Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[Drich]

Or when the person I'm speaking with is far less omniscient than I myself am.
I can if you are willing to admit you know very little about biblical principle, and are willing to learn something new/you've probably never heard before.

So now there are degrees of omniscience?  You're a hoot.

---

Sorry if I seemingly speak... what's the thing the rest of you were calling me after my hate thread a few months back???
.
..
Sociopathicly (too logically for some to see the cold hard truth of compassion.)

For instance I was not saying there were degrees of omniscience. To me it is the true sociopath who uses this word to describe degrees to his upper level of intelligence in relation to someone elses's upper level/boarding God like knoweledge.

I was speaking to the other end of the spectrum which Is why said " far less omniscience than what I am." I was speaking to how far we (the op and I stood AWAY from God's knowledge)

On the surface this is a back handed to the op, but if you think it out. I am not only comparing lack of knowledge I am describing my own inability to communicate simply, if after everything that I said she still did not understand... Then how far do I stand Away from God to explain it simply?

If you can't make it coherent without someone grovelling to your higher knowledge, you're egotistical and self-righteous, things that are so apparant in your posts.  A typical american christian.

and if I can then what? does that make me more typical Korean-American Christian? cause that I what I Gotz to Repo Zent sun!!

---

1. Where is the Bible inconsistent with the meaning of those two words? 
2. I don't believe the verses on Hell in the NT have been changed recently. Your logic is that if some Christians are wrong in their doctrine that proves then all Christians are wrong--and that's just nonsense.

1. I said the Church is inconsistent in its chameleon shifting from definition to definition depending on what is currently socially acceptable. The behavior of the biblical god offers no example of love and justice that resonates true to me.
2. Here is your logic: God is just, therefore everything the bible claims god did is just. None of the actions the bible attributes to god can make him unjust because everything god does is just. And around and round and round we go.
2b.  The bible itself is inconsistent in its definition of  what hell is. In fact, there is no place of eternal torment in the O.T. Hell is a N.T. concept that sprang out of apocalyptic Judaism during the last centuries of B.C.E. The term occasionally translate as hell in the O.T. is  the Hebrew word “Lish·'O·Vl”,  (sheol or hades) which means the underworld or place of the dead.

Steve, understand you are not talking to people who are ignorant of what the bible says or of Church history, so before you twist things around, remember that we will always catch you.

May I cut in?
1. What makes you the standard of love and justice? Matter of fact what seperates your love  and justice/What makes your version of love and justice "MORE RIGHT" than the love and justice found in sherria law concerning women? That 'love and justice' is your core righteousness. but again what makes your version of righteousness more righteous that an isis member practicing his version of sherria law? In both cases you only have yourselves or your peer groups to support what you think is right.

Now what if to God bothing of you and your ISIS friend's idea of righteousness is an abomination to everything Holy? What makes God's version of righteousness a standard and your version just another version of self righteousness?

2. Youre missing an element. God is all powerful, therefore whatever He says is Just is Just. Even if the unjust would disagree. Despite what some of your peers would say. All of man's history have always shown that might make right. God is the mightiest, so he is indeed the rightiest!
2b :Bwahahahaha: the bible is consistant through out concerning Hell. In the OT it is described as death, and in the new it is simply describes as the second death, where God sends the condemned to die, "fear not the one who can hurt the body bt the one who can destroy the soul in Hell..
What was added in the NT was HOW the soul is destroyed.. HOW the soul dies.. No matter how it dies the soul is still sheol..

I love it when you guys try to trivialize hell by using the bible to try and build a case. either you are trying to 'win souls' or yur still steeped in religion. That means if I can show you that you are wrong using the bible, you'll be wondering about this before you doze off!

So despite what your quoted guys thinks... the only thing that truly changed between the OT and NT decription of Hell was in the NT Jesus describes How the soul in destroyed in sheol.