Then you MUST be a MORMON or a MUSLIM.
I never denied the trinity. You will try any scheme to try to discredit me, won't you? Your actions are shameful.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Then you MUST be a MORMON or a MUSLIM.
I never denied the trinity. You will try any scheme to try to discredit me, won't you? Your actions are shameful.
That is what I said...you did not deny the trinity, so you are not JW. This does not mean that you do not use the same or similar arguments against hell that they do (and can be refuted).
If I argue for pre-existence of the soul, then you can rightly say that my arguments are Mormon-like without meaning that I am Mormon or that I am trying to discredit you.
My point is that you share the same mindset and errors on this one topic, not that you are wrong about everything else or are a closet cultist. You are failing to quote me where I call you a brother and recognize that other capable, godly believers have come to your position (you are the one that keeps trying to say the rest of us are illogical and unbiblical...kettle/pot).
Have you seen the newer movie 'Hellbound' http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/
It was done by a fellow Canadian. I am in a city of a million. They showed the moved 2x. There were about 8 of us for the second showing. I appreciate people of faith who love God's Word. Most just want sex, action, etc., not deeper thinking on the most important issue ever (gospel/eternity/God).
You should watch the movie. The bias favors your side, but I enjoyed it (and was not persuaded, but cringed).
As an Open Theist, some of my favorite guys (Gregory Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, etc.), agree more with you than me, so chill. There is no conspiracy to tar and feather you, as smug as you can be.
I have other non-traditional beliefs, so I am not stuck in traditional ruts, but desire truth, as do you. Do you have any other non-traditional views? I am Pentecostal, deny original sin, favor Moral Government Theology, am Open Theist, etc.
That is correct, I reported your post. That is not "running to mommie" or being a "big baby".
If you don't want to discuss this, you don't have to continue the discussion. If you want to continue the discussion, we can. Although I don't have time right now.
Talk to you later, have a nice evening.
I predict you will not last long here. I also predict that you are probably in your 20s and don't realize that you don't know it all.
Lazaruz was in torment and very conscious.
Lazarus was not in torment.
The rich man, not Lazarus
Some things to think about. If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is literal (i.e. it happened as stated word for word), doesn't that mean that punishment for "deeds done in the flesh" begins before judgment of those deeds takes place (which is at the final judgement)?
Jesus used actual people (i.e. Abraham) in this story. But people who’ve lived before can be used in parables as a point of reference. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the story being told is an actual historical event. And that Jesus tells this story in order to get a particular message across is indicative of a parable. Further, the message derived from this story coincidentally parallels the same message found in the four preceding parables (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son, shrewd manager): God’s compassion for the lost and rebuke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
I am very proud of my memory...but it is USELESS, of course it is Dives not Lazarus
BigBoof1959
New member
The account of the rich man and Lazarus is not a literal description of heaven and "hell". If it was a literal account, you would have people in "Abraham's bosom" wanting to go to the "other side" of suffering where the rich man was, and the need for a huge gulf to prevent them from doing it. The "great gulf" reminds me of the "wall of separation" that Paul spoke about in Ephesians 2:14. Like Surrender said, this story is a parable about the exclusivist attitude that many of the Jews had. Judah had 5 brothers, he was the kingly tribe (purple robe), and had all the advantages in the things of God. Lazarus was poor and the parable seems to portray him as a Gentile. I say that because there is the mention of suffering, crumbs of bread falling from the table and dogs. The only other accounts that have these same elements are found in Matt. 15:27 and Mark 7:28, which both describe a Gentile woman asking Jesus to help her suffering daughter. I have always found it strange that none of the chain reference or study bibles I have looked at ever have a cross reference between Luke 16:21 and Matthew 15:27 or Mark 7:28, but they are filled with other cross-references that have a lot less in common than these do. Maybe because they want to hold on to this as a literal account and discourage people from seeing the rich man and Lazarus as a parable?
Timotheos, He is not breaking any rules, but you are being a pest, reporting a member's opinion.
It had to be done. People don't like their deeds exposed. But I am trying to have a civilized conversation.
I'm sorry if you feel am am a pest. You are welcome to ignore this thread, or participate if you want to. I enjoy intelligent conversation with people like you. I hope you are blessed by this conversation.
Peace!
Parables were used by our Lord to establish truth not fiction
Your reporting rulz was crybaby, his opinion was creditable.
Do you think it was figurative of something that you think doesn't exist?
It reflected Paradise, the destination of the righteous before the Cross when they were allowed into God's presence .The great gulf wad between the righteous and unrighteous dead.
Real commonly know names are not used in figurative parables. This Lazarus was a well know beggar who asked at prominent public places.
I'm sorry, I'm rather new. I didn't know reporting bad behavior was against the rules. Usually people who want to get away with stuff don't like it when you report them. It wasn't crybaby at all. Name calling (ie crybaby) just shows that you can't defend your position using logic and scripture. I'm sure that you are too mature to engage in childish namecalling.