The one question that UR's can't answer

[Scott]

The issue here is not the name of the website. The issue here is that you were in violation of the guidelines for these discussions.

Shana, the issue you speak of has been taken care of already, but I see the one Gary is asking you about has not been. :-?

 

[BenJasher]

The one question that URist's cannot answer nor have ever answered is, "If there was such a thing as torment that would never go away, what words ydo you think Jesus would use to convey that message?"

But URists haven't answered this question because they know what words Jesus would use to convey the message of torment that will never go away and it is precisely those very words that he does use to explain what will happen to the goats. Thus answering this question truthfully will defeat their whole doctrine. So they don't answer it.

You know what is sad Heidi?

This question HAS been answered, many times. I can read through the various threads here, and I have seen the answer to this qyestion poigniantly described in vivid detail, by more than one author. Charlotte, Shana, Dean, Finelinen, phatdawg... the list goes on, and they have all dealt with the answer. Some directly, some indirectly. Would you like me to quote authors, or reference threads?

But what you seem to be doing is asking questions, then holding your hands over your ears and muttering unintelligibly out loud when someone does answer. Like a little child. You even close your eyes to complete the effect. And you do it willfully.

Yes, sad is a word that describes it.

 

[guibox]

Hmm...Haven't seen this topic come up for quite some time.

I'm guessing this was a thread the mods must have missed.

They will swoop down with mighty wrath to close it down soon enough, though. Better get your comments in while you can! :wink:

BenJasher, if you haven't learned already, URism is condemned by this forum and all posts dealing with it are banned.

 

[BenJasher]

I am aware that UR is a banned topic.
I wasn't trying to get it to open up. Certainly not.

But very simply stated, I don't have to look very far to find the answer Heidi claims noone was able to answer for her.

So everyone knows, I am a Universalist. This forum is famous all over the www for the discussions on the subject. There is some good material on the subject here. A lot of valuable reference. And there has been some very worthy arguments against it. And these things are good.

I was merely doing research for my own personal profit on the subject.

I repeat, I am not attempting to enbter into a discussion of UR, ET or any other such topic. Those things are banned.

I just noticed in passing through all of the threads, Heidi's remarks here. The audacity galled me. Sorry. But I had to respond.

That's all. Nothing more.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Heidi, while this subject cannot be debated here as some people cannot maintain themselves and get all worked up wanting to prove some eternal torture, I would be more then happy to discuss it with you via P.M. and I guarantee you that there most certainly is an answer to your question.

But on that note, this thread is treading that line. The forum guidelines say that this discussion is not to be and since each person here agreed to those guidelines, lets please now let that be.

I don't want to see anyone get warnings for going over the line here.





Benjasher, good to meet you. Feel free to p.m. me anytime.

God bless all.

 

[BenJasher]

Thank you! Glad to be here.

 

[Vic C.]

So everyone knows, I am a Universalist. This forum is famous all over the www for the discussions on the subject. There is some good material on the subject here. A lot of valuable reference. And there has been some very worthy arguments against it. And these things are good.

No... "infamous" would be a better word. Trust me. 8-)

 

[BenJasher]

No... "infamous" would be a better word. Trust me.
:D

Well, alright, have it your way. From my side of the street, the operative word is "Famous".

 

[cj]

No... "infamous" would be a better word. Trust me. 8-)

I tell you,..... how I love Vic.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

So everyone knows, I am a Universalist.......

Come on,.... don't try to pull the wool over our eyes.

Fact is you're just a plain 'ol person, and there ain't no such type of person.

There are in fact only two types of persons,... those that are in Christ and those that are not.

Now, you might in your person hold to a false concept called universal reconciliation, but the reality is, your concept does not a person make.


And this is the first of your many errors.


In love,
cj


PS - There is a way to speak about truth on these boards, by simply speaking about truth. The problem comes in when there is an attempt to usurp the headship of Christ as the very essence of truth. And the moment a person makes a declaration of "I AM" this person immediately sets themself up as one who might be attempting to usurp the headship of Christ.

Paul was very clear,.... first he was crucified with Christ,... and then he was able to say "I AM" in truth.

Or in other words, first we must be able to truthfully say "I AM NOT", in order to be able to say "I AM."

If you can't say in all honesty state "I AM NOT", then you have no ground on which to claim "I AM."

 

[Lyric's Dad]

So everyone knows, I am a Universalist.......

Come on,.... don't try to pull the wool over our eyes.

Fact is you're just a plain 'ol person, and there ain't no such type of person.

There are in fact only two types of persons,... those that are in Christ and those that are not.

Now, you might in your person hold to a false concept called universal reconciliation, but the reality is, your concept does not a person make.


And this is the first of your many errors.


In love,
cj


PS - There is a way to speak about truth on these boards, by simply speaking about truth. The problem comes in when there is an attempt to usurp the headship of Christ as the very essence of truth. And the moment a person makes a declaration of "I AM" this person immediately sets themself up as one who might be attempting to usurp the headship of Christ.

Paul was very clear,.... first he was crucified with Christ,... and then he was able to say "I AM" in truth.

Or in other words, first we must be able to truthfully say "I AM NOT", in order to be able to say "I AM."

If you can't say in all honesty state "I AM NOT", then you have no ground on which to claim "I AM."

CJ, you are treading shaky ground here with your statement calling UR a false concept. This is the same as debating it which is against the rules. If it continues you will receive a warning. If you wish to debate this doctrine, then take it to the PM arena or get some email addies.

 

[Vic C.]

I see this thread is too tempting for some, so I must now lock it to preserve the peace, if that's possible. 8-)