If you believe the Devil will punish you in hell..
Options
Comments
-
the future is not as real as the present saying other wise makes no sense. The future is not singular it's not A thing. future is possibility so being omniscient of the future would mean having all knowledge of every possibility.
fu·ture (fychr)
n.
1. The indefinite time yet to come: will try to do better in the future.
2. Something that will happen in time to come: "The future comes apace" (Shakespeare).
3. A prospective or expected condition, especially one considered with regard to growth, advancement, or development: a business with no future.
4. futures Business Commodities or stocks bought or sold upon agreement of delivery in time to come.
5. Grammar
a. The form of a verb used in speaking of action that has not yet occurred or of states not yet in existence.
b. A verb form in the future ten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-u1aaltiq4 -
Lmao @ saying the future is not a thing and then proceeding to define it as a noun.
-
the future is not as real as the present saying other wise makes no sense. The future is not singular it's not A thing. future is possibility so being omniscient of the future would mean having all knowledge of every possibility.
fu·ture (fychr)
n.
1. The indefinite time yet to come: will try to do better in the future.
Indefinite means unidentified or unfamiliar. Or not definite as in not certain as to what exactly it entails.. or rather, uncertain of the details of it specifically.
So as I've said, the future is as real as the present; we simply have not yet observed it.A butterfly is not the same being as a catterpillar they are totally different.
Not totally. In fact, research suggests that adult butterflies remember things they've learned as caterpillars.a fetus is only a small undevelped human so comparing the change of a catterpillar into a butterfly to the growth of a fetus into an adult is a faulty comparison because there is no deep fundamental change.
The caterpillar is the larva. Like the fetus, it goes through stages of change to become an adult.You cannot prevent evil by doing evil.
I never said you could.and preventing an intelligence from expressing it's desires under threat of destruction is evil and destroying something you love just because you are aware of the possbility that it will rebel against you is also evil. The better question would be why did ? not destroy lucifer after his rebellion.
I never suggested all of this stuff. I said that ? , if he were really good, would have prevented evil.. you know, by not creating an evil (or future evil) entity.
the future is not as real as the present your statement to the contrary makes no sense, since the future is yet to be. The word indefinite literally means not definite. when some thing is not clearly defined, it can be called indefinite in other words not sure not settled. i like how you skipped over the other examples of the meaning of the word.
when a catterpillar becomes an adult it's no longer a catterpillar it's a butterfly, a fetus is a human when it becomes an adult it's still a human.
? did not create an evil entity he created a good one. -
Lmao @ saying the future is not a thing and then proceeding to define it as a noun.
You keep ignoring the full meaning of the word and how it is used to fit your stupid argument. -
the future is not as real ... since the future is yet to be.
It's real. We just haven't observed it.The word indefinite literally means not definite.
I think I said that already. Hold on..Indefinite means unidentified or unfamiliar. Or not definite as in not certain as to what exactly it entails.. or rather, uncertain of the details of it specifically.
Oh yeahh... I did. Huh. How about that..i like how you skipped over the other examples of the meaning of the word.
I honestly didn't see the last bolded part until I had already posted. That's why I replied again with the video.when a catterpillar becomes an adult it's no longer a catterpillar it's a butterfly, a fetus is a human when it becomes an adult it's still a human.
Caterpillars are the same species as the butterflies that they metamorphosize into. Caterpillar is just the name we give for the larva and butterfly is the name we give for the adult... much like calf and cow.? did not create an evil entity he created a good one.
He created the devil did he not? -
the future is not as real ... since the future is yet to be.
It's real. We just haven't observed it.The word indefinite literally means not definite.
I think I said that already. Hold on..Indefinite means unidentified or unfamiliar. Or not definite as in not certain as to what exactly it entails.. or rather, uncertain of the details of it specifically.
Oh yeahh... I did. Huh. How about that..i like how you skipped over the other examples of the meaning of the word.
I honestly didn't see the last bolded part until I had already posted. That's why I replied again with the video.when a catterpillar becomes an adult it's no longer a catterpillar it's a butterfly, a fetus is a human when it becomes an adult it's still a human.
Caterpillars are the same species as the butterflies that they metamorphosize into. Caterpillar is just the name we give for the larva and butterfly is the name we give for the adult... much like calf and cow.? did not create an evil entity he created a good one.
He created the devil did he not?
IF THE FUTURE has not come into existence then it is not real. all the video proves is that there is a relationship between space and time not that the future exist as a actualized thing. a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species but like i said their fundamental nature is totally different unlike that of a calf and a cow. the calf and the cow have the same form and nature. ? did not make the devil the devil made himself into the devil. -
IF THE FUTURE has not come into existence then it is not real. all the video proves is that there is a relationship between space and time not that the future exist as a actualized thing.
Then we simply don't agree here.a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species but like i said their fundamental nature is totally different unlike that of a calf and a cow. the calf and the cow have the same form and nature. ? did not make the devil the devil made himself into the devil.
If they are the same species, how can their "fundamental nature" be totally different? It's a fact. Caterpillars are no more than the larval form of butterflies.
If ? didn't create the devil, ? is not the supreme creator. -
IF THE FUTURE has not come into existence then it is not real. all the video proves is that there is a relationship between space and time not that the future exist as a actualized thing.
Then we simply don't agree here.a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species but like i said their fundamental nature is totally different unlike that of a calf and a cow. the calf and the cow have the same form and nature. ? did not make the devil the devil made himself into the devil.
If they are the same species, how can their "fundamental nature" be totally different? It's a fact. Caterpillars are no more than the larval form of butterflies.
If ? didn't create the devil, ? is not the supreme creator.
? is the supreme creator the greatest creator but he is not the only creator because man creates his own future by obedience to him or disobedience to him.
the nature of a caterpillar and the nature of a butterfly are totally different because their behaviors are totally different, their ways of life are totally different, like look radically different from each other they do not even eat the same food. -
IF THE FUTURE has not come into existence then it is not real. all the video proves is that there is a relationship between space and time not that the future exist as a actualized thing.
Then we simply don't agree here.a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species but like i said their fundamental nature is totally different unlike that of a calf and a cow. the calf and the cow have the same form and nature. ? did not make the devil the devil made himself into the devil.
If they are the same species, how can their "fundamental nature" be totally different? It's a fact. Caterpillars are no more than the larval form of butterflies.
If ? didn't create the devil, ? is not the supreme creator.
? is the supreme creator the greatest creator but he is not the only creator because man creates his own future by obedience to him or disobedience to him.
the nature of a caterpillar and the nature of a butterfly are totally different because their behaviors are totally different, their ways of life are totally different, like look radically different from each other they do not even eat the same food.
? would be a terrible creator if he existed. Especially being all knowing yet continuing to create evil entities like Satan.
The behavior, way of life, appearance, and diet of a fetus is vastly different from an adult human. But they are still the same thing. -
If there was a ? who was going to let me do as I choose, I should hope that, that ? gave me full compass of choices, good and evil. If that ? only created good, how could I choose evil?
-
If there was a ? who was going to let me do as I choose, I should hope that, that ? gave me full compass of choices, good and evil. If that ? only created good, how could I choose evil?
The problem is that the ? is omni benevolent. A totally omni benevolent ? would not, under any circumstance, create a condition for evil to thrive. If evil exists, and there is a ? , that ? cannot be omni benevolent. If one were to give up the theory of a purely benevolent ? , one could reconcile this issue. -
IF THE FUTURE has not come into existence then it is not real. all the video proves is that there is a relationship between space and time not that the future exist as a actualized thing.
Then we simply don't agree here.a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species but like i said their fundamental nature is totally different unlike that of a calf and a cow. the calf and the cow have the same form and nature. ? did not make the devil the devil made himself into the devil.
If they are the same species, how can their "fundamental nature" be totally different? It's a fact. Caterpillars are no more than the larval form of butterflies.
If ? didn't create the devil, ? is not the supreme creator.
? is the supreme creator the greatest creator but he is not the only creator because man creates his own future by obedience to him or disobedience to him.
the nature of a caterpillar and the nature of a butterfly are totally different because their behaviors are totally different, their ways of life are totally different, like look radically different from each other they do not even eat the same food.
? would be a terrible creator if he existed. Especially being all knowing yet continuing to create evil entities like Satan.
The behavior, way of life, appearance, and diet of a fetus is vastly different from an adult human. But they are still the same thing.
? did not create satan lucifer became satan
A fetus is just a small human but a butterfly looks nothing like a catterpillar. in gods eyes a reborn man looks nothing like he did before and is totally changed. This is what the bible states you either accept it or you do not. -
CynicalAndEbert wrote: »If there was a ? who was going to let me do as I choose, I should hope that, that ? gave me full compass of choices, good and evil. If that ? only created good, how could I choose evil?
? has made you with power of your own. you create what you wish. from your own mind and your own actions you make this world a good one or a bad one.
what ? has done is create the situation in which you can choose to do otherwise would be evil. -
? did not create satan lucifer became satan
Same person.A fetus is just a small human but a butterfly looks nothing like a catterpillar. in gods eyes a reborn man looks nothing like he did before and is totally changed. This is what the bible states you either accept it or you do not.
A caterpillar is just a young butterfly.
A fetus looks nothing like an elderly person. -
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7
Amos 3:6
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Deuteronomy 28:63
And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
1 Samuel 19:9
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
1 Samuel 16:14
Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.
1 Samuel 18:10
The next day an evil spirit from ? came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand
1 Kings 22:22
"'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' -
That's that ? that make ya soul spirit burn slow
-
There is the impression that we know the depths in which evil can go. We think that evil is as obvious as watching a thief taking an old lady's purse. There is a verse in the Bible in which the Devil masquerades as an angel of light...meaning the Devil knows how to do "good". Evil can be disguised in charitable giving, being honest, acts of heroism, acts of kindness...anything we consider to be good. It is the intentions that determines what it is meant for and given our limited understanding, we will never fully grasp this. It just might be that in saving someone's life, we are actually killing them...who knows? But, we think that when ? creates "evil", it is for the intentions of producing evil ultimately.
-
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7
Amos 3:6
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
The word evil in the bible in those passages is translated from the word "raah" it's meaning is calamity not evil, in context those verses are about ? bring judgment not creating evil
Deuteronomy 28:63
And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Yeah like i said in my first post ? will destroy evil that does not mean he created it only that he destroys it.
1 Samuel 19:9
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
1 Samuel 16:14
Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.
1 Samuel 18:10
The next day an evil spirit from ? came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand
1 Kings 22:22
"'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
like i said in my first post ? destroys evil, ? may ALSO command an evil spirit to do something but that is not him creating the evil spirit in the first place. ? creates a good spirit then it chose to become evil. this is what happened with saul. and in return for his evil the spirit of ? departed him and an evil from ? on came upon him. notice the evil spirit was not of ? .
when ? desires to punish you and an evil spirits desire to torture you coincide it's a match made in heaven, but that still does not mean that ? CREATED the evil spirit. -
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7
Amos 3:6
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
The word evil in the bible in those passages is translated from the word "raah" it's meaning is calamity not evil, in context those verses are about ? bring judgment not creating evil
Deuteronomy 28:63
And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Yeah like i said in my first post ? will destroy evil that does not mean he created it only that he destroys it.
1 Samuel 19:9
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
1 Samuel 16:14
Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.
1 Samuel 18:10
The next day an evil spirit from ? came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand
1 Kings 22:22
"'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
like i said in my first post ? destroys evil, ? may ALSO command an evil spirit to do something but that is not him creating the evil spirit in the first place. ? creates a good spirit then it chose to become evil. this is what happened with saul. and in return for his evil the spirit of ? departed him and an evil from ? on came upon him. notice the evil spirit was not of ? .
when ? desires to punish you and an evil spirits desire to torture you coincide it's a match made in heaven, but that still does not mean that ? CREATED the evil spirit.
the word used in the kjv Bible is "evil" so if the Bible is the word of ? through inspiration then wouldn't "evil" be the inspired translation?
Deuteronomy 28:63
And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
This says that ? would rejoice to destroy a people. What do you think on that?
-
if someone was being lynched and ? was rejoicing I would be very scared for humanity.
Then I read the New Testament in a lot of the scripture I get a different more loving view of ? than that from the Old Testament. -
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7
Amos 3:6
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
The word evil in the bible in those passages is translated from the word "raah" it's meaning is calamity not evil, in context those verses are about ? bring judgment not creating evil
Deuteronomy 28:63
And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Yeah like i said in my first post ? will destroy evil that does not mean he created it only that he destroys it.
1 Samuel 19:9
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
1 Samuel 16:14
Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.
1 Samuel 18:10
The next day an evil spirit from ? came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand
1 Kings 22:22
"'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
like i said in my first post ? destroys evil, ? may ALSO command an evil spirit to do something but that is not him creating the evil spirit in the first place. ? creates a good spirit then it chose to become evil. this is what happened with saul. and in return for his evil the spirit of ? departed him and an evil from ? on came upon him. notice the evil spirit was not of ? .
when ? desires to punish you and an evil spirits desire to torture you coincide it's a match made in heaven, but that still does not mean that ? CREATED the evil spirit.
the word used in the kjv Bible is "evil" so if the Bible is the word of ? through inspiration then wouldn't "evil" be the inspired translation?
Deuteronomy 28:63
And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
This says that ? would rejoice to destroy a people. What do you think on that?
I think it's good some people need to be DESTROYED the ? of abraham has no problem removing you from earth.
The bible, the old testment is really part of the torah the scriptures of the torah were written by men under the power of ? .
-
if someone was being lynched and ? was rejoicing I would be very scared for humanity.
Then I read the New Testament in a lot of the scripture I get a different more loving view of ? than that from the Old Testament.
The ? of the new is also the ? of the old human conceptions are not like those of ? and no one can love the way ? loves. The O.T is ? dealing with a state, the new is ? dealing on a personal basis. -
Written By Tehuti 20-30,000 years ago (From the Book of the Dead which pre-dates the Bible):
"The pure will be thought insane and the impure will be honored as wise...
This land (Egypt) once the home of spiritualty .. Will be forsaken and overrun by foreigners, who will neglect our sacred ways. Nothing will remain of our religion but an empty tale. Which even her (Egypt) own children will not believe....
Knowledge of the IMMORTAL soul will be laughed at and denied.... So I Tehuti, the first of men to attain all (? ) knowledge have inscribed the secrets of the gods in sacred symbols and holy hieroglyphs on these tablets I have concealed for a future worlds that May seek our sacred wisdom..."
-
Smash_Adams wrote: »If a person is never introduced to the notion of ? will he go to hell if he doesn't repent?
1. Every person, that can reason and is of the age of accountability, knows that there is a ? . How? Because ? ordained when and where each and every human being would live before He created the world, in order that humans would seek after Him and find Him.
"From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ? did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:26-28
2. There is a no excuse for a person, who can reason and is of the age of accountability, to ever say to ? on judgment day that they never knew He existed. How? Because nature itself testifies to there being a Creator.
"For since the creation of the world ? ’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
3. The problem is not mankind knowing who ? is because all the religions of the world testify to mankind knowing that there is a greater power; rather the problem is that mankind makes ? into their own image of what their "? " should be and act like. Hence, you have all these religions in the world.
"For although they knew ? , they neither glorified him as ? nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal ? for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." Romans 1:21-23
4. ? is no respecter of persons. If a person dies as a unrepentant sinner they will have to pay for their sins on judgment day. Romans 2 explains this clearly, whether you are Jew or a gentile.
"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in ? ’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when ? judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." Romans 2:12-16 -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »3. The problem is not mankind knowing who ? is because all the religions of the world testify to mankind knowing that there is a greater power; rather the problem is that mankind makes ? into their own image of what their "? " should be and act like. Hence, you have all these religions in the world.
False. There are a few non theistic religions in the east.
Also, Jesus says no one comes to the father except through him. Christians have interpreted this to mean that simply believing in ? will not do but rather one must "give their lives" (or whatever they're saying now) to Christ in order to be saved and receive the eternal reward as opposed to eternal damnation. This separates Christianity from all other religions even those that are theistic.
