[jlisenbe]

If you have done it, then make your case. We are all waiting.

[Athos]

All due respect but bad enough you claim there is no racism, when the simple thing to do is Google institutional racism or gentrification, and follow the links at your own leisure, but to hide behind your religion is a lousy excuse.

It's quite extensive and a lesson into reality and history. Like studying the bible.

That's some religion he hides behind. That's the one where if you don't believe the way he does you spend eternity in hell being tortured. That includes toddlers and infants who aren't believers because they can't be. He makes no distinction. Then there's the billions of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc., etc., etc., who never heard of his god, but no matter, they all go to hell anyway.

Still waiting for him to deny or clarify but all he offers is "The Bible told me so".

[jlisenbe]

Still waiting for him to deny or clarify but all he offers is "The Bible told me so".

What a crazy comment. The Bible is the foundation of Christian belief. To say, "The Bible says,"is the end of the discussion for us. Anyone with any familiarity with the Christian faith would know that.

I'm not hiding behind anything and if you will do what you typically don't do and read the original comment, then you will realize that. For a Christian to say "I follow Christ" is a very normal thing. You plainly have but little understanding of my faith.

[Athos]

You plainly have but little understanding of my faith.

I understand that your belief is that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.

Do you deny that? Yes or no?

If no, does it include infants and toddlers?

[jlisenbe]

I understand that your belief is that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.

Do you deny that? Yes or no?

If no, does it include infants and toddlers?

I've never denied that, largely because of this passage in Revelation 20. "11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

As to toddlers and infants, that is less clear. My understanding is that, since they are not guilty of sin, there would be nothing to judge them for. David was convinced his infant child was in heaven.

[Wondergirl]

To say, "The Bible says," is the end of the discussion for us. Anyone with any familiarity with the Christian faith would know that.

Which Bible translation? Whose interpretation?

[Athos]

I've never denied that, [a Bible passage follows]

As to toddlers and infants, that is less clear. My understanding is that, since they are not guilty of sin, there would be nothing to judge them for. David was convinced his infant child was in heaven.

Ah, at least that's progress of a sort. Let's go a step further. How about others who may not be guilty of sin - say, an adult who is mentally disabled and doesn't know right from wrong.

[jlisenbe]

Ah, at least that's progress of a sort. Let's go a step further. How about others who may not be guilty of sin - say, an adult who is mentally disabled and doesn't know right from wrong.

Not yet. First it's time for you to summon up some courage and state your position, which would REALLY be progress. Do you accept the Revelation passage?

[Wondergirl]

Not yet. First it's time for you to summon up some courage and state your position, which would REALLY be progress. Do you accept the Revelation passage?

Accept the Revelation passage as what?

"Revelation was the last book to be accepted into the Christian biblical canon, and even at the present day some Nestorian churches reject it. It was tainted because the heretical sect of the Montanists relied on it and doubts were raised over its Jewishness and authorship, and it was not until 419 that it was included in the canon."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...most-christian

[jlisenbe]

Accept the Revelation passage as what?

Truth. You plainly don't. Now Athos needs to answer.

For me, I'm perfectly happy to take my stand in Revelation as in any other book of the Bible.

[Athos]

Not yet. First it's time for you to summon up some courage and state your position, which would REALLY be progress. Do you accept the Revelation passage?

Revelation is a literary gem. Sure I accept it. It's full of colorful language, metaphors and symbols, angels and anti-Christs, lakes of fire, books with names written in them, etc., etc., etc.

Did you know it barely made it into the canon? Even then many thought it wasn't really inspired, just a sort of weird dream of John. I think (not sure) the Orthodox have pretty much rejected it and don't use it in their services. I DO know that Luther rejected it - oddly enough for the same reasons I object to it, all the hades and hell stuff - and when he translated his Bible he put Revelation in some back window. Anyway, not in the Bible proper.

Back to the question - the mentally disabled adult. ??

[Wondergirl]

Truth. You plainly don't. Now Athos needs to answer.

For me, I'm perfectly happy to take my stand in Revelation as in any other book of the Bible.

Truth of what????? (I borrowed some of Athos' punctuation marks when he wasn't looking.)

[jlisenbe]

Stop being evasive. So do you accept the passage noted above as truth or not?

[Wondergirl]

Stop being evasive. So do you accept the passage noted above as truth or not?

Truth of literary genius. I'm a Preterist.

[talaniman]

I missed something here because no one has quoted the scripture where it's okay to worship a lying cheating dufus who treats men women and children like animals and bears them false witness. Can any of you scholars of scripture help find where thats part of Christianity please?

[jlisenbe]

Truth of literary genius. I'm a Preterist.

Like I said. Evasive.

I missed something here because no one has quoted the scripture where it's okay to worship a lying cheating dufus who treats men women and children like animals and bears them false witness

Wow. I must be the one who really missed something here. That would be the place where anyone suggested we worship Mr. Trump. And, of course, the holier than thou mantra starts back up again.

[Wondergirl]

Like I said. Evasive.

Not at all. Look up Preterist.

[jlisenbe]

Not at all. Look up Preterist.

So you are really and seriously trying to suggest that Revelation came to pass by A.D. 70???

Evasive.

[Wondergirl]

So you are really and seriously trying to suggest that Revelation came to pass by A.D. 70???

Evasive.

Revelation was written for a definite purpose. That's why the book almost didn't make the cut into the canon. In order to understand Revelation, you must understand apocalyptic literature. The author of Revelation admits to living during the very time his visions are concerned with, and in the last chapter his angelic guide forbids him from sealing his scroll 'because the time is near' and the events 'must soon happen'.

[talaniman]

Wow. I must be the one who really missed something here. That would be the place where anyone suggested we worship Mr. Trump. And, of course, the holier than thou mantra starts back up again.

Even if you don't worship the dufus, of which I'm not convinced since you sure sound like it, where in scripture does it allow for cruelty to men, women, and children and allows you to even support a racist? How can I even be holier than thou when you have a bible and I don't.

Anybody ever see the dufus going to church?