Posted on 12/20/2016 8:14:06 AM PST by Kaslin
Well just look at what that entailed. QED...
They died in that day.
Liberals are the butter sticks in the Last Tango in Paris.
The primary purpose of PCism is to destroy the first amendment. The whole point of the first amendment is to prevent legal proceedings against someone whose openly expressed opinions or beliefs offend anybody.
I know that it was imperative that they not eat from the tree of life or they would live forever.
There is something awkward about a reading of the form “in that day, you will die in the future” however.
I think people object to the idea of everlasting hells with souls in them because they just can’t imagine God being “mean.” So they entertain cessationist views.
But the rages in hell are voluntary and self-glorifying and even lustful. That’s why you never want to meet those entities — they are not interested in the least in pity, because they are too proud. Salvation would itself be lost on them. They are willful monsters. Explained differently, God would rather give a soul which has struck an eternal attitude of adamant resistance to His love, a place where it can carry out its wish to rage at Him forever, than wipe it out altogether, which would efface His image to a degree that even He won’t tolerate.
A corollary, interestingly enough: if the idea of being in a hell is repulsive to you: rejoice. You are not lost yet.
But also... the folks who preach presumptuously that you’d want to be out of the hell the moment you found yourself in it IF DAMNED (hypothetically) are wrong. IF DAMNED you’d like it, but evilly. C. S. Lewis approached it with his idea of a “black pleasure.” The one parable we have about dialogue between heaven and hell never has the occupant asking to go to heaven. The occupant is wallowing willfully in hell, even with its flame, and any comforts he could get would only be used towards facilitating his evil action. The tongue cooled by water that he would enslave the occupant of heaven to get (if possible) would only use the relief to curse the more. The thought experiments of conflicted people are not a good guide. Conflicted means not lost yet.
think people object to the idea of everlasting hells with souls in them because they just can’t imagine God being “mean.” So they entertain cessationist views.
Add to that the simple fact that I had never actually studied it and merely took what “older Christians than me” said at face value, once I studied it, it didn’t take long to completely change my beliefs on the subject.
I just recently discovered Ed Fudges book, The Fire That Consumes and he absolutely nails it. There is so much misunderstanding regarding the bible’s use of phrases translated into English words like hell, eternity, punishment, fire, worm, etc. that can easily be resolved with simple study. Frankly, I now have a hard time understanding how anyone, once they REALLY study the subject, can carry with them the belief that God tortures the lost humans in a living, conscious state for time never ending. The bible strongly supports a second death that is, in fact, death.
They may have had a cat. Hubby likes to leave the butter out and we would put it in the microwave or our cat would eat a little bit of it. I personally would rather keep it in the fridge.
I think this is still being unrealistic and unscriptural.
The fire consumes, making the consumed one utterly evil. Because that is what he or she ultimately asked for.
But the rages in hell are voluntary and self-glorifying and even lustful. That’s why you never want to meet those entities — they are not interested in the least in pity, because they are too proud.
And it isn’t God who’s torturing, if the occupants are torturing themselves (and possibly, getting torture gladly from the devils that are in there too).
One has to really push one’s imagination inside out to imagine that. One who had been sadomasochist could better understand it, but that would only be an approach. Nobody is totally evil yet on earth.
Well so you made a joke, but Chicago would then be an illustration of an approach to it.
Explained differently, God would rather give a soul which has struck an eternal attitude of adamant resistance to His love, a place where it can carry out its wish to rage at Him forever, than wipe it out altogether, which would efface His image to a degree that even He won’t tolerate.
Yeah. Actually your comments about their attitude is how I see many of the “dangerous to whites” in some of the rougher projects. There is zero empathy. It’s why the knockout game works for them.
God would supply the wherewithal for it to continue to exist, but that’s it.
One might as well say it should be impossible for God to keep Satan in existence.
One could even say that the grace of God is such that He would even permit someone to be evil forever than to wipe that person out.
When we talk about a chessboard here, we forget that there are regions beyond it. Playing the chess means not damned yet.
And it isn’t God who’s torturing, if the occupants are torturing themselves (and possibly, getting torture gladly from the devils that are in there too).
One has to really push one’s imagination inside out to imagine that. One who had been sadomasochist could better understand it, but that would only be an approach. Nobody is totally evil yet on earth.
One also has to really push their interpretation of what the bible says to actually believe that. You can’t torture yourself if you are dead.
When you see the phrase “students demand”, just translate it to “Faculty demands”.
I work with students and they don’t seem to really care about this kind of stuff. This stuff becomes more meaningful when they leave school. I have a colleague who is just out of school and I can twist them like a pretzel.
God would supply the wherewithal for it to continue to exist, but that’s it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.