No More Tears

Yes, understanding grows with time and practice but it does not suddenly change to something totally different, it only deepens what we already know.

How is the fact God created angels, Jesus being the first of them and that Satan, an angel, turned away from God and drew a "third" of the angels to himself, thus becoming demons, complex? Seems pretty simple to me.

Not often but yes sometimes, I do copy and paste commentary but not lots.

As for my ability to explain "my" theology just using the Bible, you can think anything you want, you usually do.

 

Again you seem so eager to attack that you seem to over look the ramifications of what was said.

Since the dead are conscious of nothing and the soul that is sinning dies, then how can a Hell where people are in constant pain even be possible?

Is that simple and straightforward enough for you?

 

Well let's see. I may understand that the act of adultery is not helpful, but that understanding is of an entirely different vain than the understanding that it is at the level of conception where the offense takes place, if you look at a women with lust you have already committed adultery in your heart and are liable.

Really, it is an elaborate fantasy that requires explanation.

Would it be possible that when you do, that you give credit?

Well, I haven't seen it yet.

 

Almost no one in these threads does this, so why do you wish to apply it to me? If it is good information apply it, if not ignore it.

Interesting, yes, children love their parents but they know more than that. They also know who their father is and know what it means to be his son and are not confused about whether they are one in the same.

Oh, by the way, "babes" in the Bible could be refering to Children as old as three to five.

 

So your understanding "that the act of adultery is not helpful" has completely changed to; that even thinking about the act of adultery is not helpful, oh yeah, totally different.

Again with saying what the Bible says is just a "elaborate fantasy".

It would be possible but almost no one else does it, so why should I?

I can't help it if you haven't been paying attention.

 

I've noticed that quotes are usually quoted. If you are proposing to be stating what the "bible says", it would be nice to know if you are giving "outside" information.

No, they are not confused, they know they are like their father, not dissimilar to him.

So?

 

I never got an answer to my question about the Midianites, which I asked before you, perhaps you would like to try your hand at it?

 

This has nothing to do with the quote you cited, are you trying to make some kind of a point?

 

I do, any such information, I usually preface with, "this is something I find on the subject" or something like that but not always.

Yes but not the same.

Thought it was interesting, sorry you didn't.

 

Actually I did not say thinking about adultery, I said with lust in the heart.
You do not see that this is a whole new level of appreciation for the subject?

I didn't say "just". I said that your theology, the descriptions are an elaborate fantasy that requires explanation.

I do. And like I say, it appears that most everyone, in fact does. I see that okiefreak does in this very thread.

But I have, and I recognize that you are using ancillary documents for which you do not give credit, as does okiefreak, which is why he asked about watchtower.

 

I am paying close attention.

What is your point?

Well, I might if you could illuminate the aspect that you find interesting.

 

Let me rephrase. Do any other groups of Christians share your interpretations of the biblical passages concerning hell? Can you name a few? Can you name one? Do your interpretations of the Bible differ in any significant (or even insignificant) respect from those of the Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, please explain.

Say what? The Bible is explicit that Jesus is explaining the parable in Matthew 13:36-42: "'explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.' And He said: 'the one who sows the good is the Son of Man. and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sows them is the devil; and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth hes angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness., and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." What else could that mean but that Jesus is explaining a parable? But you knew that. And you called me a liar.

But if the Bible is straightforward and simple and means pretty much what it says, as you've told us, how could so many get it wrong? How many Christian churches are there? And how many do you suppose share your views? Like the offhand one about Jesus being God's first angel. (What is the Scriptural citation for that one, by the way?)

 

Yes, my point is that this question has been on the boards for many weeks. You said you would get back to me on it and to have patience. I'm wondering if it is so simple what is taking so long?
I could be entirely wrong on this, but I think the references are not accounted for in your hierarchical model and you are trying to concoct how they might fit.

 

Was that recently? I know you asked someone else a question about them,which I believe I did address in a previous post. Let's see if this is what you're talking about:#37 on this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderWaterBrother
Do you know why God told them to do so?

If you're speaking of the Midianites, I think you told us once before but it may have been lost when they closed the Bible contradictions thread. I'd like to hear it again, since as I recall your answer was a classic illustration of the lengths to which a fundamentalist will go to justify atrocities. We're talking here about a command by God to take vengance on the Midianites. After sacking their city and slaughtering the men, Moses was angry that his captains spared all the women. He blamed the women for their role (collectively) in somehow causing the Israelites to support the evil diviner Baalam. Moses ordered them to kill every male child and every female who had intercourse, but to save the female virgins for themselves. Okay, and what again is the justification for this slaughter of children?

Over to you. Let's see if you can answer the question without asking one.

 

Yeah, like I said totally different.

But they are not "my" theology or descriptions, they are the Bible's, thus your calling it an "elaborate fantasy" means you believe the Bible is an "elaborate fantasy".

Really? Please give examples of "most everyone" in these threads giving credit every time they cite something.

Once in a blue moon I use "ancillary documents for which you do not give credit" and suddenly all the rest of the time that I don't do that is meaningless.

 

Really?

What is it about, they are not the same, don't you understand?

We were talking about a Scripture that used the word "babes" and as an aside said "babes" could be as old as 3 to 5. What more needs to be "illuminated"? Are you really so interested in "attacking" everything I say, that you have no interest in the Bible at all?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderWaterBrother
I never got an answer to my question about the Midianites, which I asked before you, perhaps you would like to try your hand at it?

Was that recently? I know you asked someone else a question about them,which I believe I did address in a previous post. Let's see if this is what you're talking about:#37 on this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderWaterBrother
Do you know why God told them to do so?

If you're speaking of the Midianites, I think you told us once before but it may have been lost when they closed the Bible contradictions thread. I'd like to hear it again, since as I recall your answer was a classic illustration of the lengths to which a fundamentalist will go to justify atrocities. We're talking here about a command by God to take vengance on the Midianites. After sacking their city and slaughtering the men, Moses was angry that his captains spared all the women. He blamed the women for their role (collectively) in somehow causing the Israelites to support the evil diviner Baalam. Moses ordered them to kill every male child and every female who had intercourse, but to save the female virgins for themselves. Okay, and what again is the justification for this slaughter of children?

Over to you. Let's see if you can answer the question without asking one.

 

When you answer a question with a question, expect to often be ignored for an idiot.

 

I am not conversant in the teachings of every group of Christians nor do I know all the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, although I will say that much of what they believe seems to agree with what I know of the Bible.

I did not call you a liar, I merely pointed out that Matthew 13:36-42 is not the only scripture you cited.

Well for one thing, many pick and choose what they want from the Bible, so they can worship God the way they want to rather than the way God wants them to worship.

No clue, in the U.S. there are about 2,000.

It is not my job to worry about what churches share "my" views, my concern is understanding what the Bible says, so I can try to serve God the way he wants to be served.

Well, Jesus was the the first born of all creation and the Bible infers that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.

 

Whoa. Stop right there! Where does the Bible infer that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? (But don't forget about those Midianites).