Search results

I like that. Common sense answer to the question

I was taught that the unforgivable sin was "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," citing Mark 3:29: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Hebrews 6 was also preached on the subject: 4 For [it is] impossible for those who...

Yes, I think God can be offended. Look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Really? I've hardly found any the other way

??

It's interesting but it doesn't contradict what I wrote. Nothing in nature suggests a fire that does not consume.

I don't think that's right? By my reckoning, the Book of Enoch postulates 4 intermediate resting places. One for the martyrs. One for the righteous dead. One for the evil dead. And one for the lukewarm. I don't find universalism in Enoch Source: 1Enoch Chapter 22

:confused It wasn't the comparison I was hoping for, but... it does seem apt. Hopefully without the starvation, abuse, and rape that I would associate with Auschwitz.

I believe in Annihilation, and in a forever-burning hell. I reckon the people are completely destroyed by the fire. I also reckon that the line to that crematorium is unending.

clfh If you're carrying a 1911, isn't the point for it to be seen?

Is it, though? A forever-burning-hell shouldn't imply that the fire's fuel isn't consumed. Nothing in nature suggests that would be the case. That isn't how fire works. It's actually quite strange that the church has come to view it this way. Rather, a forever-burning-hell should imply that...

That's a lot of hypotheticals. However God chose to work, we would need to know about it. If we didn't have the story of Abraham in Genesis, we would need some other revelation.

Also true for: Catholics Protestants Atheists People who like peanut butter People who are allergic to peanut butter People with birthdays in November People with birthdays not in November Me St SteVen Jack...

I think so, or I wouldn't have said it. God's covenant with Abraham was for a Son. God fulfilled the covenant by giving him Isaac, but also overfulfilled the covenant by giving Jesus as The Son, and making Abraham a father of nations. Would we, though? As I see it, that happened in part...

I basically ignore science. I'm interested in competing interpretations of Scripture, though. If you can give me a different interpretation of what-is-written that I haven't heard, I'm all ears.

I think you're looking at the wrong story from Genesis. If Genesis 1 isn't literal, then... God still made the world. The Book of Job has that story. If Adam & Eve weren't literal and there is no Original Sin... we're all still sinners. Paul tells us "all have sinned." But, if Abraham's...

It could be a bunch of different things. The classic example is receiving a gift of tongues, but it could also be a healing (as with Paul's sight), or really any sort of miraculous happening. For me it was holy laughter.

That's fine. You seem very confident in your reading, and I am also confident. It seems unlikely that anyone will be swayed.

Baptisms being plural doesn't change doctrines to be plural. This argument doesn't pass basic grammar.

That's where we disagree. Baptisms IS plural in this chapter, but I don't think it means multiple TYPES of baptisms. I think it means multiple OCCURENCES of Christian baptism. If I baptize 5 different people, then we had 5 baptismS, but that doesn't mean they were all different kinds of...