Moron.red77 said:
BRXII Battle talk
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
- Status
I've answered you. Time and again.red77 said:
His name was mentioned in the verse I was quoting. That's all. It had nothing to do with Thomas, but about how those who beleive without seeing are blessed.:dunce::duh:
If you were burning in the Lake of Fire would you be praising God?
Ecumenicist
New member
red77 said:
Sarcasm and insult are the recourses of weak arguments.
logos_x
New member
Lighthouse said:
Well..that has been what some that want everyone to believe in eternal torment have said.
This has been pointed out several times, and the response is that it doesn't mean what it says when it says praise, or they are so happy where they are that they praise Him for it.
Doesn't make sense to me...but I'm the idiot.
PKevman
New member
It is amazing to me the arrogance that some Universalists have in asserting that anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint is just not as enlightened as they are. I have spent many hours of my own time over the years studying these issues and these texts in detail. I also spent over 45 hours of my own time in the week I was doing the Battle Royale in preparing my arguments and studying the information given by Stephen.
If anyone has a direct question or comment on something that was said in the Battle Royale, or can answer the many questions that no Universalist has been able to answer, then I would be glad to discuss it with them. At this point this discussion is not accomplishing anything positive.
Also congrats to Dave Miller. He is now officially the first person to ever make my ignore list! I'm sure he will take great pride in that dubious distinction.
If anyone has a direct question or comment on something that was said in the Battle Royale, or can answer the many questions that no Universalist has been able to answer, then I would be glad to discuss it with them. At this point this discussion is not accomplishing anything positive.
Also congrats to Dave Miller. He is now officially the first person to ever make my ignore list! I'm sure he will take great pride in that dubious distinction.
Ecumenicist
New member
PastorKevin said:
I'm glad that the questions I pose bother you that much. They used to bother
me also.
Dave Miller
PKevman
New member
The problem we have is that the discussion has generated towards an "us vs. them" mindset. Whenever you move towards that it quickly begins to degenerate and nothing positive comes from it. The whole idea of this debate was to get at what the Bible says about whether or not unbelievers spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.
logos_x
New member
Kevin,
If a may be so bold...I think I know the gist of what the argument is in this thread and what the major problem has been for those of us that view eternal torment as problematic...
It is that with eternal torment as a cornerstone to "the faith", the Gospel becomes so weak. It remains a powerful way to avoid punishment....but that's about it. At least that is the way it sounds.
The second is that it places death in such a supreme and powerful position to undo God's ability to redeem even someones dear old grandmother who hasn't found confidence in Christ before she dies...much less some young drunk on the highway that causes an accident and kills someones teenage daughter...and by the time you get to someone like your obnoxious neighbor that you find way too difficult to love, well...the Gospel seems powerless to do much of anything.
A third thing is that...in spite of the scriptural evidence that God intends to save all...that is simply an impossibility within the eternal torment plausibility structure.
To me...the arguments for eternal torment appears to explain away God's ability to save way to much and saps the Savior of virtually all of His ability...especially when the resurrection becomes a very dark idea for most of mankind.
That is the gist of the arguments against eternal torment so far in this thread.
Maybe you can address these issues in a rational and coherant way that we can all understand...and then we can move into a more coherant discussion.
If a may be so bold...I think I know the gist of what the argument is in this thread and what the major problem has been for those of us that view eternal torment as problematic...
It is that with eternal torment as a cornerstone to "the faith", the Gospel becomes so weak. It remains a powerful way to avoid punishment....but that's about it. At least that is the way it sounds.
The second is that it places death in such a supreme and powerful position to undo God's ability to redeem even someones dear old grandmother who hasn't found confidence in Christ before she dies...much less some young drunk on the highway that causes an accident and kills someones teenage daughter...and by the time you get to someone like your obnoxious neighbor that you find way too difficult to love, well...the Gospel seems powerless to do much of anything.
A third thing is that...in spite of the scriptural evidence that God intends to save all...that is simply an impossibility within the eternal torment plausibility structure.
To me...the arguments for eternal torment appears to explain away God's ability to save way to much and saps the Savior of virtually all of His ability...especially when the resurrection becomes a very dark idea for most of mankind.
That is the gist of the arguments against eternal torment so far in this thread.
Maybe you can address these issues in a rational and coherant way that we can all understand...and then we can move into a more coherant discussion.
Last edited:
- Status