Thx for your inputs. Sorry you have to go, Amanah, but look at that ladies and gentlemen. Look at the timing of departure. It’s true that I keep repeating myself, not adding anything new.
.
But it's suspiciously convenient to leave the kitchen when things are getting hot.
Did you notice that Amanah avoids answering my question to her, post 263? Now, where's that emoji that shows a dog, tail between its legs, running away?
About that child, the one one who ate the cheese you had cut off the block, intending it for yourself. When your back is turned your child eats it, upsetting you. "Why'd you eat my cheese?", you demand, and they answer "you never said not to eat it. I thought I could take it." And you know they are right. You never spoke the cheese law and being just you don't judge by a cheese law that doesn't exist. But what if you had made a cheese law and the kid heard it but another of your kids comes from outside the house, grabs the cheese and eats it, but never heard your cheese law. Do you come down hard on that kid? Of course not. Even though you had made a cheese law you don't apply the cheese law on those who haven't heard. That's only common sense. But listening to many on this thread who cast away common sense, instead rigidly applying gospel law without it, these condemn to hell
all those who haven't heard the gospel because they say that the gospel is the only way provided for salvation. Well, YEAH, it's the only provided for those who hear and all hearing but refusing will see their sin dragging them into hell. But not everyone hears. Paul shows us some who have never heard, but living right by the conscience, admitted to heaven. There are those in this thread who are eager to d.mn these living right by the only God-given method available to them, the conscience, and thus show us an unjust God, throwing out common sense by it. Shame on anyone doing so. That doesn't describe the just God, the Lord Jesus, the Bible shows.
Stop showing the Lord in this light.
There will be some that will say the cheese analogy doesn't describe God, because he is never seen as turning his back or jumping on kids for a bit of cheese as a self-centered parent would. But that's what they do, ignoring the gist of an argument, nit-picking on details to show the author of the cheese story in a shady way, because they have an agenda which requires them to do so. Sadly we read what they say by these methods, wasting our time on time reading irrelevant words, if we want to keep up on our reading.
It's true that I haven't responded to all the arguments others have put forward, especially those which focus on the gospel (which I 100% believe in and they rightly describe) of those who have heard, but ignoring them when the thrust of my arguments are with those who have never heard. It is as frustrating to seemingly have the main part of your argument ignored as these presenters are in my ignoring their arguments. But time restraints compound the issue with not responding, making them not possible.
Sorry, my apologies to all I've frustrated for this reason. See what I did there? I gave Amanah an easy out for not replying to the question. She can now say she's too busy.
Threaded Mode
