BRXII Battle talk

[Balder]

Hippies with no morals see a "do-whatever-feels-good," god. The Lord isn't into hippies with no morals.

Actually, I think if you read the posts we've been putting up here for all these weeks, you'll see that we are actually stressing that God is MORE MORAL than you are making out, if you believe God endorses eternal torture. We object to that picture because it is not MORAL ENOUGH. It is, in fact, appalling and unworthy of an infinitely holy and moral God.

 

[red77]

Hippies with no morals see a "do-whatever-feels-good," god. The Lord isn't into hippies with no morals.

Didnt you say a few posts back that you would be willing to throw people into a fiery pit for unbelief or some such? How moral and merciful does that make you? :think:

 

[Ecumenicist]

Jesus is 'pictured' by Dave (and now by yourself) as meek and perfectly predictable. I've discovered that not only does The Bible describe The Lamb of God as also being The Lion of Judah, but the anti-Christ is exposed when those who seek him speak about the one they love and adore. It is their god that they are describing, but that god isn't The Lord; it is the spirit of anti-Christ, masquarading as Him. There is none that compares to The Ancient of Days. The Lord of Hosts is His Name. He never 'pretended' anything. He took on The Form of Flesh to give us Truth. Avoiding that Truth is the stumblingblock of many men. They claim to be 'truthseekers' but all they really are is self-seekers, trying to put their 'image' of The Almighty upon His Throne. It would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.

The antichrist is and was Yeshua Bar Abbas, selfnamed "Jesus Son of the Father." The
one who advocates murder and violence to bring about the restoration of the Kingdom.

This is the one you follow, not Yeshua Ben Nazareth, the Prince of Peace.

 

[red77]

Me? I would. Because they thought more of themselves than those who might come to a knowledge of the truth by their witness if they were to spread The Word of God. The suffering and pain of all mankind is laid at the feet of sinners. If there were no sin, there would be no suffering. They deserve their fate, as I did, when I was one. Thank God for His Grace. :thumb:

So Aimiel - you would inflict agonising pain on these people would you? How ironic that you mention the pain and suffering of 'mankind' which would fade into comparison to those you would willingly torment, have you heard of the verse about the measure of mercy we receive in relation to the amount we show unto others? Where is yours?
And you wonder why people tell you that ET drives people further away from God? Yet another irony is that your witness on this thread does just that, you'd be as guilty as those who you would so willingly make to suffer! :doh:

 

[Ecumenicist]

:chuckle: It's an old story, isn't it?

http://www.catholicculture.org/lit/pictures/2_16_jesus_pharisees.jpg

The long-haired hippie trying to preach love and mercy to the hard-and-mean legalists...

Every effort was made to put Him and His message to death, its obviously still
happening today.

 

[Nineveh]

Every effort was made to put Him and His message to death, its obviously still
happening today.

So quit already.

 

[red77]

So quit already.

Thats right Dave, stop telling people that God restores everyone and everything, he just cant DO it, dont you see?

 

[Nineveh]

Thats right Dave, stop telling people that God restores everyone and everything, he just cant DO it, dont you see?

Actually I meant he should stop sounding like a baha'i in the Name of Christ, mocking Christ and Paul, calling God a sinner, etc....

 

[red77]

Actually I meant he should stop sounding like a baha'i in the Name of Christ, mocking Christ and Paul, calling God a sinner, etc....

So its ok if he preaches that God can and will restore everyone and everything then? Great!

As for whatever you were on about in the above it seems to have come from your own imagination because I havent seen it....

 

[Nineveh]

So its ok if he preaches that God can and will restore everyone and everything then? Great!

You seem to have a problem reading and understanding english today.

As for whatever you were on about in the above it seems to have come from your own imagination because I havent seen it....

That doesn't surprise me, red. It's hard to see anything with your eyes squeezed shut.

 

[red77]

You seem to have a problem reading and understanding english today.

Hardly, although obviously it isnt ok to believe that God can and will restore everything and everyone because certain doctrines wont allow that.....

That doesn't surprise me, red. It's hard to see anything with your eyes squeezed shut.

yes, i'm having to use 'braille' type Nineveh...
Nineveh says Dave insults and mocks God so it must be true, silly me.....

 

[Ecumenicist]

Hardly, although obviously it isnt ok to believe that God can and will restore everything and everyone because certain doctrines wont allow that.....



yes, i'm having to use 'braille' type Nineveh...
Nineveh says Dave insults and mocks God so it must be true, silly me.....

Nin and I have a long history. I need to write a book to document all the theological
assertions that she has helped me work through. When she throws "wife abuser,"
(caring for the fate of a homeless boy,) "gay commitment ceremonies," (asserting that
promiscuity is the real enemy to overcome) "forgiving God," ( affirming that Christ takes
the blame for the sins of the world upon Himself at the Cross, ) and other arguments I've
lost track of out there, there's a story behind each one of them. Now the new one is "bird
god worshipper." Henceforth that will be associated with "believing that God has the
power to reconcile all things, and all people, unto Himself."

As harsh and nasty as she seems, she does have a talent for scripturally challenging
views that she disagrees with. Her grilling really helped me refine my own thoughts
and arguments down to a pretty fine detail in alot of areas. I know I've gotten the points
pretty well refined when she's down to milking old arguments or throwing insults like "bird
god" in response.

Nin, as much as I'd like to see her outlook change for your own well being, I value your
scriptural challenges over the years. Same is true for many of the more caustic
characters on TOL, including Aimiel, Sozo and others, but Nin's been especially
vehement in her "helpful," often hurtful, insulting discourse.

She helps the building of scar tissue and thick skin also.

 

[Nineveh]

yes, i'm having to use 'braille' type Nineveh...
Nineveh says Dave insults and mocks God so it must be true, silly me.....

All you have to do is go back a couple of pages on this very thread.


Dave, you create your own scar tissue. Oh.. and the bird god is your own testimony, remember?

To both of you,
You both claim to speak in the Name of Christ our Savior, yet neither of you have the first idea what God says. You both continually disagree with His written Word, relying mostly on the "personal interpretation" of Scriptures to mask your own self-righteous rewording of the Bible. I'm not sure why you insist on serving a God you disagree with so often. No one is forcing either of you to believe a single thing, but the one thing you can not do is force the God of Scriptures into your own image. Neither of you know better than Him, and neither of you are showing more compassion toward your neighbor by offering false hope and comfort instead of the Truth. Go ahead! Have your own god, speak for it if you like, but when you speak in the Name of Christ at least agree with Him.

logos,
I do not know you to be as theologically lost as red and dave. Surely this thread is an eye opener for you.

 

[Balder]

One reason I left the faith is because I believed that the Bible was fairly clear on the doctrine of eternal torment, and that it reflected the views that Nin and Aimiel espouse. I didn't know about the interpretations Logos_X is offering. I'd like to believe he's correct -- I think he does present a cogent argument. But a straight reading of the Bible in English led me to believe that the doctrine of eternal torment is, indeed, Biblical. At first, I didn't have a problem with the doctrine -- I accepted it on faith, and didn't think about it (in terms of theologically questioning it). But later, I DID come to think seriously about it, and decided it was unacceptable and immoral. And I left.

 

[Ecumenicist]

I'm not sure why you insist on serving a God you disagree with so often.

I do not disagree with God. I often do not understand God, so I prayerfully seek God's
guidance into those doctrines which I do not understand, like Eternal Torment. And
in response, God leads me to people like Logos, and Balder, and you, for the development
of different interpretations and confirmation, based on the fruits of the Spirit, of the validity
of the interpretations which reveal and affirm God as all Righteous, all Loving, and all
Merciful.

Enjoy!

 

[Nineveh]

I do not disagree with God.

You are a liar, dave.

 

[Ecumenicist]

You are a liar, dave.

Happy Valentine's Day, Nin

 

[logos_x]

logos,
I do not know you to be as theologically lost as red and dave. Surely this thread is an eye opener for you.

Nin,

I cannot say that all people believe the same thing on all points that believe in Universal Salvation any more than you could say that all people that believe in eternal torment believe the same thing on all points.

Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists all agree on eternal torment and have very different theologies...somehow they manage to be considered "orthodox" in spite of their disagreements. I find that interesting. Seems to me there are variences severe enough to warrant the "heresy" label in each of those theologies.

To be honest...I'm not sure what you see in Red that sets you off. He raises valid questions designed to cause one to re-consider what our traditional view of judgments has, in fact, said about God Himself. As far as this thread goes...Red gets a thumbs up from me.

As far as your's and Dave's argument, it is obvious that you two have had a history. I find Dave's arguments to be coherant and Biblically supportable as far as the topic of this thread is concerned...but you apparently have issues with Dave on various other topics that have had an influence in how you approach your argument's with him here. I don't know much about your history with him...but it appears you have a problem with the way he presents the gospel to hurting, broken, and rejected people, and you somehow think that what he tells them is wrong.

Well...I'm not so sure he's wrong. He might not have expressed what he means clearly, or he might have crossed the line with you over the issue of "sexual orientation" or "transgendered" people. This is a topic I know very little about and which Dave seems to know a lot about. I don't feel it is my place to judge what I know so little about....so I leave that between Dave and the Lord.

As for this being an "eye opener"...not really...it has all played out pretty much as I expected. I appreciate that you don't consider me quite so "theologically lost" as some others...but I wonder if your feelings about that have to do with things said on other threads rather than the arguments in this one.

It appears that it has more to do with other topics on other threads...and I think this thread has a topic that effects a great deal of theology much more than it really should, and I obviously believe that the origin of the doctrine of unending misery lies not with the Bible itself but rather by having it as a belief before reading scripture and using that plausibility structure as an interpretive grid when translating scripture. It isn't an easy argument to make by any stretch of the imagination...because even when one shows that scripture doesn't necessarily have to mean what so many think it means because of their plausibilty structure having an undue influence on the way it is translated and, therefore, upon what they think it means...there is a "who do you think YOU are?" reaction, coupled with charges of "heresy" and false doctrine and being in league with the Devil for all our efforts.

I engage this topic because I think the current traditional plausiblity structure is not well supported by the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible, and I think it is important that people know that.

Other issues are other issues.

 

[red77]

All you have to do is go back a couple of pages on this very thread.


Dave, you create your own scar tissue. Oh.. and the bird god is your own testimony, remember?

To both of you,
You both claim to speak in the Name of Christ our Savior, yet neither of you have the first idea what God says. You both continually disagree with His written Word, relying mostly on the "personal interpretation" of Scriptures to mask your own self-righteous rewording of the Bible. I'm not sure why you insist on serving a God you disagree with so often. No one is forcing either of you to believe a single thing, but the one thing you can not do is force the God of Scriptures into your own image. Neither of you know better than Him, and neither of you are showing more compassion toward your neighbor by offering false hope and comfort instead of the Truth. Go ahead! Have your own god, speak for it if you like, but when you speak in the Name of Christ at least agree with Him.

logos,
I do not know you to be as theologically lost as red and dave. Surely this thread is an eye opener for you.

The thing is Nin - as usual it is you who i disagree with and not God, noone needs to 'rework' scriptures to believe as I do, Jesus said he came to save the world, I happen to think that he meant it, you on the other hand would seem to think that for whatever reason he cant - despite all the evidence in scripture that shows that he's more than capable of fulfilling his will, I believe that God can accomplish all he desires, you do not, believe as you will Nineveh and limit God's power,love and will into the process with your restrictive doctrines, I wont thanks

 

[Nineveh]

I find Dave's arguments to be coherant and Biblically supportable as far as the topic of this thread is concerned...

Logos, amazing he can hit Biblical accuracy being so far from the Truth on any given other point. Consider that. When you find yourself in theological agreement with folks who can not be discerned from the garden variety pagan, it's time to reassess.

: shrugs : I've said all I can say.