If reality doesn't conform to your fantasies about what reality should be, and you refuse to accept anything other than your own will, it naturally follows that you will be in torment.
It is very easy to become desensitized through repeating a sin, whereas at one point one might feel conviction, through repetition one becomes numb. That is what is meant when the scriptures refer to some "having their conscience seared with a hot iron"
...you refuse to accept anything but your own will.
If God was such a tyrant, he would not have given you the ability to reject him.
Conform your will to The Truth.
Though I do not know your heart, I can at least discern from the fruit that your heart is not pure.
By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
OR, perhaps they believe "YHWH" IS REAL and just don't give a flying flip.
What none of you ever really get is the flip side of the picture you paint. If the presumption that God is good holds true, then God will be seen to be good by those who love him and evil by those who don't.Why did "YHWH" create hell?
Is it wrong to demand or request fealty? When would it be right and when would it be wrong? Are there times when such a thing is warranted?Loyalty and respect must be EARNED.It cannot be DEMANDED.The other dodgy thing about this comment is - imagine if we applied to this to our own world - and yes I think it is ok to do that. When the government says - do not kill or do not rape or do not have sex with children under the age of consent - if the government says - hey when you break these laws - the implication is - the punishment will - be life in prison or the death penalty or a great big fine - are we able to make the statement - the state demands loyalty to its laws based upon pain of the punishment?"This is an excellent observation and highlights a key distinction between your DOGMATIC (authoritarian) thinking and the alternative.
19 days later
And I assume that Stephens' source is the Christian Bible and his interpretation thereof...Just as yours is.
And I assume that Stephens' source is the Christian Bible and his interpretation thereof...Just as yours is.There you would be incorrect. My interpretation is not my own per se.
My interpretation is in accord with scholars and academics and theologians.
I do not put a unique spin on it. In fact one of the checks and balances of - especially older literature is when the there is a general consensus of interpretation.
Stephen is self acknowledged in his interpretation. He is aware that he chooses to read and ask questions of passages himself.Fine, so far as it goes. But when his interpretations are novel as they generally are,
Theologians are quite diverse in their views.
Yet most of Stephen's notions do not fit within any of these ranges. His are outside of what is considered balanced.
My views accord within the normal and acceptable ranges. In other words, if we were speaking science, my views are within the establishment
and Stephens' would be the pseudo-scientist. I would be the evolutionist and he would be the creationist.
So am I to assume that your source is not necessarily the Christian Bible...But more so the diverse views/interpretations of other theologians?...Never really thinking for yourself.I would suggest that in terms of his questioning literally, Stephen is as much a theologian as any academic is.Isn't it just simply a case of who you prefer to listen to and who you would rather ignore?
His interpretations do not fall within the range of accepted theologians from the wide range of theologians accepted. As I said he is a pseudo - theologian.
It would be like me pretending to be a scientist simply because I read a few textbooks - and could do a few tricks. But go ahead and give him his cudos.
Isn't it just simply a case of who you prefer to listen to and who you would rather ignore?
That is what I have told you all along. You have been told to turn to a chapter and verse. Had it read to you. Then had it explained to you and in your own words you have simply " passed it on", without question. and you are still being trained that way aren't you Reverend
Accepted theologians.
That is what I have told you all along. You have been told to turn to a chapter and verse. Had it read to you. Then had it explained to you and in your own words you have simply " passed it on", without question. and you are still being trained that way aren't you ReverendAre you familiar with the concept of "chauffer knowledge" - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBaMNsniPRs&list=UUozuo4pmK_2P6LqfYyt4qPg&index=5
"I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received."
