|
DAVEH: Wow! I've been rebuked for something prior to actually
reading the original post for which my presumed thoughts are found less
than charitable. Hmmmmmm........OK Bill. However, I'm not sure if
you said it tongue in cheek, or if you really meant what you said in a
serious note. As I now ponder those words (written by DavidM???).......... "Any parent who would not send their wicked son to the damnation of hell would be a wicked parent." ...........it now occurs to me (thank you Bill for bringing this to my attention) that DavidM is probably TT's most prominent example of a Christian eager to condemn a person to eternal torture. Before any TTers get their noses bent out of shape, let me explain. DavidM has several times mentioned that he believes we should be administering capitol punishment for those who break the Mosaic laws that require capitol retribution. (Correct me if I've misunderstood your position on this, DavidM, or if I am putting words in your mouth.) For example, in the case of adultery, DavidM would prefer a punishment of stoning, which would then cause the offending person to depart on their journey to hell prematurely (than if they had died of natural causes years hence.) I doubt there would be any other TTers who would share DavidM's enthusiasm (if that is the proper word) for such strict and harsh judgments. Conclusion....Is not DavidM more eager than other TTers to see to it (via execution) that some sinners are sent to hell for transgressing? So.......in a post conclusion, those Christians (who are described as wicked parents) who do not feel compelled to carry out a righteous judgment that speeds one off to a hellish physical eternal torture are less eager to consign the enemies of God to hell than righteous Christians. Isn't that the kind of thinking that got Paul Hill in trouble? That brings up another question....What do you think of Paul Hill, DavidM? Do you see him as a Christian doing the Lord's will, or do you see him as a misguided Christian nut case? Is my logic on this flawed? And please note....I'm just thinking out loud on this. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, nor am I trying to be offensive. I'm just exploring a line of thought using a couple of real world examples. Bill Taylor wrote:
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. |
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving&qu... David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " lovin... Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " ... ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " ... David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not &qu... Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Terry Clifton
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Dave Hansen
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Bill Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Dave Hansen
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving&qu... David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving&qu... Bill Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " lovin... Terry Clifton
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " lovin... Dave Hansen
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving&qu... Bill Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " lovin... Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " lovin... David Miller

