Sean McHugh wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>
>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> How could ANYONE, putting their trust in this Person, and being
conversant
>>> with the NT, even suggest or allow anyone to believe they questioned
the
>>> existence of this place of eternal punishment for the wicked; however
Jesus
>>> went on to define the "wicked". Yet that is EXACTLY what our
"minister"
>>> Rowland does at every op****tunity. However, as with so many
mealy-mouthed
>>> "Christians" these days, they are too cowardly to be "up front" about
it.
>>> They use carefully worded sentences, and they quote others a great
deal, and
>>> they package the whole thing as a "teaching" exercise. Well, the fact
is,
>>> no one needs a teacher here. All they need know is how to read, and
how to
>>> make up their own minds about what they've read. There is no question
Jesus
>>> taught Hell.
>>>
>> Right again Chuck. There's no question about it. The evidence is
plentiful.
>>
>>> The question is, do you believe it?
>>>
>> Are you asking me?
>>
>
> Yes, despite later letting you off the hook, he was clearly addressing
> you (did I mean someone else?).
>
>> I'm not obliged to have a view. :)
>>
>
> Your superior integrity and agreement with Chuck's comments have obliged
you.
>
Which of Chuck's comments would you care to dispute? Jesus certainly
spoke of hell, and my agreement with that does NOT oblige me to reach
any conclusion. I'm not a christian minister of religion, nor am I a
hateful individual who can't stand the thought of anyone believing as
Chuck does.
> You wouldn't want to be seen as "cowardly" would you?
>
>>> You may note that question has a familiar ring to it? I think it's
the same
>>> one you asked Rowland to answer?
>>>
>
> See, he meant you - unless there is another 'you' who has been at
> Rowland to answer that question.
>
> Time to put up or . . . I think it's a load of ****e, Peter, how about
> you (singular, second person)?
>
I'm reluctant to express my views, for the simple reason that doing so
could potentially influence others on these matters, and I have no
desire to affect ppls lives in any way, and my views could be wrong.
Sometimes I follow this 'rule', but sometimes I don't. On the matter of
an afterlife, as I've said here before, I'm of the view that there is no
existence beyond the grave. However, I do feel more at ease rejecting as
true the stories of the Old Testament, such as Noah's Ark- especially
where there's overwhelming scientific and rational sup****t for that, for
example in that case in logistics alone- than the words of Jesus. That
could be a legacy of my upbringing in part at least. But if you wish to
call Jesus a liar, or in some other way dispute the biblical record,
then by my guest. I'll continue to keep an open mind on matters that
defy proof. But yes, the existence of a place of eternal torment is not
something I find rationally sustainable in view of contem****ary knowledge.
> Sean McHugh
>
|
