Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[Angrboda]

Taken from the above linked thread, "messenger/message"

At this point we traveled less than a mile and I was absolutely dumb founded, I thought to myself this Guy must be my guardian angel. Then He stopped mid sentence looked me square in the eye and said: "something like that." Then He proceeded to tell me of my future, what God was going to do for me, what was required of me, and what was expected in return. (Don't like to go into details because many tell me I am conceded or foolish to think God will use me in these ways when I do share.)

To which i now say:

If He were not FROM GOD Then How would He then be able to tell me What God would do in my life?

You aren't that simple Drich. You're obviously dancing around the truth that you embellished your story.

Love to
Mt 25:41 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
2thess 1:9 9 They will suffer the punishment of peternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

That's weak sauce, Drich.  Of course hell is going to be away from God, that doesn't in any way support that the suffering consists in the privation, and not the eternal fire which is mentioned in your very quote.

Again nothing I ever said excluded pain. I describe pain beyond anything comprehensible in this life. I simple said Hell is separation From God (inferring) that separation was the cause of said pain, not physical fire.

And you still haven't backed up that the cause of the pain is separation and not physical torment. You've simply chosen to champion a modern interpretation of hell and discount a classical one. Both versions are there in the bible, so you just picked the one that fit your presupposition. That isn't 'confirmation', that's simply choosing one over the other.

Because it was the closest thing 'we' could identify with. If you go beyond a google check Hell is also described
"the pit, The Second Death, The Void, it is also described as a prison containing 'Caves of Darkness'/Where the fallen angels are kept until the final judgement. The Idea of Gehenna was a place where things/unwanted things or even bodies were burned/destroyed. This is the physical picture of the Spiritual destruction of Soul, mind and body is what the physical place was meant for us to process or understand what happened on a spiritual level.

You're reading between the lines, dearie.  Nowhere is this said in the bible.  That's your invention.

So your saying an accurate reading means the 'unforgiving' will be sent to the literal fire pits of Gehenna?

That would be wrong as another attribute of Hell is described in several placed in the book of Revelation starting at Chapter 9 It is refered to as the bottomless pit. Last time I checked there are no 'bottomless pits' possible on the planet. Therefore the physical location of the actually historical site of Gehenna is not the physical location of Hell. Therefore it would stand to reason that 'reading between the lines' is the only option left to us. Eg.. Hell is a spiritual version of the physical Gehenna. Couple that with what I experienced and I have biblical support for my 'dream/vision.'

The text is ambiguous. Dispelling that ambiguity with your own spin doesn't amount to biblical support. It amounts to you reading things into the text.

Please this is what I am looking for. What of genesis day 3 did i say that is wrong?

https://atheistforums.org/thread-41813-p...pid1221460

I don't see a problem here.
You made an arguement that supports what you believe, and I supplied BCV that shows you that your wrong. You dropped the subject. How does any of that show me I am wrong? Are you under the impression because you do not fully understand or you will not take the time to consider what I have said that somehow it makes me wrong? If so how so?

First off, you didn't quote contradicting BCV. Second, your claim that I dropped the subject is a flat out lie. Anyone can plainly see that I was the last to respond.

It's simple. In Genesis 1, the animals didn't appear until day six. You claim that Genesis 2 all occurs on the third day. Genesis 2:19 clearly states there are animals. If Genesis 1 is accurate, that can only be on the sixth day. So it's impossible that all of Genesis 2 occurred on the third day if there were animals. There were no animals until day 6. That you can't see the blatant contradiction there is ridiculous.

You want to address me topically I will go as long as your willing to respond.

Fine, then let's address your interpretation of A/S/K.  You claim that this is a guaranteed method of finding the holy spirit.  Yet when people tell you that they have indeed sought God for a long time and found nothing, you discount this as them not having had a correct, biblical vision of God.  In the first place, it says "seek and you shall find" -- no qualifications.  These people did seek and did not find.  Your rationalization as to why they didn't find is supposedly based on the parable of the wise and foolish builders, that those who have an incorrect vision of God are like the foolish builders.  Well let's look and see what the parable says.

post 373 answers this question. https://atheistforums.org/thread-42987-page-38.html

The Wise and Foolish Builders

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Matthew 5:24-27

It specifically states that the foolish builders are those who hear his words at the sermon on the mount and fail to put them into practice.  Nothing about a 'correct' vision of the biblical God.  And I would think that the people who were serious Christians for a long time are a better judge of their adherence to the sermon on the mount than you are.  In fact, in the sermon Jesus instructs people how to 'seek' God, in the form of the Lord's prayer.  It would be audacious of you to claim that these previously serious Christians were unacquainted with the Lord's prayer.  Regardless, the parable of the wise and foolish builder does not offer you support for claiming that God is looking for any 'correct' vision of God.  What is your scriptural basis for this claim?

Mat 7...
24 “Whoever hears these teachings of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house. But it did not fall because it was built on rock.

26 “Whoever hears these teachings of mine and does not obey them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house. And it fell with a loud crash.”

28 When Jesus finished speaking, the people were amazed at his teaching. 29 He did not teach like their teachers of the law. He taught like someone who has authority.

Who is God if not the Teachings found in the bible??How can we know God if not for the teachings of Christ Himself and what has subsequently been recorded in scripture?

How then can one know God and not know what has been taught about Him?

If one knows what Jesus says in the bible, but one's 'religion' teaches something else, then is he like the wise or foolish man if he follows what the religion says over the teachings of Christ?

Like wise if one see and hears a teaching in the bible, and ignores or moves away from a religion that teaches the oppsite, Will his faith stand or fall when tested?

You're just spinning your wheels, Drich. That's your interpretation and it's not biblical. You've extended the parable of the wise and foolish builders to encompass your personal theology. First off, the parable doesn't support your interpretation as it pertains exclusively to the sermon on the mount, whereas you're trying to make it apply to the bible as a whole. Second, you're arguing a version of sola scriptura which is nowhere advocated in the bible itself. In short, you're making up a spin doctored version of the text to support your personal theology. That's not biblical. That's your own special version. There are those who believe that Christian tradition weighs as heavily on how the bible and God is to be interpreted, who are you to say they're wrong? Do you have biblical support for believing them wrong? No, you don't. You have Drichology, not any 'biblical Christianity'. If you knew anything about the interpretation of texts, you'd know that your claim to a bible based Christianity is a sales pitch, not something that can be a reality. Your 'interpretation' is as much an invention of your personal theology as any Church's is. You don't have a priviliged view of the meaning of the bible, no matter how much you claim otherwise.