Are All Warnings Threats?

@BigDoggProblem

As for the rest, I don't have an opinion on whether the cause of death was natural or intentional. I am not a believer, so I'm not that motivated to find one.

You do not have to be a believer to care whether your death will be intentional or natural.
Probably, you arrange your affairs so that you will not die by someone's intention but naturally, if you must die.

The sight of you shrugging at someone holding a gun to your head seems unlikely to me.

I get your drift. You don't believe in God perhaps, so why people die? ... Who cares? We die.

What about if a man were to demonstrate to the world that he could die and rise again?

@moonbus

Examples:

1. “Warning — High voltage,” is a warning.
2. “50 dollars fine and 5 days in jail for touching the high voltage wire,” is a threat, assuming you live.

According to the two part definition I saw 1. could be considered a threat in this sense:

: an indication of something impending
the sky held a threat of rain

Or a synonym which expresses the same thing.

Synonyms: Noun

danger, hazard, imminence, menace, peril, pitfall, risk, trouble [quote]

That is why I felt compelled to adjust my thought.

[quote]
3. “A hurricane is about to make landfall in Florida,” is not a threat, nor is it a warning if you live in California. If you live in Florida, it is an implied warning.

According to Merriam Webster it can be called a threat too.

: an indication of something impending
the sky held a threat of rain

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat

[/quote]
4. “All residents are advised to evacuate immediately,” is an explicit warning. [/quote]

A warning because of something threatening them.
"The threat of a strong hurricane."

5. “Residents who refuse to evacuate immediately will not be rescued later if they find themselves in trouble,” is a conditional threat.
6. “I will plunder your premises as soon as you leave,” is an unconditional threat.
7. “Your premises might be plundered as soon as you leave,” is an eventuality.
8. “Your premises will probably be damaged by the storm,” is a likelihood.
9. The difference between a likelihood and a threat is intention. Storms do not have intentions; thieves and burglars do.
10. “Judgement Day is nigh,” is an implied warning.
11. Mark 9:43 is an explicit threat, though the intention (God’s wrath) is only implied.

9. The difference between a likelihood and a threat is intention. Storms do not have intentions; thieves and burglars do.

Not only thieves or burglars may have intentions one doesn't like.
A loving parent also may have intentions to punish.
In fact if a parent NEVER threatens to punish a disobedient child, their wisdom or their love may be questioned.

There is punishment from God which is corrective and for the betterment of discipline.
What we often cannot fathom that to those BEYOND correction who remain forever hardening more and more like cement, spurning all divine patience, having contempt for all divine long-suffering, insulting mercy and squandering time to re-consider, punishment forever for irreconcilable enmity forever.

I will be reminded - "THIS is AWFUL !" I know.
We underestimate the awfulness of sin.

In our sense of scales the heavier side is the awfulness of eternal punishment.
I think the balance is in the equivalent awfulness of rejecting the One Who was made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Then I have contemplated that "Maybe God should recuse Himself as Judge because it has the appearance of Him taking things personally."

But I think this has to be incorrect because from Him and to Him and unto Him are all things.

@sonship said
The sight of you shrugging at someone holding a gun to your head seems unlikely to me.

What is your "someone holding a gun to your head" analogy about? Is it about the threat of being tortured by the god figure you worship?

@sonship said
There is punishment from God which is corrective and for the betterment of discipline.

Can you explain how non-believers being tormented in burning flames for eternity after they die is "corrective" and "for the betterment of discipline"?

@sonship said
What we often cannot fathom that to those BEYOND correction who remain forever hardening more and more like cement, spurning all divine patience, having contempt for all divine long-suffering, insulting mercy and squandering time to re-consider, punishment forever for irreconcilable enmity forever.

If you "cannot fathom" it, why do you expect others to believe it?

So, you just so happen to believe that - for example - my kind and lovely Muslim neighbours are... "beyond correction" and they "remain forever hardening more and more like cement, spurning all divine patience, having contempt for all divine long-suffering, insulting mercy and squandering time to re-consider, punishment forever for irreconcilable enmity forever".

Why should anyone believe your demented word-salad type threats?

@FMF

Why should anyone believe your demented word-salad type threats?

Why should anyone be impressed with you demented warp minded slanders against Christ?

Face it. You just want to be the center of the universe and you're not.

@sonship said
Why should anyone be impressed with you demented warp minded slanders against Christ?

You have dodged the content of my post. I know why.

@sonship said
You just want to be the center of the universe and you're not.

I don't claim that either of us is "the centre of the universe".

@sonship said
@BigDoggProblem

As for the rest, I don't have an opinion on whether the cause of death was natural or intentional. I am not a believer, so I'm not that motivated to find one.

You do not have to be a believer to care whether your death will be intentional or natural.
Probably, you arrange your affairs so that you will not die by someone's intention but ...[text shortened]... We die.

What about if a man were to demonstrate to the world that he could die and rise again?

That's not what I meant. I meant, I don't care whether the cause of death in the Genesis story was intentional or not.

In real life, I prefer a painless death to a painful one.

@bigdoggproblem said

In real life, I prefer a painless death to a painful one.

And if you were faced with a painful death as a consequence of what you believe in, "in real life", would you be willing to endure it?

@secondson said
And if you were faced with a painful death as a consequence of what you believe in, "in real life", would you be willing to endure it?

Do you believe that there is a literal lake of fire into which non Christians will be thrown and where they will endure everlasting punishment?

@divegeester

Do you believe that there is a literal lake of fire into which non Christians will be thrown and where they will endure everlasting punishment?

I think there will be a lake of fire and brimstone. However the way of prophecy is often what God told us + some.

So the beginning only may be to be burned up in such a lake of fire ... and some.

In other words , probably just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, is a lava lake. It be foolish to think God cannot add another dimension to that physical feature to essentially carry out His means to punish.

It would be fool hearty to assume you have God's hands tied because of some scientific characteristics of lake of fire and brimestone. opened up from the bowels of the earth.

Can't you grasp the essential foolishness of thinking it would be impossible for God to use such a geological feature. That might be only the outward beginning of the phenomenon of being under His judgment.

In this it is better to be as children in our understanding and not over wise in ourselves.

@bigdoggproblem said
Compare:
All P's are not vowels.
Not all P's are vowels.
Statement 1 is true, but statement 2 is false, so their meaning can't be the same.

As for the rest, I don't have an opinion on whether the cause of death was natural or intentional. I am not a believer, so I'm not that motivated to find one.

I've gone back through this thread trying to see if you mean something else by statement 1 and statement 2, but you appear not to. So apologies if that was a reference to something sonship was on about.

Both:

All P's are not vowels.
and
Not all P's are vowels.

are true. The difference is that the latter is a weaker statement, being logically equivalent to "Some P's are not vowels." - nothing is implied about the existence of P's which are vowels by it, it just doesn't rule them out.

@sonship said
@divegeester
Can't you grasp the essential foolishness of thinking it would be impossible for God to use such a geological feature. That might be only the outward beginning of the phenomenon of being under His judgment.

My question was pointing out that SecondSon will not unequivocally answer it. Probably because he is caught in a dilemma between being ashamed of the teaching and and his indoctrination of taking the bible at “face value” or literally.

I am aware of your intellectual marriage to the doctrine of eternal suffering and I’m aware that you will accept some of the visions of Revelation as literal and others and metaphorical, unlike kellyjay who has famously declared that everything in Revelation is literal...multiheaded beasts the lot!

What you have failed to explain, many times, is what is literal and what isn’t. Your post here waffling on about how I’m limited by not realising that the lake of fire could be any form of geological phenomena God chooses, is firstly a moot point as I don’t believe it even exists, and secondly hilarious as it reads like an excerpt from the movie Life of Brain.

@divegeester

What you have failed to explain, many times, is what is literal and what isn’t. Your post here waffling on about how I’m limited by not realising that the lake of fire could be any form of geological phenomena God chooses, is firstly a moot point as I don’t believe it even exists, and secondly hilarious as it reads like an excerpt from the movie Life of Brain.

I have not on this Forum gone over an exhaustive study of any Bible book including Revelation.

I recall telling you that the first place to start to ascertain how words should be taken to start with the places in Revelation where it seems to INFORM you up front, that what you are reading should be taken allegorically.

That's substantial time project. But if you are really interested its a good start.

But if you think an exhaustive analysis of 22 chapters of Revelation to you here, counts as some winning point for you ... ?

The argument has to do with a few verses in Revelation chapters 14 and 20. And I think I have expounded much on those in chapter 20.

"You didn't expound EVERY sentence in ALL twenty two chapters! " [paraphrase]

And out of the other side of you mouth - "waffle, waffle" ?

You, on the other hand, have not given a good reason to me why when Revelation says "forever and ever" and it concerns something positive, it is to be taken literally, but when it says "forever and ever" for something negative, its not literal.

Why then do you take it literally when it says God and His Christ will reign forever and ever in chapter 11?

Halelujah! And her smoke goes up forever and ever." (Rev. 19:3)

You - "Bad, cannot be true"

"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11:15)

You - "Good and true. "

" ... and they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)

You - "Bad - cannot be true"

"To Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb, be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever." (Rev. 5:13)

You - "Good and true. "

I don't think you have ever provided a rationale why when pleasant "forever and ever" is literal and when unpleasant "forever and ever" is not.