(July 3, 2010 at 1:53 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-I define time as webster does "the point or period when something occur".So this earlier claim that "God's love will last so long as time exists" was just you being poetic? >.> Not trying to insinuate that was your argument but if you actually were figuratively-speaking and the statement was merely symbolic, you could have saved us a lot of time by clarifying that at the beginning.
tackattack Wrote:2- I would say when God ineracts with this universe, he is subject to the laws he reated in this universe. The miraculous may occur because of a lack of our understanding of the nature of this universe. I would say in the instant of his interaction he uses the established laws/axioms to instruct, guide and interact with us. For instance, when his actions interfered with this universe it would be marked at a certain time in a certain way, and thus for that instant would he be both in his nature and measurable within the confines of the universe. Just because you have power or control over a concept such as time, doesn't mean you can't use that concept.If he is subject to the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and so on, how can he possibly be their originator or first-cause? This isn't the same concept of the Christian God you were arguing for earlier on. Your religion does not assert God as some finite anthropomorphic entity who stumbled upon the universe and manipulated it until it resembled the current one we inhabit - it's quite specific on God as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the infinite immeasurable moves-in-mysterious-ways creator. Even I know of that concept, I just don't think its remotely real or has any foundation in reality.
tackattack Wrote:3-Why does everyone assert that I haven't read the Bible? I'm aware of revelations take on hell, which isn't supported by the other books, but we'll say I completely agree wih it 100%.Not trying to be rude, but that's because you were demonstrating your inaccurate understanding of the holy text and scriptures.
a)It says the second death is absolute oblivion though destruction in a lake of eternal fire. The torment is not eternal, the fire is. At loosest it's a metaphor for God's hatred of sin. The rest of the Bible's book that speak of the second death aren't focused on the lake, and are much more explicative as to even say oblivion. That's non-existence, not a forever amount of torture.
And looking at the points made I'm disappointed you back-peddled to beliefs within Annihilationism, refuted by Biblical text, in a desperate bid to defend your God-concept's overbearing monstrosity.
Sin isn't a thing, it's a label used for immoral acts that go against God's will, as if he's 'moral', or fall short of his "perfection", hardly worth burning someone forever over, the tormentor being an evil ego-manic not withstanding. And you think he doesn't torment us for eternity, but destroys us instead for eternity. How delightful. Referring to the fire tetrahedron, there is no fire without fuel, without combustible material (sinners). If we, the object of God's temper-tantrum, are supposedly destroyed rather than tormented forever then how can God still be wrathful? What is the object of his wrath Tack?
tackattack Wrote:b) Again the point I'm making is in the immediate aftermath of death the Bible is ambiguous as to when and where you go, just that eventually a judgement day will come where you are either in the book or not and could be made to die a second time.No sir, it is anything but vague on what happens to the unrepentant.
Answer the question: Do you think I've done anything that deserves me being forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent eternal second death in the Lake of Fire? Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just?
