FSTDT

(=An Anti Gay vs Pro Gay argument desolves into an Eternal Torment vs Annihilation argument of Hell=)

Martin: Curiously the penalty for all sin is the same:
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
(Ezekiel 18:4 [ESV])
Death is the penalty for any sin.
You reject the fact that homosexuality is simply sexual sin merely to justify yourself.

Guglielmo Marinaro: Ah well, if all those souls are going to die, then they won’t be living on in hell to suffer everlasting torment, will they? So that’s some consolation.
You assert that homosexuality is simply sexual sin merely to justify yourself. I reject the “fact” that homosexuality is simply sexual sin, because it isn’t a fact but simply nonsense.

Martin: Death for the soul of a sinner means an eternity of torment. Keep pretending while you can, one day you'll have to admit you're wrong.

Guglielmo Marinaro: Death does not mean an eternity of torment – except perhaps once again in your Martinian Newspeak lexicon – and an attempt to read such a concept into that verse from Ezekiel is eisegesis par excellence.
You may keep on repeating your ignorant nonsense till kingdom come, and I will continue to recognize it as ignorant nonsense, nothing more. As you have yourself recently observed, it is tedious to have to repeat the same thing over and over again, but – who knows? – God may use it to enlighten you and get you to repudiate your errors.

Martin: Curious then that Jesus speaks of two options, eternal life and eternal punishment:
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
(Matthew 25:46 [ESV])

Guglielmo Marinaro: Quite apart from uncertainty regarding the meaning of the Greek word “aionios”, which has been translated in English Bibles by the word “eternal” or “everlasting”, but which does not necessarily mean “of endless duration” – in the Greek Septuagint it is applied, for example, to things which have long since come to an end, e.g. the Aaronic priesthood (Numbers 25:13) and the gates of the Temple at Jerusalem (Psalm 24:7, 9) – it is interesting that Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal LIFE”, which seems clearly to imply that those who go to “eternal punishment” will NOT live on for ever.
This is confirmed by Jesus’s admonition, “Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28)

Martin: So you're saying that eternal life doesn't last for ever? I think you'd be hard pressed to maintain that.
As for Matthew 10, it is notable that the same word is not used for the act of one who is able to kill the body but not the soul and the one who is able to destroy both body and soul.

Guglielmo Marinaro : No, I am not saying that eternal life does not last for ever, nor am I implying that. But if the belief that it does has no stronger basis than the use of a Greek word which is applied in the Septuagint to a priesthood which no longer exists and to the doors of a temple which was razed to the ground centuries ago, it rests on a pretty precarious foundation.
Something which has been destroyed no longer exists. If anything, “destroy” bears an even stronger connotation of annihilation than “kill”. The verse in Matthew 10 which speaks of the destruction of both soul and body can, like so many biblical texts, be pulled around in Procrustean fashion to bring it into apparent conformity with preformed dogma, but as the New Testament scholar Kim Papaioannou observes, “It appears that the attempt to understand the meaning of ?p???sa? in Matthew 10:28 as something other than ‘destruction’ in its most obvious meaning is based more on theological considerations than linguistic evidence.” He adds that this conclusion is supported by a survey of the usage of the different forms of that verb in the Synoptic Gospels, elsewhere in the New Testament and in the Septuagint.

Martin: The same word is used of eternal life as to eternal punishment, so if one is not to experience eternal punishment neither will anyone experience eternal life. It matters not what a man who thinks he has invented a whole new understanding of the Bible says

Guglielmo Marinaro: And the very same adjective (a??????) is used of the Aaronic priesthood, which no longer exists, and of the doors of the Temple at Jerusalem, which was razed to the ground centuries ago.

Martin: And the Septuagint was translated hundreds of years before the New Testament was written. Nor is it inspired, the translators were capable of error.
The punishment and life clearly last for the same length of time.

Guglielmo Marinaro: “And the Septuagint was translated hundreds of years before the New Testament was written.”
So what? It is the same Greek adjective, and the Septuagint was good enough for Paul, since it was the version from which he habitually quoted in his epistles.
“Nor is it inspired, the translators were capable of error.”
As were the original biblical writers, and as were all the translators who have produced every translation of the Bible ever made, from the Vulgate to the NIV.
“The punishment and life clearly last for the same length of time.”
Clearly to you perhaps, but clearly not clearly to everyone else.

Martin: You didn't realise languages change over time?
The original biblical writers were caused by God to write as they did, their writing is without error for it is breathed out by God.
When the same word is used of two things in the same sentence it is clear to everyone that the same meaning is given to the two instances. Everyone except you apparently.

JoKing: Martin,
I have never done anything to promote sexual immorality. I have led a heterosexual life, entirely within marriage. You are confused, and abusive. Making false accusations really is wickedness, according to Jesus. I do not decry the Old Testament. I apportion to it a lesser authority than you do, by submitting it to the authority of Jesus, my Lord. Honouring Jesus is not wickedness. I question the infallibility of the Old Testament, because Scripture makes no claim for it. The word "infallible" does not occur in any text. That is not wickedness; it is honouring the text, without adding to it, as you do. Your attachment to human invention above Scripture, seems close to wickedness.

Martin: Seems to me that you are promoting homosexuality here.
The authority of Jesus gives the same authority to the Old Testament as the New, you are not honouring Jesus.
Does that which comes from the mouth of God Himself have the capability of error?
So where have I added to Revelation?

JoKing: By your "Seems to me that you are promoting homosexuality" based on absolutely no evidence, shows what is quite obvious to all who read you: that you are so obsessive about attacking homosexuals, that your judgment is blinded by any disagreement. Anyone who opposes you. on any issue, you lump together with the "hateful sexual deviants", and pour your bile over all of us.
Well, I rank your rank company less bearable than some homosexuals I have had the privilege of knowing. Your addiction to what seems like a ultra-reformed system of dogma, and the way you express it, is entirely antithetical to the tender mercies of a compassionate God. That causes real concern that you have no real knowledge of Jesus, his character and purposes.
In your fleshly attempts at arguing for the "truth", you betray the cause of Jesus in all you say. You really need to beware of the real risk that your claims of faithful service will be met with "Go away, you worker of iniquity, I never knew you".
To all you people who read this, my apologies to have to speak so directly, but this man is presenting a terrible, harsh, substitute for the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

Martin: Based on the fact that you are busily supporting those who are pushing sexual immorality here. If that isn't promoting homosexuality I don't know what is. I'd be quite happy to debate o.ther matters, and in fact do. It is preferable to having to say the same things over and over to those who will not listen. The doctrines of grace are the tender mercies of a loving God. A God who cares so much for His Creation that He will enter it and suffer abuse at the hands of His Creation in order to redeem His Creation.

JoKing: Martin, your "fact" is a fabrication of your dubious thought-processes. I do not, and have not, supported homosexuals, beyond offering them social acceptance. I oppose the rejection by some of the authority of NT authors. I would do that to anyone regardless of their sexual behaviour. I have repeatedly said this.
You seem utterly unable get your rigid thought-patterns to grasp the difference.
But I do subject the OT to the authority of Jesus. And it seems you reject that stance, but have no argument to back up your opposition to it. I wonder if your stand is as real as you make out. Do have plans to stone adulteresses?

Martin: That you have attacked me for my response to those who are making LGBT supporting claims gives the lie to your first statement.
That you imagine you are qualified to "subject the OT to the authority of Jesus" demonstrates that you do not understand that the OT is as much the words of the Lord Jesus as any words written in red in your Bible.
Clearly you do not understand the nature of the Bible, as your question "Do have plans to stone adulteresses" demonstrates.
You seem to delight in abusing me, when you are claiming to be addressing my abuse. It seems to me that you are entirely dishonest.

JoKing: Martin. It is you who first used uncivil terms to attack me, and you might notice that My responses a\re always more measured. Yet you continue to do so. You say I "attacked you", that I "imagine I am qualified", I "do not understand",(twice), I "delight in abusing" you, I am "entirely dishonest". Quite a catch! None of this is acceptable. I would encourage you to see if you can say what you want to, without such abuse.

Martin: I see nothing 'uncivil' in what I said. My interactions with David and Peter have taken place over a considerably longer period than you have been around. It has been necessary to become more forceful in that period.

JoKing: "Martin. These are the abusive personal comments in your last:
you have attacked me
you imagine you are qualified...
you do not understand (twice)
You seem to delight in abusing me,
you are entirely dishonest"
You could have made your points with phrasing such as:
"You apposed me strongly
You may not be qualified...
I suggest you may have not understood/.misunderstood
???? no suitable phrase comes to mind - perhaps the thought is too abusive
I fear I have to doubt your honesty"
Even like that the personal nature of your comments is aggressive because you are not debating the points, just accusing me of various failings. Peter has expressed a similar opinion of your mode of expression, and he has a longer experience of you, apparently.
With absolutely no interest in being provocative, and with no intention of personal attack, I have no aim beyond finding out how your reconcile - Lev 20 10: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of his neighbour – both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
- with your current position. What do you think? Is it a practice that would be good for our society to adopt? Would you, if you had the power. It is God's inspired word, is it not?
see more

Martin: It is very simple, Leviticus contains three strands of law, the moral, the ceremonial and the civil law. The Christian does not live in the ancient state of Israel, so the civil law has no role. Of such is those laws with a penalty attached for breaking them such as the one for adultery. Equally, the Temple and it's sacrifices are no more, so the ceremonial is done away with by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The only law that remains is the moral law, which the Christian seeks to keep from love of His Saviour.