Search Results
6/12/2025, 8:40:28 AM
>>17756768
>I don't believe I was being arrogant, brother.
So, first stating in no uncertain terms, "Neither of these texts make such a claim." Then in the same paragraph, saying you don't even understand the relevance and can only assume it was cited wrongly. If you don't understand the passage or how it's relevant, how can you say with such certainty that it doesn't make such a claim? Arrogance. The other alternative is a predetermined conclusion. You had already concluded you would contradict me so you wrote that sentence before even thinking about either passage, and only later concluded upon how you wanted to contradict me. I admit it is fully possible it was already pre-decided you would contradict and therefore you wrote that first sentence before even investigating the text of the Scripture passages, which then created the subtle inconsistency that wasn't corrected later.
>I focused on verse 17 because that's the only one I could see as possibly having to do with hell.
Yes, so according to that logic, a passage that explicitly says that the unborn who pass away before birth (verse 16) go to the same place where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest (verse 17) is clearly not relevant at all. Sure. That's completely a good faith argument, right?
>You'll have to point out the part where you addressed the fact you're making children to be new Adams.
Nowhere, anon. I don't even know where this idea came from.
>Your behavior is remarkably uncharitable and prideful. It is unbecoming of a Christian. I am telling you in the name of Christ, repent.
So you put yourself in the place of Christ, anon? That contrasts pretty sharply with the whole "innocent inquirer" approach you had just a minute ago, unless you're a different anon.
>I don't believe I was being arrogant, brother.
So, first stating in no uncertain terms, "Neither of these texts make such a claim." Then in the same paragraph, saying you don't even understand the relevance and can only assume it was cited wrongly. If you don't understand the passage or how it's relevant, how can you say with such certainty that it doesn't make such a claim? Arrogance. The other alternative is a predetermined conclusion. You had already concluded you would contradict me so you wrote that sentence before even thinking about either passage, and only later concluded upon how you wanted to contradict me. I admit it is fully possible it was already pre-decided you would contradict and therefore you wrote that first sentence before even investigating the text of the Scripture passages, which then created the subtle inconsistency that wasn't corrected later.
>I focused on verse 17 because that's the only one I could see as possibly having to do with hell.
Yes, so according to that logic, a passage that explicitly says that the unborn who pass away before birth (verse 16) go to the same place where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest (verse 17) is clearly not relevant at all. Sure. That's completely a good faith argument, right?
>You'll have to point out the part where you addressed the fact you're making children to be new Adams.
Nowhere, anon. I don't even know where this idea came from.
>Your behavior is remarkably uncharitable and prideful. It is unbecoming of a Christian. I am telling you in the name of Christ, repent.
So you put yourself in the place of Christ, anon? That contrasts pretty sharply with the whole "innocent inquirer" approach you had just a minute ago, unless you're a different anon.
Page 1