The original (to Barry Hanson) - Was the repentant Thief really told he’d be in heaven with Jesusgreenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread |
Barry,This is a response to last post you made to the original response to "Was the repentant Thief really told he’d be in heaven with Jesus?” thread.
As pointed out paradise can’t be heaven nor any part thereof, nor is Abraham’s bosom. This negates The God’s purpose and would claim it was a failure. But this was/is just “postponed” as it were. Nowhere is paradise defined as heaven. The Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew use words to describe earth as a physical “garden.” And, as pointed out so do the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament.
As stated above Strong’s defines paradise in all three places of the New Testament as a garden. (compare: Psalms 37: 9, 11, 22, 29, 34; 72, 6-9; 104:5, 119:90; Isaiah 11:6-9; **45:2,18; Mic 4:3-4; 2 Pet 3:13, etc). And what The God purposes will be done.
Contrary to John's statement, Earth is to be Paradise, that was the original purpose in the book of Genesis. Earth is part of the Kingdom of the Heavens. Christ is the King of that governmental Kingdom. (compare: Isaiah 9:6-7, Dan 2:44, 7:13-14; Matt 6:9, 10, 33; Mark 14:61-62) If the claim that the good men of old went to Paradise in the Heavens, then that would disagree with Acts 2:34.
The thief asked to be remembered in reference to the Kingdom and as Christ being It’s King. Again, the Kingdom has not been established.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is just that a parable. It isn’t a literal account of physically dead people. A drop of “water” wouldn’t even survive the journey much less provide some form of comfort from “fire.” The account mentions the rich man asking help for his brothers. Moses and the prophets were already dead, yet the rich man was told they were “there”. So it was in a spiritual sense, otherwise sending someone from the literal “dead” would have been a foolish question because they would have already been there. It is about the “spiritually dead.” Water is representative. Remember “drink free from the water of life?” (Isaiah 12:3, John 4:14; 7:38, Rev 7:17, 22:17, etc)
It is about those who were listening (ie: Luke 16:14) and “Lazarus” which means those whom Jehovah helps. The whole chapter of 16 is speaking of “riches”, “dead” and becoming “alive” in the spirit – as also pointed out in Ephesians. It is about properly teaching the people who want to learn Truth.
The very thing I was accused of at the beginning of this discussion is what would be done here, changing meanings of the context, the words and overlaying the meanings by not letting the Bible say what it says. Except it would be a lot more serious than moving a comma. Remember “I” didn’t move the comma, the later translators have.
Further, according to the Bible and the time frame it presents, Christ did not preach to the “spirits” in prison till after his resurrection (1 Peter 3:19). He did so “in the spirit” as it says (of course there are versions that render this incorrectly to help confuse it). And, these “spirits” are not dead people, they are rebellious angels who had been locked up (Gen 6:4, Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4). The people of Noah’s day had already been condemned (2 Pet 2:5-7). So accordingly, the rebellious angels who had been held in prison were also now preached “condemnation”, not hope.
In the chain of events leading up to the case presented at Ephesians, Christ descended to “earth”, not ‘hell’ as many assume at this verse. It would be incorrect to overlay Christ ascending to heaven with actual people because it disagrees with the beginning of Eph (ie 2:6). It also denies the very purpose of the resurrection hope of which Jesus was the first (Acts 17:31), which even Jesus friend Lazarus’ sister understood. Also, it overlooks the very next statement “giving gift of men.” These men were not taken to heaven. They were given correct understanding and freed from sin and bondage to accomplish their missions – on earth, which is what the whole of the surrounding context is teaching.
He led “captivity captive” not literal people to heaven. What is “captivity” but that which Paul describes at 2:6.
Christ gave these men their “freedom” from sin and the yoke which the Pharisees placed on the common man by feeding them “crumbs.” He gave them the True knowledge and the power to accomplish the True ministry, as Paul pointed out. Yet, at the same time these men were still “captive” in the sense of being slaves to Christ.
Paul says of himself being “dead”, but not physically. He was “spiritually dead.” Christ shown him Truth and he became “alive.” Free, no longer captive to the Pharisee’s bondage or of sin, but now armed with the Truth.
Ecclesiastes says of sheol, “the dead know nothing”, so there is no “comfort” to be had while physically dead. Comfort is the correct knowledge of the hope of the resurrection “at the last day” while we are still alive. And, as Jesus said of Lazarus, he is “asleep” (John 11:11). Nowhere is the Old Testament does sheol describe anything resembling “purgatory” or part of Heaven. Adam was not designed to die. He was meant to live forever – on earth.
Earnestly yours, C
-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001
Sorry to interject on the wonderful conversation you gentlemen are having.However, it really bothers me when I see people pulling Scriptures out of context in order to defend a preconceived doctrine.
When one quotes the Scripture from Eccless. (i.e., "the dead know nothing")....it would be sound hermeneutics to keep a couple things in mind.
1. The ancients view and understanding of the afterlife was very dim in the first place, especially when compared with the revelations that Jesus and the apostles brought concerning the afterlife.
2. One has to be careful from deducting too much from the book of Eccless. First off....it is poetic language....and second....Solomon is writing from a very pessimisstic point of view.
3. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. It is an error of the utmost to pull a Scripture out of context in order to support a dogma.
The verse in its entirety states...."The dead know nothing (get this).......UNDER THE SUN!!!"
If one was going to use this verse to proof text....they would be better of using it to support the idea that the dead have no knowledge of what is currently going on here on earth. It does not, nor does anywhere else in the Bible teach the end of existence.
You gentlemen may now proceed.
-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001
This is all Jehovah's Witness claptrap from beginning to end; it's all been discussed and answered elsewhere and not worth wasting the time responding to it again. "For they have ears to hear, yet they do not hear."
-- Anonymous, July 07, 2001
C,I am reading your message but do not agree with the train of thought or points you make, respectfully.
To begin, I believe that Abraham's bosom was "Paradise". I know I had stated this in the original thread and posted my reasons for my believing this, however, the original thread has been removed. Unfortunately I do not have those saved reply's available to me on the weekends and do not have the time to retype my entire reasoning. Suffice it to say, we do not agree, nonetheless, I believe "Paradise" to be Abraham's Bosom and I will take a few moments to answer you in this regard.
Your initial point concerning Lazarus and the Rich man…" The story of the rich man and Lazarus is just that a parable" I disagree. Jesus gives specific names and places in this "parable" clearly indicating this as an actual event and is an account of literal people, thus literal names. The fact the Rich man desires a "drop of water" does not negate the veracity of the account. Actually, it lends credibility to the account as it would depict the actual mindset of one in an impossible situation believing that the request would not be granted, yet, if for such a miniscule request he could think it might be granted.
Abraham's comment that the Rich man had "Moses and the Prophets" is in regard to the Holy Scriptures. His brother's had the written words of Moses and the Prophet's at their disposal, and most likely were in the synagogues each week hearing the truth. If they would not believe Moses and the Prophets through the sacred writings, Abraham states they would not believe even if one rose from the dead. They made excuses with the truth they already had and they would continue making excuses even if Lazarus rose from the dead. I find your reasoning on this point ill thought out. This is not to be "spiritualized" away, but IMHO, taken quite literal. Verse twenty six provides data that also lends credibility to a literal understanding.
I am sorry I do not have more time at my disposal to go into a more thorough response to your post, and I hesitate to post this as I feel it may not be adequate, however, I felt that you deserved some type of response. In short, I do not believe in "soul sleep" or any supposed "purgatory". I believe their where people who died in faith before Christ that waited in Abraham's Bosom until Jesus came and led them to heaven. Now when one dies in faith they (their spirit and soul) arrive in the presence of the Lord and it is their body that is resurrected on the last day and made new. I do not see how this interpretation is contradicted by any of your references posted.
Unfortunately, I must go….
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, July 07, 2001
Barry,Where in the the Bible does it say the "soul" goes to heaven?
-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001
C,Hebrews 10:39; James 1:21;5:20; 1 Peter 1:9; informs us the soul is capable of salvation.
Revelation 6:9; 20:4; places souls in heaven.
Matt. 10:28; Acts 2:27, 31; informs us souls can go to hell.
With this evidence in hand it is reasonable to believe that our soul goes to heaven. Indeed, if it can go to hell, it can go to heaven as well.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001
Barry,I thought of writing a response to each verse you quoted, but there is no need.
But, as I said I’m am not here to convince anyone. I am here to compare what I know with others. And I push that “reasoning” as far as possible trying not to cause contempt. “Test your beliefs” as the Bible says and trying to understand others.
From some, this seems to be going in the same direction as when I spoke to others, and I’ve already been there and done that too. And, I wouldn’t want to take anymore of your time, or mine for something we don’t and probably will not agree on anyway.
I do not believe Christ descended into a “hell” of torture and took others to “heaven” when he left, because as stated these “spirits” were rebellious angels and simply because I believe “hell” is equal to sheol and, sheol is the grave. From the 1877 lexicon:
“And, finally, as to duration, the dominion of sheol or the grave will continue until, and end only with, resurestion, which is the only exit from it (see Hos xiii.14, etc.; and compare Ps xvi.10 with Acts ii.27,31; xiii35.35).”
My thoughts are not based on Jehovah’s Witnesses, even though it agrees with them. As said, this lexicon is dated 1877 long before the Witnesses. It doesn’t describe sheol, hell, death, soul, paradise, etc as anything ascribe here and is based on the KJV.
My thoughts are based on a “God of Love.” And torture doesn't fit that.
I do not believe Ecclesiastes “ the dead know nothing” was written by a “blue” man as a Catholic once told me. I believe what it says. And, I do not believe a Loving Father would torture sinful people for an eternity. Punish, yes. Destroy, yes. Torture, no.
If those here do, then that’s’ fine. Barry, your responses show a thoughtful person, even though I seriously disagree.
Thank you for your time. Best regards,
-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001
C,I am not familiar with your particular position, I do not believe that a response to each of those verses would necessarily be a waste of time. However, as our conversations have gone you are probably correct that we would not agree.
Actually this morning in my devotions I read Psalm 6:5
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?"
As I was reading I got the distinct thought that the Psalmist was saying that while he is living he would have the opportunity to bring remembrance of the Lord to others or to give thanks to the Lord before his enemies. If he were to die this opportunity would be lost. The context of this verse is the Psalmist to live in order to vex and bring shame to the enemies of the Lord. This could not be accomplished if he were not alive. Without having this conversation in mind at all it seems amazing to me now that I would have read this verse this morning and have this distinct impression only to be reminded of it now!
I attempted to find the verse in Ecclesiastes you mentioned but could not, perhaps you meant the one here in Psalms?
As far as Christ going to "Hell", I believe He went to Abraham's Bosom. A place those who died in faith went before the cross, after the cross we simply go to heaven.
I also believe in a God of love, hence the necessity of punishment. For true love to exist, true consequences must also exist otherwise there is no true love. We see this concept displayed throughout the Scriptures. In all reality we have little understanding of what eternity really is, we live in time and space, our minds are finite. Our choices however hold eternal consequence, which itself is most difficult to grasp. Yet God Himself stepped into time and died for us, try to imagine the significance of this, and then for this love to be rejected - indeed the effects are beyond our comprehension.
I do believe that hell was created for fallen angels, however, humanity has fallen as well, and the "torture" occurs not by God but by those fallen. The argument is somewhat similar to blaming God for those starving in the world. These are but logical consequences for actions against love and truth and all that is right.
As you do not claim to be a follower of Russell's teaching I will refrain from probing the issue, however, it does seem that you have been heavily influenced by his followers, please be careful.
Respectfully.
-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001
Barry,Ecc 9:5
-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001
A few thoughts:Are any of you fathers? If so, would you torture you kids for wrong doing? Punish, yes. (even put to death) Torture, no.
Some say “spare the rod, spoil the child” yet most don’t even know what the “rod” was/is and assume it’s something to “beat” children with (this reasoning cost my g-grandfather (a hell-fire Baptist preacher) his life-he was shot by his son, who was not charged). I watched his family destroy itself. the gradson, my cousin, died young from drugs. I saw the "name" die with him. There where no other males to carry the name.
Or, maybe the example of a friend of my wife’s high school class, he asked his preacher “is there anything I can’t be forgiven for?” The preacher said of course not. And that was the end of their conversation. No reason why, nor did the preacher even ask the 17 year old kid what was the going on in his to even ask such a question. The next day he committed suicide. “Feed my flock” Christ told Peter. Did this preacher? But, many would have me believe this kid is being tortured in “hell” for his misunderstanding, based on another man’s misunderstanding.
If “hell” was created, then it would have had to been created by The God. No matter how I look at it from the perspective of “hell” being a place of torture it leads to the conclusion The God created a “bad” place. Yet God only created good and allowed angels and man to have free will.
There is no “bad” for bad’s sake. There is only “Good” for Good’s sake. And, the perversion of good for bad (greed) intentions.
If a person, born with mental problems, plus grows up in a bad environment and never has any chance of learning Truth, constantly stays in trouble and dies. He is not condemned to go to “hell” to be tortured forever at death without any chance. That is not reasonable of a Loving God.
Example, has anybody read (or seen the movie) “Of Mice and Men” by George Steinbeck? Would ‘you’ torture someone who did wrong, not knowing any better, (like the mob would have done) or be a true friend and….? I would not and do not and will not worship a God who would.
God only created good, he did not create bad. Having both “good and bad” is the concept behind Oriental beliefs of yin-yang.
A few weeks ago, 49 kids in the Atlanta area were taken away from their families by the government for just “suspicions” of just beating their kids. Yet many believe a Loving Father, God would torture? It’s no wonder our society is so screwed up.
This is my "reasonings" which have nothing to do with influence of the Jehovah Witnesses.
As I said, my experiences and yours are different and each influence our individual thoughts, trying to make sense of course on understanding of Scripture.
Regards,
-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001
Another thought:It's Jesus hanging on a tree saying "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001
We in this country are under the mistaken impression that all mankind are God's children. Paul says however that all of mankind are by nature children of wrath, that God's wrath remains on them. Only those who come to Christ are adopted as sons. Therefore the argument about God "torturing" his children is moot.
-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001
God is a God of love, but He is also a God of justice. I think another problem people have in grasping the concept of hell is that in this country we have stressed "God is love" so much that we think he's going to just wink at sins and just love everybody regardless. But that would negate his justice.But the fact is that the Bible makes it clear that there is a war going on. A civil war. God's highest creation, Lucifer, decided he wanted the throne and rebelled, along with a third of the angelic host. And if you've ever been in (or even read about) war, you know that neither side can afford to brook quarter. Justice demands that rebels be punished. And God decreed that the rebels will be punished in a place of his choosing, which we call hell.
Unfortunately man got caught in the crossfire. Satan saw that man was the apple of God's eye, and an easy target, and in the Garden seduced man to join the rebellion. Man was not originally destined for hell, which is why it is said of those whom Jesus says to depart from him that it was, "... prepared for the devil and his angels." But man is now a rebel, he has thrown his lot in with the enemy, and must bear the fate decreed for all the devil's followers.
That's where the good news comes in. Because God loved mankind so much, He decided to make a peace treaty. A treaty paid for by His blood on the cross. That if - and only if - we accept his terms, lay down our arms and surrender to him, we will escape the punishment decreed for the devil and his angels (messengers, followers), and even be made His children. Those who do not accept His terms are still rebels, not children, and deserve the justice He has decreed for all those who follow the Enemy.
To think that people like Hitler will get off practically scot-free by just being annihilated is a worse miscarriage of justice than that he should suffer an eternity for his crimes against God and man. But the fact is that all have sinned, and fall short of God's glory, and in God's eyes, all sin is rebellion against Him and worthy of his wrath. Mother Theresa is just as hopeless as Hitler in God's eyes, without Christ's atoning blood.
-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001
Psalms 146:4, Ez 18:4,20;And John, Hitler's rise to power had more to do with the US and the other nations actions toward Germany after WW1 than Hitler himself. After President Wilson reneged on his promise to rebuild Germany and "punish" the people, they began to look for a scape goat, Jewish people, and a leader to exploit that, Hitler.
I had a professor in college who’s family went through all this whom I spoke with and became friends with. He was German.
Acts 17:31 says God has set a day in which to judge. If I follow your thoughts, every one bad has already been judged and are being tortured. Love?
“The soul that is sinning it will die.” Jehovah told Adam, if you eat from the tree you will die. He did not say you’ll die and be with him. Dieing is “punishment.” That’s justice. Mcvey who was just put to death, died. That was justice for the families. He no longer exist. As Ecc says “the dead know nothing.”
Torture is sadistic.
The Bible also says the righteous and unrighteous will be resurrected. The righteous to everlasting life, the unrighteous to judgment. So clearly they have not been judged. It would not make sense for a Loving God to torture ones he has not judged.
-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001
And John, after spending nearly four years designing structures for a miltary base, I learned more about war and it's preparation than I ever wanted to know. It is a Wastfull occupation.
-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001
Grant said to Lee's men to take their weapons to feed themsleves and thier Battle flags homes with pride. He was a true soldier, he was not interested in "punishing" them, they had already been defeated. He called them brothers once again.
-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001
If I follow your thoughts, every one bad has already been judged and are being tortured.Obviously you don't follow my thoughts, or you wouldn't say such nonsense. The Bible clearly says that everyone has already been condemned, not judged.
Jesus had more to say about hell and about eternal punishment than just about any other subject he talked about. Why would he waste his breath if hell was not a reality? He talks about a place "where the fire is not quenched, and the worm dieth not." Now this part about the worm is confusing to us westerners, but to those in the holy land it was a painful reality, something they could easily relate to as a symbol of being tormented forever. You see, there exists a parasitic worm in Israel, which burrows under the skin and begins to eat the subdermal layer, growing ever longer as it does. I've seen pictures of it laying under a persons skin, it can grow to lengths up to a couple of feet. As it eats the sub-dermal layer it damages the nerves and causes the person to have the sensation that their skin is on fire, and this is a sensation that cannot be relieved. This is the symbolism Jesus used to express a very dreadful reality. What possible insanity would there be for Jesus to use this kind of image to describe ... annihilation? That would be sheer nonsense.
As has been pointed out before, but you aren't seeming to grasp, Jesus' story of the Rich Man and Lazarus also confirms that this is a very real place. There are a great many reasons why this cannot be simply a parable. The most obvious one being that Jesus never used personal names in any of his parables. Lazarus, and most likely the Rich Man, were apparently people that the people listening to him were familiar with.
Since this is a topic Jesus discussed more than any other, I think it behooves us to take it very seriously, and not try to explain it away because we cannot understand it, rationalize it or make it reasonable to our fallen minds. If he thought it was important, perhaps we should too?
-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001
John,Condenm (Websters)= find guilty, sentence to punishment
As I read and re-read your post, one image of “justice” comes to mind. William Wallace laying on the block and being disemboweled by a priest. The people, all swept up in the moment, in agreement with what is going on – Torture. Then, realizing it’s gone on long enough call for mercy – Death, except of course the “sick” one – the king.
Jobs wife told him to “curse God and die.” Is it really reasonable to think that Jobs wife, who thought he’d sinned against God and was being punished, would want him to just die – Then go to “hell” to be tortured more?
The Bible says “the soul that is sinning it itself will die.” Adam was MADE a soul, he was not given one.
God didn’t tell Adam “your body will die, but your immortal soul will be tortured – forever.” Or “you sin, you’ll die and spend time in another part of Heaven.” He said “you sin, you die.”
The “spirit returns to God and the dust returns to the earth” Ecc 12:7. The soul is equated with blood, Le 12:7. The soul of man is also equated with the lower animals. The “spirit” (ie: breath) is the same in both (Ecc 3:19), “as one dies so does the other.”
“The spirit (which is the breath) returns to God and the body returns to the earth (from which it was made)”.
-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001
John,I understand what you are saying. I just don’t believe it.
It the Hebrew sheol equates with “the grave”. It does not equate with the popular definition of “hell” or Greek “hades.” Many believe the very term sheol is of divine origin, whereas hades is a pagan Greek term. With the influence of the Greeks on much of western society I understand quite well what you are saying. Being in architecture I see it’s influence in many buildings, even today.
Nowhere in the Hebrew Scripture is sheol described as a place of future, after death human torment.
Only overlaying the Greek philosophy of pagan “hades” comes the understanding of torture come in.
You would have me believe Gods “justice has to include some form of future “punishment” because death is not enough. Yet the Scriptures clearly say the dead know nothing and the soul dies.
You’d further have me believe that are so called “Christian” religions are all contained in “one” house, but each (Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc) each just having a door from a hallway into separated rooms in “gods house.”
-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001
C,Matthew 25:41
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
From this I understand that "everlasting fire" was prepared for the devil and not for man, yet in man's rebellion he has sided with the devil thus sharing his fate.
Matthew 25:46
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
From this we see again the word "everlasting" and that he does not describe it with the same word that you do. Instead of "torture" we see the word "punishment". You may wish to describe eternal fire as "torture" but here Jesus calls it "punishment".
This word everlasting is the Greek word Aionios used 71 times in the NT and means…
1.without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be 2.without beginning 3.without end, never to cease, everlasting.
Thus we know this punishment of the unrighteous is not annihilated - ceasing to exist, but rather, punishment that exists unceasingly.
C, as you can obviously see the discrepancy between our beliefs, the consequences of missing the truth has "eternal" ramifications.
My question, ultimately what do I have to lose if I fail to believe what you say? Absolutely nothing because once I am dead and annihilated I am gone. Yet, what do you have to lose if you fail to believe what I am saying?
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001
What to loose? Life. It's value as designed.What your describing conflicts with "the dead know nothing." Along with the other verses and the one you quoted. How do you harmonize this with some form of "living" being forever "punished"?
-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001
C,I think you are missing my point.
If I am annihilated after I die then any action I took in life is completely inconsequential. I can conduct myself in any way I choose and after it is all said and done….nothing. Most like to use Hitler as an example because he is an easy target. He murdered millions, caused enormous suffering and needless pain. Yet Hitler faces no punishment for this evil? Justice? I hardly think so. I am sure you have already worked through all of this and have found some sort of justice in this but it seems quite hollow to me. God is not only a God of love and forgiveness the Scriptures also call Him Just.
Next you state…
"What your describing conflicts with "the dead know nothing."
C, again I think you missed something, I am not describing anything, all I have done is quoted the Scriptures. You are inferring that the verses I have presented "conflict" with the verse you have quoted. What must be done then is to look at each of these verses to resolve any conflict that may exist in our minds because there is no conflict with the Scriptures.
I have already examined the two references I posted and plainly we see there exists an everlasting punishment after death. Therefore let us examine your reference and see what it is saying.
Ecc. 9:5
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Yet, C, I believe you have failed to read the verse in context! Look at the very next verse! It removes any conflict you have suggested.
"Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun."
The writer has qualified his statement in verse five with what is said in verse six. "Neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun."
In other words he is saying that the dead do not know "anything that is done under the sun."
You obviously will not agree with this simple explanation, yet I find it disturbing that you would commit your entire eternity to Ecc. 9:5 when it is highly questionable that your interpretation of this single phrase apart from its context means what you suggest.
In light of Jesus' teaching concerning everlasting punishment and the context of Ecc. 9:5 AND 6 we discover there is no conflict. Rather, while they lived they received rewards and knew that one day they would die, after one dies their memory is forgotten they cease to receive rewards and they fail to know anything that is happening under the sun. Once one dies, they will either enter everlasting life with God or enter everlasting punishment with the devil and his angles.
If I am wrong (I don't believe I am), really it's no big deal, I would simply cease to exist, which is no loss to me because I do not exist to comprehend it. Yet I sincerely hope above all things that you do not place your faith in a message that is not the true gospel and find yourself in everlasting punishment. C, think for a moment if you are wrong, you will spend eternity with the devil and his angels because you chose not to believe the gospel! Not the option I would ever wish to chose for myself, much less anyone else.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001