27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fmfNot if you're worried about it.
Presumably, something or things I've said during my participation here in this community can be construed as unforgivable "blaspheming the Holy Ghost", especially when, having been a Christian, I was aware of Luke 12:10. Does that mean that no conversion, no change of heart, no return to my former faith, no epiphany, and no repentance on my part, according to your ideology, can "save" me from "damnation" now?
The one who blasphemes the Holy Ghost doesn't care. IMO.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @josephwThis does not answer my question.
Not if you're worried about it.
The one who blasphemes the Holy Ghost doesn't care. IMO.
Do you believe that there is no conversion, no change of heart, no return to former faith, no epiphany, and no repentance on my part, according to your ideology, that can "save" me from "damnation" now?
You saying "Not if you're worried about it" in answer to that question is just a non-sequitur.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fmfThey are books. Not books allegorically.
If they are not books as we humans know them, and the reference to them is in the languages that humans use, written by humans for humans (perhaps with inspiration from god), and they are "not the kind of books" that the word "book" refers to and are, instead, something beyond that which we can even imagine ~ then aren't we into the realm of allegory?
Can you imagine how big the "books" must be that have recorded in them all the works of the dead that they are judged according to?
I think you've missed the meaning of the scriptures by straining at a gnat.
27 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfYes I would. I might even resort to using terms like "brood of vipers" or "whited wall" if necessary. 🙄
Can we expect you to call on others here - sonship, for example - an "idiot" and an "internet reprobate" if he should ever "compare verses with verses outside their immediate context"?
I might even use the term "pussy" like divegeester does.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fmfNo FMF. I do not believe you are beyond the reach of God's grace.
This does not answer my question.
Do you believe that there is no conversion, no change of heart, no return to former faith, no epiphany, and no repentance on my part, according to your ideology, that can "save" me from "damnation" now?
You saying "Not if you're worried about it" in answer to that question is just a non-sequitur.
Do you?
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @josephwDescribe these "books".
They are books. Not books allegorically.
Can you imagine how big the "books" must be that have recorded in them all the works of the dead that they are judged according to?
I think you've missed the meaning of the scriptures by straining at a gnat.
27 Sep 17
FMF: Can we expect you to call on others here - sonship, for example - an "idiot" and an "internet reprobate" if he should ever "compare verses with verses outside their immediate context"?You will, then, if it happens?
Originally posted by @josephw
[b]Yes I would. I might even resort to using terms like "brood of vipers" or "whited wall" if necessary./b]
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @josephwYou believe there is a literal "mark in the forehead", a literal "wine of anger/cup of wrath", a literal "tormenting" with literal "brimstone" while the loving Jesus of mercy and John 3:16, literally sits by and watches...
Quite so!
So what's the problem?
This is what you believe?
Originally posted by @josephwMe neither.
I'm not the one who's afraid of hearing the truth.
As I said this thread is not about mistakes, contradictions nor even about truth per-se, it's about what is literal and what isn't. The truth of your doctrine depends on it.
I've asked you a question earlier in the thread: Do you believe that everything in the bible is literal? If not, then what isn't literal and how do you decide?
Do you feel like answering this?