Conquer Club

crispybits wrote:Viceroy, you probably missed my question before as there has been a lot of dicsuusion sicne, but Jesus quite clearly thinks that the fire and brimstone version of hell is what is real. Scroll back a page or two and you'll see his direct quotes. So should I believe your "eternal nothing" over his "eternal fire" version, and if so why?

If Jesus spoke and taught literally, then how do you explain the testimonies that Jesus did not speak literally to the multitudes?

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:"
-Matthew 13:34

"And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear [it].
But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."
-Mark 4:33-34

Ah right OK, so God deliberately confuses and blurs his message by dressing it up in stories so vague that only those who already believe will understand. Gotcha.

Doesn't really help the case Ray is trying to make about him not being a scumbag right now but that's not your concern. After all an all powerful, all knowing God would obviously send a clear message, not one that can only be properly contextualised by those that already believe. (read the full chapters around those quotes if you want to see exactly what I am referencing, plus Isaiah 6:9-10 which is the biblical prophetic reasoning for the speaking in parable rather than in plain language and truth)

crispybits wrote:Ah right OK, so God deliberately confuses and blurs his message by dressing it up in stories so vague that only those who already believe will understand. Gotcha.

Doesn't really help the case Ray is trying to make about him not being a scumbag right now but that's not your concern. After all an all powerful, all knowing God would obviously send a clear message, not one that can only be properly contextualised by those that already believe. (read the full chapters around those quotes if you want to see exactly what I am referencing, plus Isaiah 6:9-10 which is the biblical prophetic reasoning for the speaking in parable rather than in plain language and truth)

My point is that Jesus was not clearly teaching about hell in the sense that it is a place of torment for all of eternity. Which is what you seem to believe...

crispybits wrote:Viceroy, you probably missed my question before as there has been a lot of dicsuusion sicne, but Jesus quite clearly thinks that the fire and brimstone version of hell is what is real. Scroll back a page or two and you'll see his direct quotes. So should I believe your "eternal nothing" over his "eternal fire" version, and if so why?

"Eternal Fire" is not a term used by Jesus Christ and certainly not "His" teaching in the sense of a literal place of torment. There is a phrase used that the fires of hell can not be quenched or are unquenchable but the simple explanation to that is that they can not be put out. There is simply no fire extinguisher large enough to put out the fire that God will create to destroy the wicked, sin and death. It all goes into the fires for eternal destruction never to come back again after that. But the fire itself eventually does die out.

And the fires, while no man or demon or even angels of God can put out those flames, they are not themselves literally eternal flames that burn on for ever. After all, Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed with "Eternal Fire" But I don't think that anyone would argue that Sodom and Gomorah are still burning today? No; The meaning of the term "Eternal Fire" is in fact a way to express the effect of that Fire. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by "Eternal Fires" and never rose again. Unlike many cities of those regions when they were destroyed were simply built again on top of the ashes. But the effects of "Eternal Fires" is that what ever is destroyed by them are destroyed for ever and for good. Never to be seen again.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of "eternal fire."
-Jude 1:7

Viceroy63 wrote:

crispybits wrote:Ah right OK, so God deliberately confuses and blurs his message by dressing it up in stories so vague that only those who already believe will understand. Gotcha.

Doesn't really help the case Ray is trying to make about him not being a scumbag right now but that's not your concern. After all an all powerful, all knowing God would obviously send a clear message, not one that can only be properly contextualised by those that already believe. (read the full chapters around those quotes if you want to see exactly what I am referencing, plus Isaiah 6:9-10 which is the biblical prophetic reasoning for the speaking in parable rather than in plain language and truth)

My point is that Jesus was not clearly teaching about hell in the sense that it is a place of torment for all of eternity. Which is what you seem to believe...

crispybits wrote:Viceroy, you probably missed my question before as there has been a lot of dicsuusion sicne, but Jesus quite clearly thinks that the fire and brimstone version of hell is what is real. Scroll back a page or two and you'll see his direct quotes. So should I believe your "eternal nothing" over his "eternal fire" version, and if so why?

"Eternal Fire" is not a term used by Jesus Christ and certainly not "His" teaching in the sense of a literal place of torment. There is a phrase used that the fires of hell can not be quenched or are unquenchable but the simple explanation to that is that they can not be put out. There is simply no fire extinguisher large enough to put out the fire that God will create to destroy the wicked, sin and death. It all goes into the fires for eternal destruction never to come back again after that. But the fire itself eventually does die out.

And the fires, while no man or demon or even angels of God can put out those flames, they are not themselves literally eternal flames that burn on for ever. After all, Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed with "Eternal Fire" But I don't think that anyone would argue that Sodom and Gomorah are still burning today? No; The meaning of the term "Eternal Fire" is in fact a way to express the effect of that Fire. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by "Eternal Fires" and never rose again. Unlike many cities of those regions when they were destroyed were simply built again on top of the ashes. But the effects of "Eternal Fires" is that what ever is destroyed by them are destroyed for ever and for good. Never to be seen again.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of "eternal fire."
-Jude 1:7

Mark 9:43-48
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched

Matthew 5:22
...anyone who says, 'You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of Hell.

The more you cherry pick Viceroy the less and less of your "sared truth" is literal. And the thing is the point where you start saying any of it isn't literal, you run into the same problem player runs into, and every other apologetic runs into. Your sacred text becomes something that's personal and open to a million million interpretations. Then you have to answer the question, why do YOU have the right interpretation amongst those millions? Why is my interpretation incorrect? Either there is an absolute truth, in which case the only source of that is a literal reading of the bible, or there is relative truth, in which case nothing you or any other believer can say about God is any more relevant than what I say about God. And I say he's a scumbag. Go figure....

Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

I'm just full of surprises, aren't I? LOL.

Not really. after this long.
Answer the question for once.

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

Still waiting. surely this is a simple enough question even for you. Since you're here proselytizing, I'd have thought you'd be eager to share this information.

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

The answer to your question is that what I am talking about is the plain and simple truth spelled out in the pages of the Bible. I am sure that there are churches out there that understand this but it is probably a rare thing to find a church that teaches the plain and simple teachings of the Bible because then all those pagan ideas of heaven and hell and the afterlife have to be tossed out the window along with the bath water.

"Popular opinion, no matter how popular it may be, does not necessarily make it the truth!"

Viceroy63 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

The answer to your question is that what I am talking about is the plain and simple truth spelled out in the pages of the Bible. I am sure that there are churches out there that understand this but it is probably a rare thing to find a church that teaches the plain and simple teachings of the Bible because then all those pagan ideas of heaven and hell and the afterlife have to be tossed out the window along with the bath water.

"Popular opinion, no matter how popular it may be, does not necessarily make it the truth!"

So it's just you, huh?
How many people have you persuaded so far that your view is "self-evident"?

You're gonna be mighty lonely up there in Heaven. Imagine, two thousand years, and you're th only one who's seen the truth that is self-evident. What are the odds? Lucky you worked it out for yourself, else God'd be alone on Judgement Day. Now he has YOU for company.

YOu know, I never imagined I'd ever be sorry for God. Him and you for all eternity. Poor bastard. he should have planned that one better.

Viceroy63 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

The answer to your question is that what I am talking about is the plain and simple truth spelled out in the pages of the Bible. I am sure that there are churches out there that understand this but it is probably a rare thing to find a church that teaches the plain and simple teachings of the Bible because then all those pagan ideas of heaven and hell and the afterlife have to be tossed out the window along with the bath water.

"Popular opinion, no matter how popular it may be, does not necessarily make it the truth!"

At least all those churches have kept the baby intact. Where has your church hidden the baby?

jonesthecurl wrote:You're gonna be mighty lonely up there in Heaven. Imagine, two thousand years, and you're th only one who's seen the truth that is self-evident. What are the odds? Lucky you worked it out for yourself, else God'd be alone on Judgement Day. Now he has YOU for company.

YOu know, I never imagined I'd ever be sorry for God. Him and you for all eternity. Poor bastard. he should have planned that one better.

hey jones, what has viceroy said to warrant your personal attacks on him?

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:You're gonna be mighty lonely up there in Heaven. Imagine, two thousand years, and you're th only one who's seen the truth that is self-evident. What are the odds? Lucky you worked it out for yourself, else God'd be alone on Judgement Day. Now he has YOU for company.

YOu know, I never imagined I'd ever be sorry for God. Him and you for all eternity. Poor bastard. he should have planned that one better.

hey jones, what has viceroy said to warrant your personal attacks on him?

Ha ha I'm saved and you're not.

jonesthecurl wrote:

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:You're gonna be mighty lonely up there in Heaven. Imagine, two thousand years, and you're th only one who's seen the truth that is self-evident. What are the odds? Lucky you worked it out for yourself, else God'd be alone on Judgement Day. Now he has YOU for company.

YOu know, I never imagined I'd ever be sorry for God. Him and you for all eternity. Poor bastard. he should have planned that one better.

hey jones, what has viceroy said to warrant your personal attacks on him?

Ha ha I'm saved and you're not.

you can search this entire thread and not find me saying, "Ha ha I'm saved and you're not." to anyone at all. But to answer this aspect of salvation, no one can really say that another is save or not except in the case of those called and chosen vessels who have rejected their calling in favor of a lie. But that is not you Jones. So I would never presume to speak like that to anyone that I did not know personally, who knew the truth and rejected it.

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
-John 3:8

In fact it is my most sincerest of hopes that in the resurrection, the final judgment, these words may ring in your ears and anyone who reads them and that it may make a difference then. For I know that there will be many surprises then and people (Tele-evangelist for example), Who you would think would be the first into the kingdom may actually turn out to be the last if at all.

"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
-Matthew 20:16

Viceroy63 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

The answer to your question is that what I am talking about is the plain and simple truth spelled out in the pages of the Bible. I am sure that there are churches out there that understand this but it is probably a rare thing to find a church that teaches the plain and simple teachings of the Bible because then all those pagan ideas of heaven and hell and the afterlife have to be tossed out the window along with the bath water.

"Popular opinion, no matter how popular it may be, does not necessarily make it the truth!"

Nor does writing down popular opinion....and calling it a bible.

AAFitz wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

The answer to your question is that what I am talking about is the plain and simple truth spelled out in the pages of the Bible. I am sure that there are churches out there that understand this but it is probably a rare thing to find a church that teaches the plain and simple teachings of the Bible because then all those pagan ideas of heaven and hell and the afterlife have to be tossed out the window along with the bath water.

"Popular opinion, no matter how popular it may be, does not necessarily make it the truth!"

Nor does writing down popular opinion....and calling it a bible.

Popular opinion is not always accurate nor correct. The Holy Bible is. Always!

Funny that, coming from someone who preaches the exact opposite...

jonesthecurl wrote:

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:You're gonna be mighty lonely up there in Heaven. Imagine, two thousand years, and you're th only one who's seen the truth that is self-evident. What are the odds? Lucky you worked it out for yourself, else God'd be alone on Judgement Day. Now he has YOU for company.

YOu know, I never imagined I'd ever be sorry for God. Him and you for all eternity. Poor bastard. he should have planned that one better.

hey jones, what has viceroy said to warrant your personal attacks on him?

Ha ha I'm saved and you're not.

i think people who try to "save" you are concerned for you, not taunting you. quit being a dick.

Get a new gif bbs^^

Popular opinion is not always accurate nor correct. The Holy Bible is. Always!

If you saw this quote in isolation could you tell whether he's serious or mocking the Bible?

Hmm, maybe we can make a forum game around this concept.

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

Still waiting...

jonesthecurl wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Slightly different track, Vice: your interpretation is different to any other Christian I've encountered (and I've talked to many). Is it your own? or are you a member of some church or sect which is new to me?

Still waiting...

OK; Once more but with feelings this time.

Exactly what interpretations are you referring to?

Can you please be just a bit more specific with your questions and not just leave it all out in the open like some sort of an "ambush question."

Also is this just one question or two or three or more, all rolled up in the same sentence? If it is, then Why?

Viceroy63 wrote:Exactly what interpretations are you referring to?

Your Interpretation. Jones said so quite clearly.