Featured Is it the sinner's fault that he will go to hell?

I say what I want without sugar coating it in language that'll come down to the same thing anyway.

 

No one has posted anything that calls for this response.Lk 24'27 answered your posts.You have gone off on him for no reason,and as one who also gets overheated at times....you need to apologize to him even if you are not in agreement.

 

The problem with this thread is the premise of the thread is flawed. There is no fault. Again, here we have an attempt to join two unlike qualities that were never meant to be put together, kind of like Baptists and creeds.

The reason there is no fault is that God is the Creator. He makes the rules and carries out His purpose as He sees fit. He is a Holy God that cannot tolerate sin. For whatever reason, He chose the way of salvation He did. The Garden of Eden, Creation, and the progress through the OT is not just a bunch of random events. It is the will of the Lord. It seems so simple, yet, man, like this thread makes a theological mountain out of it.

 

was this part of his post called for ?

this is tantamount to calling another believer a heretic without him knowing what the whole point of my argument was.
that makes him arrogant.
no, sir. politeness and a civil statement begets politeness and a civil response.
I will not apologize to this person.
I have read most of his posts in answer to those who hold a different view than he does, and they reek of arrogance.
I called him exactly what he is.

 

He is saying the same thing in essence that Jer. did.

The scripture speaks of..another jesus,another gospel,another spirit, so why is Lk2427 so out of line to express his view?

Jesus will say to multitudes...depart from me... I never knew you.They were religious people.

 

oh, okay, so you're saying he's right to suggest that I am introducing another god here.
okay.
while we're at it, let's drop all that hypocritical crap about questioning another's salvation, shall we ?

 

Pinoy...

.

Being a "strait shooter" is fine.

((( Vulgarity ))) however >>is exceedingly<< inapropiate for a child of God.

 

You are not reading the thread or his responses correctly. He did not say it the way you are repeating it.He did not say...you were introducing another god here. Where did he say that to you directly?

 

oh, pul-eeze.

"But don't create a whole new god to suit your fancy and pretend he is the God who has revealed himself in Scripture. "

Okay, so he didn't say directly that I was introducing another god....only that I am creating a whole new god (lower case ?) to suit ,my fancy and I am pretending he is the God of the Bible.

That was an entirely justified, called for statement to the simple question of why God should hold an unbeliever responsible.

That's a whole christian, educated way of calling another Christian a heretic.
also, why are you doing all the talking for him ?

In the first place, he wasn't even the one I was replying to.
He waded into the conversation with his arrogant P attitude and called me, in so many words, a heretic.

And you are saying I am just like the Israelites of Jeremiah's time which justifies him using the Jeremiah line on me.

We're done.
Good night.

 

You two are pathetic. It is a very simple, clear issue. There is no excuse, no excuse whatsoever, for that exchange of posts. It is up for debate whether those post are more or less civil than the language that goes on during a drug deal.

 

Ah.....

....OKAY?!?!?!:saint:

 

I would ask that this thread be closed despite the fact I did not start it. I have seen some pretty ugly threads, but this takes the cake, posts 41-50.

 

And I Thought Our Debates Were...

...heated and uncivil. These got us beat by several miles raying:

 

:laugh::laugh::thumbs:

 

Why are you laughing?????? Reread posts 41-50 that you created. You are at least half of the problem.

 

I was responding to Dudes post...he knows it.ask him.
Luke said nothing wrong. Webdog, AIC, Dude and I saw it the same way.

I have no trouble with what I posted. I told you last year that you do not understand my posts. The biblical language of Jeremiah, and Jesus support Lukes answers. You and PB can mis-read them if you want.

 

This is the exact reason that your posts have no validity. I read the Bible just like you, have not been to seminary just like you, have other occupations just like you.

You presume to put PB and I on the same team, and you and Luke. AIC, Dude etc on the same team. That is a total falsehood. I totally agree with Luke and his posts. It is you and the other poster that exchanged the outrageous posts. You have a way of aligning teams that do not exist. It is a smoke and mirrors tactic.

The languague in Jeremiah in our Bibles is exactly the same. Your opinion of Jeremiah, again, is quite interesting but does not make it the golden standard.

Reread your comments, "introducing another god," "paranoid and arrogant, "you are not reading the thread correctly." Who are you to make such statements?

 

saturneptune

Maybe before you go foaming at the mouth ,you should get it straight.


Luke responded in post 30...he was attacked and called names in post 31.. Luke was saying that the God of the bible is as revealed....He holds sinners responsible.....if anyone does not like it...they should say they do not like it...

not invent a god who does not do like the biblical God.

For that he was called vile names that two different mods have snipped
out.

WEBDOG, AIC, AND DUDE as well as the two moderators read it the same way.......and you go ahead and check with them, and while you are at it, they hardly would describe themselves as being on my "team".

I tried to get PB to lighten up and back out of it. He did not understand and neither do you. There are religious people who do not like what God has declared. There are multitudes of them, Jer2 and Mt 7 speak to that issue. If you do not like it,,,to bad. No one said PB was in that statement, Luke was speaking Generally...and PB admitted such saying...he did not say it directly...I BOLDED THAT....you can read, look at it.
Then he tried to stretch what I said with the Jer. passage as if i said it to him directly...hence the paranoid comment.

The jeremiah passage supports Lukes statement. If you cannot grasp it, it is your lack of understanding.
Your lame attempt to make me out to cause this shows you have unresolved issues,...

Well , I am not DR.PHIL so I cannot help you with your problem.

I never said it did. I just understand what the verse is saying. I was very clear about this to PB:

 

Sorry....

....didn't mean to start another "rift!" I just felt bad about the running battle Icon, and I had on another posted topic earlier this month, and had to say, after reading this exchange of words, I no longer feel bad about our exchange, because at least it didn't resort to the colorful [inappropriate] words, I've seen being tossed around on this post.

Forgive me for opening up more pain. I wasn't meaning to poke fun, just let Icon know that at least he and I don't resort to this kind of verbal warfare.

Certainly, and WD and Icon will verify this as truth, I am not on their teams in any way. They are always disagreeing with me, and Icon and I have had some kncok down, drag out fights, but nothing ever came close to this. I am surprised the mods haven't taken action, as I was hit with infractions for referring to someone last year having an "intelligent rearend [to sit on]."