[waltero]

You guys are off the rails.

let your hope rest in the LOVE that IS God, embody that LOVE so that we might become whole

we are god's glory, god's glory is returning back to himself.

[Athos]

Repetition is a wonderful tool for teaching. Just consider this to be the twelfth posting of my answer.

Nope, this is the twelfth posting of your NON-answer.

I would ask you to repeat your answer, but you haven’t given one.

You're deflecting again, Jl.

Here is the question again in very simple terms.

Thanks for imitating me - it's very flattering.

What do you consider unconditional love to be?

Why do you ask? Doncha love answering a question with a question?

Wonder girl jumped right in.

She gave a great description. I was impressed.

Why not you?

Why me? It has nothing to do with my question. You're deflecting again.

Gosh. For someone who claimed to have me on his ignore list, you sure do follow right along with my posts.

As I stated more than once, I choose to engage whenever I want. Your lack of comprehension re this may explain a lot about you. That might be the key to your evasions.

Here's a question right out of your deflection school. Do you think God/Jesus ENJOYS the millions being tortured in hell? Does he make time out of his busy day to look in at the suffering? Which do you think he most freaks on - little kids or old people? Please provide Bible support for your reply.

[waltero]

Heaven and Hell are simply the complete opposites of one another. As Heaven (as in God) is the Source of life, then Hell is the consumer of life.

Heaven gives, Hell takes…

Jesus described Hell like this dump in which there was fire that was always burning, because it was constantly being heaped up with trash. So what does a fire do? It consumes everything… That's what Hell is- a place that consumes everything, even your soul. It is a place that does not have the ability to produce, so in order for it to exist it has to consume.

[waltero]

People mostly think of Hell as eternal torture, and in a way it is, but way worse than you think. Yes, eternal torture is bad, but becoming non-existent is worse. We may not think much of it now because we don't have full awareness of our state of existence, but to lose your soul or existence is most horrible, especially when you are acutely aware of it- as in being present as it is happening and not being able to do anything about it

[jlisenbe]

This has become unproductive. I've answered very satisfactorily. You have chosen not to. Should you change your mind, then perhaps we can continue. Until then, I will continue to believe the Bible rather than you, and will continue to pray that you will see the truth at some point.

Walter, I'll give you the same challenge that Athos could not accept. Where does the Bible support your ideas about hell?

[waltero]

Hell, Hell is for Children!

We Don't have to believe in Hell to be saved.

Believe, Don't believe. I see no reason for those who don't believe in a Hell, to fight against it's existence?
And in all reality It will be wiped away and will be remembered no more.

The same with speaking in tongues, Faith healers etc. It is a reality for some. Why fight against it if it brings those closer to God?
Why Lambast other believers/Churches?

let your hope rest in the LOVE that IS God, embody that LOVE so that we might become whole

we are god's glory, god's glory is returning back to himself.

[paraclete]

The same with speaking in tongues, Faith healers etc. It is a reality for some. Why fight against it if it brings those closer to God?

Why bring up something you have no faith for

[jlisenbe]

Walter...Where does the Bible support your ideas about hell?

Another challenge bites the dust.

[Athos]

This has become unproductive.

Only because you continue to refuse to answer the question.

I've answered very satisfactorily.

Not even close. Here's the question for you -

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an (unconditionally loving) God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!

Here's your answer -

Here’s the answer for the tenth time. Your question is based upon your foolish misunderstanding of God’s unconditional love. Fix that and you will see for yourself how silly it is. Your lack of knowledge has betrayed you.

Some answer, huh Folks? Especially after I fixed it by putting "unconditional love" in parens. Doesn't look silly to me.

I will continue to pray that you will see the truth

Do you pray for the folks in hell suffering through no fault of their own?

[waltero]

Did you ever consider that the Bible has so many strange verses, that it can't possibly be literally true?

Luke 19:40  "I tell you," He replied, "that if *they* became silent, the very stones would cry out." 

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament.

It's ridiculous that God should send the majority of humanity to his own private torture chamber for eternity.

The Bible says “The wages of sin is death,” and ours is the cup of God’s wrath. We merit eternal separation from God. The cup of God’s just wrath against sin is both physical and spiritual death. It is eternal death, eternal separation from the blessing of God’s presence.

There is a wonderful statement in Isaiah 51:22. Mark this verse, and memorize it, because if you are a child of God, this is your inheritance. “This is what the Sovereign Lord says, your God who defends his people: ‘See, I have taken out of your hand the cup that made you stagger; from that cup, the goblet of my wrath, you will never drink again.'”
What a wonderful, glorious exchange! All our sins are taken, our guilt is removed, our hell is taken, and all the wrath due us was endured by him. Based on the work of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, God states, “from that cup, the goblet of my wrath, you will never drink again.”

The Bible emphasizes
that we are called to a relationship with God by God’s love for us. 
The death of Jesus on the cross shows God’s incredible and almost "impossible
to understand" love for us.

[Wondergirl]

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament.

We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had. The ones we have have been translated many times from ancient languages and unconsciously and even deliberately changed. Words have been changed because of personal, ecclesiastical, and cultural demands and preferences and even errors, plus because of incorrect language understandings.

[jlisenbe]

We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had. The ones we have have been translated many times from ancient languages and unconsciously and even deliberately changed. Words have been changed because of personal, ecclesiastical, and cultural demands and preferences and even errors, plus because of incorrect language understandings.

You keep saying that, and yet you have no evidence it is true, and you have no significant examples. I mean, "Red Sea, Reed Sea". Really?

Walter's statement is a good one.

[Wondergirl]

The Bible emphasizes
that we are called to a relationship with God by God’s love for us.
The death of Jesus on the cross shows God’s incredible and almost "impossible
to understand" love for us.

So God calls us and if we say, "Thanks, but not now," God dumps us and eventually sends us to a fiery hell?

[Wondergirl]

You keep saying that, and yet you have no evidence it is true, and you thave no significant examples. I mean, "Red Sea, Reed Sea". Really?

One example --
In the original Hebrew, Joseph’s famous coat is said to be “ketonet passim.” “Passim” can be used to mean “colorful” but the phase is also used to describe a long garment that came down to a person’s hands and feet. Such garments were made of fine wool or silk and normally worn by royalty. Most importantly, this was not a garment that could be worn while working. As such, by giving Joseph such a garment, Jacob essentially declared that Joseph was too good to work in the fields. Joseph’s brothers took issue not with some colorful cloth, though dyed fabric would be very expensive and valuable, but with the clear declaration that he was of such a high station that he no longer had to join them in the fields.
From https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/chr...0;kill.”

[paraclete]

You see such things are a debate about nothing, since it was Joseph's attitude that was the problem not his clothing

[Wondergirl]

You see such things are a debate about nothing, since it was Joseph's attitude that was the problem not his clothing

How about this one --
The sixth commandment is written in Hebrew as “lo tirtsah.” The verb “ratash” does not mean “kill.” It means “murder.” There is a world of difference between forbidding any sort of killing and outlawing murder.

Had this verse been meant to refer to any sort of killing, the word “harag” would likely have been used. Between the choice of word and the repeated discussions in the Bible of capital punishment, war and manslaughter, proscribing any sort of killing would make no sense. It would also be a death wish in the ancient world when survival often relied on very literally living out the proverb “if someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”

[Athos]

How about this one --
The sixth commandment is written in Hebrew as “lo tirtsah.” The verb “ratash” does not mean “kill.” It means “murder.” There is a world of difference between forbidding any sort of killing and outlawing murder.

Had this verse been meant to refer to any sort of killing, the word “harag” would likely have been used. Between the choice of word and the repeated discussions in the Bible of capital punishment, war and manslaughter, proscribing any sort of killing would make no sense. It would also be a death wish in the ancient world when survival often relied on very literally living out the proverb “if someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”

Excellent examples.

The Bible has been translated into almost 700 languages, 3000+ if counting partial translations.

The number of versions in English alone is in the hundreds beginning in the 7th century. Are we to believe we have the precise Bible as it was first written down? Like any book or series of books it has been subject to the biases and the culture and speech patterns of the era in which it was translated.

The basic message hasn't changed, but many of the details have, influenced by the agenda of the existing "authorities" of the day.

[jlisenbe]

Joseph's coat? Really? You think that's a real problem? And the sixth commandment is generally translated as "murder" in nearly every modern translation including the New King James Version.

But even those two examples amount to mistranslations. You still have offered nothing to demonstrate that, "We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had." Do you have evidence at all to support that?

WG, if you have no evidence to support that statement, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you made it.

The Bible emphasizes
that we are called to a relationship with God by God’s love for us.
The death of Jesus on the cross shows God’s incredible and almost "impossible
to understand" love for us.

That's well said, Walter. It's why the love of God is the answer to, and not a contradiction of, the justice of God for all who accept it.

[Athos]

the sixth commandment is generally translated as "murder" in nearly every modern translation

Just about everybody learned it as Thou shalt not kill - not "murder". Either way, it's ironic that the guy who commanded that is the biggest mass murderer in human history.

[jlisenbe]

Even if everything you say is true and significant (it's not), it still does not provide support for WG's statement that Jesus was reading a different OT than we have.