make comparisons with Jesus, but that's not what I'm getting at. I still think Jesus goes further than simply telling us to "Do unto others ..."
Anyway, I'll leave you be while you work through the ethical directions that He sparked. If you're still having problems in this regard, I suggest you get Orlando Patterson's book, "Freedom In the Making of Western Culture." That's more or less what I had in mind when I made my earlier comment to AV1611. If you want to discuss it, we can.
There's three or four threads being run by Universalist Christians up in the Controversial Theology section in which the turf of "eternality" is run over back and forth quite a bit.
Yes, that is what I meant. How I meant it still remains to be spelled out, though.
You're basing your opinion on evidence? I'm going to need a new Irony Meter.
And you may well argue that some passages are not necessarily transcribed exactly as the author might have meant and could possibly be translated in a way that will subtly change the meaning. In which case one would look elsewhere for some confirmation one way or the other. And Revelation settles the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.
If you doubt that hell is eternal then you are doubting a portion of scripture that tells you in no uncertain terms that it is. If Revelation had not been written then you'd have a point. It was and so you don't.
I missed this comment. So...
If I were to say that Sagan can take much credit for popularising science or Attenborough for doing the same for the wonders of nature then how I mean it is how it is written. I don't mean anything other than those two deserve credit for the advancement of science as regards the general poulation. And I'd give numerous examples to justify what I'd said.
You can't make a statement, have it clarified, state that it is indeed what you meant and then, when asked for examples to back it effectively say 'how I meant it isn't the same as what I meant'.
That is mangling the English language to a nonsensical degree.
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?