Even he claims to not be speaking of Uranta, his posts are still off topic pertaining to the thread. This post is off topic as well and I am going to have remove you from this thread as well.:down:
Last edited by a moderator:
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
God's attitude towards science and progress
- Thread starter iouae
- Start date
iouae
Well-known member
I know that Daqq.
I was just speaking of ignoring in general.
Also, I just wanted to say "Hi" to you.
Speaking of ignoring in general...
...if someone says they are going to ignore me, I take that as a challenge to see if they really are going to or whether they are just saying that to be petulant.
So I talk about them, instead of to them.
If they really are ignoring me, then they won't know about it. So I can say anything I like about them unchallenged.
If they secretly are not ignoring me, they will be under pressure to respond, and break their word when they said they are putting me on their "ignore list".
Thus, there is only one wise option left to them, but they will have to work that one out.
Again, nothing to do with us personally.
How is the Adam thread going? You got a lot of views on that thread so folks were clearly interested in what you had to say.
I take the Bible literally, so allegory and such is a bit above me.
I know that Daqq.
I was just speaking of ignoring in general.
Also, I just wanted to say "Hi" to you.
Speaking of ignoring in general...
...if someone says they are going to ignore me, I take that as a challenge to see if they really are going to or whether they are just saying that to be petulant.
So I talk about them, instead of to them.
If they really are ignoring me, then they won't know about it. So I can say anything I like about them unchallenged.
If they secretly are not ignoring me, they will be under pressure to respond, and break their word when they said they are putting me on their "ignore list".
Thus, there is only one wise option left to them, but they will have to work that one out.
Again, nothing to do with us personally.
How is the Adam thread going? You got a lot of views on that thread so folks were clearly interested in what you had to say.
I take the Bible literally, so allegory and such is a bit above me.
Yeah, I sometimes do that too just to see if people are really ignoring me after they lay the hammer down and put me on ignore, as if I really cared, lol, (and I do not put people "on ignore" though sometimes do ignore certain characters). As for the Adam thread it got side tracked into a stupid discussion about circumcision as you know. However I did not intend to bring that up here, (do not return evil with evil). Howbeit I did respond to you when I quoted you but you apparently saw no need to respond back, so again, have a nice thread.
iouae
Well-known member
Yeah, I sometimes do that too just to see if people are really ignoring me after they lay the hammer down and put me on ignore, as if I really cared, lol, (and I do not put people "on ignore" though sometimes do ignore certain characters). As for the Adam thread it got side tracked into a stupid discussion about circumcision as you know. However I did not intend to bring that up here, (do not return evil with evil). Howbeit I did respond to you when I quoted you but you apparently saw no need to respond back, so again, have a nice thread.
I did not respond back, because someone has to break the chain of responding back.
You should revive that thread and take it where you wanted to take it.
iouae
Well-known member
If one were to ask the average church going Christian if God is always "good" they would say, "of course".
If one were to ask the average church going Christian if they believe in an everlasting hell where the wicked burn forever, they would probably say "yes, its in the Bible".
If one were to ask the average church going Christian how having people tortured forever could possibly be "good", they would probably come up with some reason.
Yet there is no logical or reasonable reason for this to be so.
Then if one were to ask the average church going Christian if they believe that some of those in hell will be those who never heard the name of Jesus, or never had the Gospel preached to them - they would answer "yes".
So, by a pure accident of being born in China, or on some island, one ends up in hell. They will answer "Yes".
Do you see where I am going with this? The average Christian believes some terrible things about a "good" God.
That God tortures people because they never believed on Him, through no fault of their own, through an accident of geography.
And this from a God who told us to love our enemies, and to forgive them 70x7 if they offend us.
If one were to ask the average church going Christian what hell is like, they would describe it as being in a building fire, forever. It is worse than eternal waterboarding - hey in hell, it is so hot, waterboarding would be welcomed.
I can openly talk about God being "good" because I don't believe the Bible teaches this at all.
Hell burns the wicked up. And God came to save the lost, not burn them in hell for never hearing about Him.
This is what a truly good God says...
Eze 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Here, God just lets the wicked die. And if God gets no pleasure out of that, how much less pleasure He would get out of eternally tormenting them.
And if God hates to see even the wicked die, how much more so those who have never known Him?
How liberating it is not to fear hell.
If one were to ask the average church going Christian if they believe in an everlasting hell where the wicked burn forever, they would probably say "yes, its in the Bible".
If one were to ask the average church going Christian how having people tortured forever could possibly be "good", they would probably come up with some reason.
Yet there is no logical or reasonable reason for this to be so.
Then if one were to ask the average church going Christian if they believe that some of those in hell will be those who never heard the name of Jesus, or never had the Gospel preached to them - they would answer "yes".
So, by a pure accident of being born in China, or on some island, one ends up in hell. They will answer "Yes".
Do you see where I am going with this? The average Christian believes some terrible things about a "good" God.
That God tortures people because they never believed on Him, through no fault of their own, through an accident of geography.
And this from a God who told us to love our enemies, and to forgive them 70x7 if they offend us.
If one were to ask the average church going Christian what hell is like, they would describe it as being in a building fire, forever. It is worse than eternal waterboarding - hey in hell, it is so hot, waterboarding would be welcomed.
I can openly talk about God being "good" because I don't believe the Bible teaches this at all.
Hell burns the wicked up. And God came to save the lost, not burn them in hell for never hearing about Him.
This is what a truly good God says...
Eze 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Here, God just lets the wicked die. And if God gets no pleasure out of that, how much less pleasure He would get out of eternally tormenting them.
And if God hates to see even the wicked die, how much more so those who have never known Him?
How liberating it is not to fear hell.
I did not respond back, because someone has to break the chain of responding back.
You should revive that thread and take it where you wanted to take it.
Lol, do you just keep saying incorrect things to get another response? There was no ongoing "chain" of dialogue between us in this your thread that needed to be broken, (or perhaps that is indeed how you feel about it, I dunno), but rather I responded twice on page one and then left this your thread for a while, until page thirteen, where I responded to you once more, in this your thread, after seeing that you had taken a bunch of O/T passages and inserted the name of Jesus into the texts: but you never responded back to that post, in this your own thread, (I know not how to make it any clearer than this, lol). But all of that is just fine, really, so you did not respond, (in this your thread), okay, I can live with that: at this point I am just hoping to leave this, your thread, with you actually understanding what happened in this your thread.
:luigi:
iouae
Well-known member
Lol, do you just keep saying incorrect things to get another response? There was no ongoing "chain" of dialogue between us in this your thread that needed to be broken, (or perhaps that is indeed how you feel about it, I dunno), but rather I responded twice on page one and then left this your thread for a while, until page thirteen, where I responded to you once more, in this your thread, after seeing that you had taken a bunch of O/T passages and inserted the name of Jesus into the texts: but you never responded back to that post, in this your own thread, (I know not how to make it any clearer than this, lol). But all of that is just fine, really, so you did not respond, (in this your thread), okay, I can live with that: at this point I am just hoping to leave this, your thread, with you actually understanding what happened in this your thread.
:luigi:
My biggest problem in communicating with you Daqq is that I don't understand your way of speaking. Probably I am the thicko. For instance, you have mentioned "in this your thread" a whole lot of times, and I am none the wiser what you are trying to tell me.
For instance, this is NOT my thread any more than it is the thread of anyone who has posted on this thread. Just because I put the first post, does not make it MY thread. I don't control who posts here, or what they say, and I am just super grateful if anyone replies to anything I have written, even if they just reply to call me a heretic and a moron. At least I understand what they are saying. And, Like Taylor Swift, I can just "Shake it off".
I went back to look for what you had written after I posted that one can substitute "Jesus" for every time one reads "the word of the LORD" in the OT. You replied...
I must still be the thicko, because I still do not have a clue what you meant by saying that.
That is why I could not respond to that adequately, just as I probably am not responding to this adequately.
Am I the thicko? Do all the rest of you have no problem with Daqq-speak?
It is there in the passage I referenced. Do you pay no mind to studying the Word?
Since you all like to quote definitions here is one for ya'll:
G1565 εκεινος ekeinos (e-kei'-nos) p:d.
1. that one.
2. (neuter) that thing.
{often intensified by the article prefixed}
[from G1563]
KJV: he, it, the other (same), selfsame, that (same, very), X their, X them, they, this, those
When a person uses this word it is like saying, "not me, but him", "not this, but that", "that one", "that thing", in other words something else besides and separate from the one who is speaking this word and using it in a sentence or phrase to make a statement. And this was all explained in another thread where someone else came into, put me on ignore, (who I need not mention again just yet, lol), and completely ignored what was said to him about these things. You interrupted that exchange with him, here in this thread, even though you were not there in that thread which I was speaking about, (your mistake, not mine). Anyway, back to the passage which I referenced in my post to you which you have now quoted, (and concerning this word, εκεινος).
John 12:48 T/R
48 ο αθετων εμε και μη λαμβανων τα ρηματα μου εχει τον κρινοντα αυτον ο λογος ον ελαλησα εκεινος κρινει αυτον εν τη εσχατη ημερα
John 12:48 W/H
48 ο αθετων εμε και μη λαμβανων τα ρηματα μου εχει τον κρινοντα αυτον ο λογος ον ελαλησα εκεινος κρινει αυτον εν τη εσχατη ημερα
John 12:47-48
47 And if anyone hears my sayings, and keeps them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to deliver the world.
48 The one rejecting me, and receiving not my sayings, has one who judges him: THE LOGOS-WORD that I have spoken, THAT ONE shall judge him in the last day.
Therefore you are incorrect with your name insertions into O/T texts. And if you disagree I suppose you and Clete should take it up with the Teacher and the Master, (they are the Amen-amen in this particular Gospel account). And now, again, have a happy thread.
iouae
Well-known member
Believe it or not Clete, my spiritual mentor and I often respectfully discuss an issue similar to this. My mentor's point of departure is that God may be a lot fussier than we imagine, may set the bar much higher than we imagine, and that only a relatively few people will ever be saved.
He inclines towards the idea that very few Christians meet God's standard, and that many will be surprised at the great size of the flock of goats, versus the tiny size of the flock of sheep, and doubly surprised to find themselves in that flock of goats at His left hand.
And we will only know in the resurrection how high or low God sets the bar.
But it is fundamentally the same discussion. I say that God sets the bar low, and loves me because I am his child. He sets the bar high, saying we must be of use to God.
He is saying that because most Christians will have walked their Christian life in vain because they don't attain the prize, it could be viewed as a "con".
Reading the scriptures we have NO CLUE what the standard is that we are striving for. We have even discussed if God simply picks the top 20%, and therefore there is no absolute standard. After all we are running a race and its the first runners who win. We are not all winners.
And we do not even have folks resurrected so that we could see who was the "worst" who still made it into the kingdom.
My mentor, like I, does not believe in an ever burning hell. So what's the worst that can happen to those who don't meet the standard? They die. They don't get eternal life. But they got to enjoy this life. Sounds pretty fair of God to me, even if I am among those not making the cut. I would still fall down at His feet and kiss them and thank Him for giving me these wonderful years of physical life.
Last edited:
iouae
Well-known member
It is there in the passage I referenced. Do you pay no mind to studying the Word?
Since you all like to quote definitions here is one for ya'll:
G1565 εκεινος ekeinos (e-kei'-nos) p:d.
1. that one.
2. (neuter) that thing.
{often intensified by the article prefixed}
[from G1563]
KJV: he, it, the other (same), selfsame, that (same, very), X their, X them, they, this, those
When a person uses this word it is like saying, "not me, but him", "not this, but that", "that one", "that thing", in other words something else besides and separate from the one who is speaking this word and using it in a sentence or phrase to make a statement. And this was all explained in another thread where someone else came into, put me on ignore, (who I need not mention again just yet, lol), and completely ignored what was said to him about these things. You interrupted that exchange with him, here in this thread, even though you were not there in that thread which I was speaking about, (your mistake, not mine). Anyway, back to the passage which I referenced in my post to you which you have now quoted, (and concerning this word, εκεινος).
John 12:48 T/R
48 ο αθετων εμε και μη λαμβανων τα ρηματα μου εχει τον κρινοντα αυτον ο λογος ον ελαλησα εκεινος κρινει αυτον εν τη εσχατη ημερα
John 12:48 W/H
48 ο αθετων εμε και μη λαμβανων τα ρηματα μου εχει τον κρινοντα αυτον ο λογος ον ελαλησα εκεινος κρινει αυτον εν τη εσχατη ημερα
John 12:47-48
47 And if anyone hears my sayings, and keeps them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to deliver the world.
48 The one rejecting me, and receiving not my sayings, has one who judges him: THE LOGOS-WORD that I have spoken, THAT ONE shall judge him in the last day.
Therefore you are incorrect with your name insertions into O/T texts. And if you disagree I suppose you and Clete should take it up with the Teacher and the Master, (they are the Amen-amen in this particular Gospel account). And now, again, have a happy thread.
Not so fast about leaving this thread Daqq
Here is John 12:47-48 with Strongs 1565 highlighted.
Jhn 12:47
And G2532 if G3362 G0 any man G5100 hear G191 my G3450 words, G4487 and G2532 believe G4100 not, G3362 I G1473 judge G2919 him G846 not: G3756 for G1063 I came G2064 not G3756 to G2443 judge G2919 the world, G2889 but G235 to G2443 save G4982 the world. G2889
Jhn 12:48
He that rejecteth G114 me, G1691 and G2532 receiveth G2983 not G3361 my G3450 words, G4487 hath G2192 one that judgeth G2919 him: G846 the word G3056 that G3739 I have spoken, G2980 the same G1565 shall judge G2919 him G846 in G1722 the last G2078 day. G2250
All Jesus is saying is that His words will judge them.
How does that at all relate to Jesus not being the "word of the LORD" in the OT?
I said that wherever one finds "The word of the LORD came to ..." it means "The Word LORD came to..." or "Jesus came to..."
Are you maybe saying because Jesus says He is judging nobody, but the Word LORD of the OT did judge, that Jesus cannot be the Word LORD?
Please place your dots a lot closer so that I can join them.
Your are not a Christian, Vowels. I don't know what your religion is but it isn't Christianity.
The bar is set at perfect. PERFECT! Nothing less will do - period.
I copied and pasted what you just quoted from the exact same page you did, idiot.
Strong's is simply reporting what is in the King James Bible, not what should be in it or what they think about it. Strong's is a concordance, not a commentary. Nor is it doctrinally authoritative, by the way not that it matters since it doesn't contradict a word I've said.
The translators of the King James Bible got it wrong, which I have clearly shown and which the Strong's does NOT dispute! Do you think that you're the only one with access to the Strong's concordance? Is this really how you do your theology? It's no wonder you're so far off the mark.
Clete
I think I understand just how God hardened Pharoah's heart. It's like a guarantee that people WILL do precisely what I warn them not to do. Truly astounding.
Good luck explaining yourself on judgment day, Vowels. I won't be enabling your blasphemies any further.
Goodbye.
popsthebuilder
New member
I quoted this post to get your attention.
I am interested in you r thoughts about our merciful GOD and hell.
I caught a piece of something you had said that another quoted and it caught my eye.
Could you refer me to the post that you started this particular topic on within this thread?
Thank you,
peace
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
I am interested in you r thoughts about our merciful GOD and hell.
I caught a piece of something you had said that another quoted and it caught my eye.
Could you refer me to the post that you started this particular topic on within this thread?
Thank you,
peace
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
iouae
Well-known member
My blasphemies? Yet you are the one saying that God punishes folks eternally, some just because they never got to hear of Him. And you consider this to be "good"?
I knew you had no answer to this post which I will paste below.
I don't believe there is a hell in which unbelievers burn for eternity. But it amazes me that folks like you, who spout about a "good" God, and a "logical" God and a "reasonable" God and a God who's logic is to promote life, would consider it possible for God to do worse than the Spanish Inquisition.
You do believe the Spanish Inquisition was wrong don't you, when they tortured poor people, to give them a taste of hell, in order to save their souls.
At least they were ignorant.
At best they had good intentions.
And, thank God, these poor soul's torture only lasted a short while.
But Christians like you, who lecture me about my views of a God who is fickle and can do cruel things - never in my wildest imagination could this God of mine be torturing my unsaved loved one for all eternity, while I am eating of the tree of Life and walking the golden streets.
I asked you this to test you. I absolutely don't believe what you defend, which is a God so cruel, He tortures unbelievers for all eternity. My loving God drops them in the lake of fire (molten lava) where they are burnt up in an instant, even though the fire is eternal, and their smoke rises forever, they, with their consciousness are long gone. Their worm (maggots) may not die in Gehenna, but they have long disappeared. And my good God does not even have Satan and the demons suffer forever, they too will be utterly destroyed in hell fire.
Ezekiel 28:18
therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
Eze 28:19
All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
So your definition of God being "logical" is useless, since it should be obvious that there could be no "logical" reason to punish either spirits or man eternally.
God's punishment is directed at folks repenting. But these have had their last chance.
And all the rest of us are in heaven, so we don't need to see and fear what might befall us for being naughty.
And who could enjoy eternity knowing someone you love is suffering in hell.
You, and all those thinking this evil thing of God, yet brown-nosing and calling him "good" for your misunderstanding of the doctrine of hell - you beyond amaze me.
iouae
Well-known member
Was it #235 re-posted above? Or #225
If you were addressing me popsthebuilder, would you like scriptural proof why hell burns people up, not burns people forever? If so, I would be happy to do the work to get scriptures together.
popsthebuilder
New member
We seem to have a very similar view on the doctrine of hell or punishment.
I too believe hell represents eternal destruction (as in no new life or ressurection, but non existence on any level.)
Also what you mentioned about the watchers.....I assume you have read the book of Enoch?
Pleased to meet you. May GOD guide us both for the benefit of all.
peace
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
iouae
Well-known member
Hi, yes we have the same view that the soul that sins will DIE (not live and suffer forever) Ezek 18:4, 20.
You are mistaking me for someone else regarding the "watchers" since I never mentioned these, nor have I read the Book of Enoch that I can remember.
popsthebuilder
New member
I didn't mistake you for anyone. It is just that the book of Enoch speaks of the term for which Satan and one third of the angels (watchers if I remember correctly) will be punished.
It is worth a read seeing as how we are told to fear nothing but the consequence of our own actions in the sight of GOD.
peace
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
iouae
Well-known member
I will look into it, thanks.