But, here I go again looking for new people that I can terrify with my mouth wide open:
Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
It's things like this that take all the JOY out of life!!!
;^)
I wrote:
<< You originally claimed that Jonah warned of God's wrath and was PISSED about it. >>
You responded:
<< You are right; but I did NOT claim to give a REASON for it. >>
No, that's right -- you did not give a reason. But it sure looked like your intent was to show an example of someone preaching about Hell without being broken-hearted. Your statement was meant to somehow mitigate or refute what I said. It did no such thing. But if you think so -- that's fine with me.
Like I keep saying -- no skin off my teeth. I long ago ceased being surprised by inane arguments about scripture. And it looks like, once again, I have made the mistake of thinking someone cared about whether or not she was misusing the scripture.
It appears that I was been wrong.
Can you show me a place in Scripture where one is to be completely broken hearted before they can tell someone about Hell?
<< Can you show me a place in Scripture where one is to be completely broken hearted before they can tell someone about Hell? >>
Please re-read what I wrote:
<< Preaching about Hell without being totally broken-hearted about those one is trying warn -- well, that just doesn't seem right to this old reprobate. But -- whatever. >>
Notice -- I made no claim about scripture at all in this regard; it is just a personal opinion. If you prefer to gloat about the idea of others roasting in the fires of hell forever, far be it from me to interfere.
I only responded to YOUR "biblical" claim because it was erroneous. I have no alternative "biblical" claim to make. My only claim about scripture is that it does, indeed, teach about a burning, eternal place of torment -- sort of like this thread! LOL!
An amazing statement from one who says that there is no eternal punishment. (#1198)
<< An amazing statement from one who says that there is no eternal punishment. (#1198) >>
Shouldn't be amazing at all. Even though I no longer believe in the divine origin of scripture -- I still treat the Bible with the basic respect to try to understand its meaning as accurately as possible.
While it's true that the New Testament does claim that an unbeliever cannot understand spiritual things -- I think I can still get the gist of what a passage is trying to say -- if I am careful not to interject my own preferred ideas into the text or to twist it out of recognition, as so many believers do -- and as so many anti-Bible folks do, too.
Using the standard tools of hermeneutics and logic, it is clear to any reasonable interpreter that Jonah's anger was directed, not at the people, but at the fact that God had relented when they repented. Read the entire fourth chapter carefully, and I think you will agree.
Again -- this is based on the assumption that we are both trying to accurately understand the text, not just make points.
Also -- I clearly stated, at least twice, that I believe that the Bible does clearly teach eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire for all unbelievers. I do not believe there is any such place -- but I do see that the Bible does say there is.
Nothing amazing about that. But -- well -- there it is.
<< Yes, you did. You gave YOUR opinion. To jump from that statement: ...doesn't seem right... to talking about MY 'incorrect' TWIST of Scripture is avoidance. >>
Hahaha! Not avoidance at all. In fact, I have gone out of my way to patiently explain exactly what I meant, in both instances.
You tried to counter my statement with a scriptural reference, and I showed that your citation did not counter what I said at all. One reason it didn't is that it had no connection to what I said -- and the other reason it didn't is that I was not making any biblical claim in the first place, just giving my opinion.
If I had tried to prove my point from scripture -- your counter citation STILL would not have meant anything, because it has nothing to do with what I said. If you want to counter my statement from the scripture, you would have to find some passage that SAYS something about whether or not one should be broken-hearted, or angry, or gleeful, or indignant -- or SOMETHING -- when one preaches on Hell.
Your example had nothing to do with that. Jonah was not preaching on Hell. His anger was directed at the fact that God relented, and that ruins your point. And that EXAMPLE does not provide TEACHING about the attitude one must have when preaching about Hell.
Finally -- even if you COULD find a scripture that contradicts what I said -- that wouldn't matter to me. I would acknowledge that that is what the scripture says, but I do not necessarily accept everything in scripture as true. Like I have said -- I accept that the Bible does preach a burning, eternal place of torment for unbelievers.
And it is my opinion that preaching about Hell without having a great deal of compassion and caring for those one is preaching to -- just ain't right. YMMV.
Accepting that the Bible says ABC is not the same as believing it to be true. But it seems to me that those who DO proclaim their belief in it should be careful to interpret it accurately, and not misuse it.
Now rather than avoiding the issues, I am hitting them head-on, and trying to show you the problem in some detail -- not from rancor, or from hatred, or from some smart-aleck attitude. Straight up and honest.
Shoot -- even as a nonbeliever, I am concerned about not misstating scripture -- and that is why I tried to show you the context of Johah's anger, so you would see the problem. But again -- we seem to be approaching this with different motives.
<< And then, you keep trying to ratchet upward on what you think my feelings about Hell and others are. Why? You've seen my tagline...... >>
No big deal. Let me ask you: Do you care about accurate understanding of the intended meaning of the text? If so, I can recommend several good sources of study to help you do so. All of them are written by conservative Christians scholars; I am not trying to push infidel-stuff on you at all. If you have a problem taking any advice at all from an unbeliever -- no problemo.
Cheers.
(I think that we have MANY more thoughts on these subjects than flows out to our fingertips... ;^)
Also -- I clearly stated, at least twice, that I believe that the Bible does clearly teach eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire for all unbelievers. I do not believe there is any such place -- but I do see that the Bible does say there is.
Well; it wasn't clear to me until you have so plainly stated it now.
What I can't understand is this:
If you say that the Bible is NOT divinely inspired; then it HAS to be written by men, as they saw fit.
Do I have this assumption right?
If so, why do you give it any kind of 'respect' at all?
This statement baffles me.
I had written:
<< Accepting that the Bible says ABC is not the same as believing it to be true. >>
You responded:
<< This statement baffles me. >>
I think it's clear that a lot of logical statements seem to baffle you. Let's try this one, and maybe you'll catch it:
1) The Koran SAYS that Mohammed was Allah's prophet.
2) What that MEANS is that Mohammed was Allah's prophet.
3) I accept that this is what the Koran says.
4) But I do not believe it.
Here's another one:
1) Michael Moore's 9/11 movie appears to accuse Bush of being in cahoots with the bin Laden family.
2) I agree that this is what Moore is saying.
3) I do not believe the accusation.
It's the difference between acknowledging the MEANING of what is written -- and accepting the TRUTH of what is written. Some Christians believe that the Bible does NOT teach eternal damnation in a burning fire. Most Christians believe that it does.
I agree that it does. I accept that this is what it MEANS. That is not the same as believing it to be true -- that there really is such a place of punishment.
Otay?
<< Well; it wasn't clear to me until you have so plainly stated it now. >>
LOL! Check post #1198. I said it at least three times in that one message.
"What we got heah...... is a failure...... to communicate."
yup
Well... I guess there's a 50/50 chance - it's either true or not.
Why do you believe it to be untrue?
<< Why do you believe it to be untrue? >>
That's another thread for another list for another time. Maybe in the afterlife, while we're sitting around fanning ourselves. Be there or be square.
But, here I go again looking for new people that I can terrify with my mouth wide open:
It wasn't you, Dude.Perhaps shy lurkers will NEVER learn what led A from the straight and narrow to a broadway.
I guess he had no hope and wasn't prepared...
NIV 1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...
Really? He made a list of every Communist and explicitly excommunicated each one by name? News to me.
Are you telling me the communists never beat up any nuns, or did anything else to warrant automatic ex-communication, and thereby save the Pope the trouble?
We are discussing one specific individual who personally engaged in several different actions incurring automatic excommunication. I'm certain that many, many Communists as specific individuals incurred automatic excommunication just as Hitler did, but that's irrelevant.
Apparently Pius suffered the impression that ex-communication means something in the modern world--it's just that torturing 6000000 jews to death doesn't rise to that level of Godly concern, in the opinion of Jesus's voice on earth.
Hitler was already excommunicated by his own actions long before he committed his first murder, so your hyperbolic grandstanding is superfluous.
Was Pius supposed to invent a new brand of couble-double excommunication just for Hitler?
Your burning, bigoted anti-Catholicism - a low and seedy prejudice which you try to mask by pretending that the Shoah is your main concern - is laughably contradictory.
You claim that excommunication is pointless since it carries no enforceable penalties in the carnal world while simultaneously claiming that the Church should have enforced the ban of excommunication more concretely.
Which is it? Does excommunication not matter at all, or does it matter so much that you're afraid the Church doesn't excommunicate people with enough vigor? Make up your mind.
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.