"Thou SHALL NOT hijack threads or be a "thread pest" (Hijacking a thread means intentionally changing the subject of a thread to discredit the thread's purpose. And being a "thread pest" means you pop into random threads just to make a mocking comment with no other purpose than to marginalize the discussion). If you are not interested in the topic of a thread, you might just want to stay out of it."
TOL Rules
thank you.
Chapter and Verse, Sod. State the Chapter and Verse that says "Those who reject Christ go to Hell where they suffer eternal damnation. You are an idiot and you don't know what you are talking about.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
no timmy, i won't
you're incapable of understanding what's been presented to you over and over
i'm not going to waste my time trying to spoonfeed you
You need to be honest brother. What you are doing is just following traditional corrupt faith.
Timothy has been focusing on one thing which you, traditional Christians, are avoiding or ignoring.
You have been shown over and over. You just don't want to admit it.
Now we just have to wait on the Lord's day for judgment who is right.
blessings.
give it a rest, res.
The thread is about eternal punishment, you are in the wrong place as usual.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Lets try this again.....
Lets try this again.....
Assumption,...also as I've pointed out,...depends on how we define 'eternal' and 'damnation'....or any other word which may have a slightly different meaning in the original languages than what its English equivalent is (or what biased bible translaters have slipped in). Now the term 'eternal damnation' is pretty strong,....and hardly something that infinite love would be capable of doing to any of its creation, so thats a moral/philosophical issue right out the gate. Therefore it would be much more logical for eternal love to have a more better provision for souls that sin or embrace iniquity to the point of suffering the 'second death', and it might be advantageous for you to consider those. Souls actually having an end to their conscious existence as 'erased' in some fashion sure beats some sanctioning and detaining souls in an unescapable lake of fire or some 'hell-like' realm, where there is only endless suffering TO NO END. - that is the most senseless scenario, since it is against love's will and very ethic to do any such thing to any sentient being! The monstrosity of it is alarming.
I think the principle behind it, and the principles that 'eternal punishment' violates are enough to question the 'concept'.
Well,....that's an easy conclusion per se, but it comes loaded with the previous presuppositions that support its suggestion, which makes the 'push' to evangelize this way a bit 'iffy'.
No one's pouting, but some of us might raise a few eyebrows about all this 'eternal torment' stuff which is totally unbecoming of a being whose is supposed to be the very essence and epitome of love.
Again, this is assuming that the original proposition has any foundation to stand on, beyond just being a traditional dogma or reading things too literally.
Lets try this again.....
Assumption,...also as I've pointed out,...depends on how we define 'eternal' and 'damnation'....or any other word which may have a slightly different meaning in the original languages than what its English equivalent is (or what biased bible translaters have slipped in). Now the term 'eternal damnation' is pretty strong,....and hardly something that infinite love would be capable of doing to any of its creation, so thats a moral/philosophical issue right out the gate. Therefore it would be much more logical for eternal love to have a more better provision for souls that sin or embrace iniquity to the point of suffering the 'second death', and it might be advantageous for you to consider those. Souls actually having an end to their conscious existence as 'erased' in some fashion sure beats some sanctioning and detaining souls in an unescapable lake of fire or some 'hell-like' realm, where there is only endless suffering TO NO END. - that is the most senseless scenario, since it is against love's will and very ethic to do any such thing to any sentient being! The monstrosity of it is alarming.
I think the principle behind it, and the principles that 'eternal punishment' violates are enough to question the 'concept'.
Well,....that's an easy conclusion per se, but it comes loaded with the previous presuppositions that support its suggestion, which makes the 'push' to evangelize this way a bit 'iffy'.
No one's pouting, but some of us might raise a few eyebrows about all this 'eternal torment' stuff which is totally unbecoming of a being whose is supposed to be the very essence and epitome of love.
Again, this is assuming that the original proposition has any foundation to stand on, beyond just being a traditional dogma or reading things too literally.