Depart Out • Harold Camping • End of the world • church age • Family Radio • View topic - 150,000 Die A Day To be Ruthlessly Tormented

Joined: 10 Oct 2010 Posts: 1195 Location: Canada

LAMBSFURY wrote

750,000 have died since this post. Most plundered to hades to be tortured in soul while they await the final judgment. Adults, babies, the rich, the poor....

Out of those 750,000 who have died since Tuesday, how many would have gone to Heaven? If its 2%, the way Fr Harry taught, then 15,000 made it through the "Great White Pearlies". So maybe I have a chance? That's better odds than the lottery!
Konverted Ken

Joined: 03 Dec 2009 Posts: 2835

No, far less than 2%. Every example in the Bible shows that 99.9999999999% remain unsaved. Only 8 were saved in the flood of Noah's day. Only 8 in the whole world. Only a handful saved when Sodom and Gomorrha were plundered with fire and brimstone. Only 7,000 were elect in the days of Elijah as mentioned in Romans 11:4. They had about 2 million living in Israel at that time. In all these examples, 99.99999999& remain unsaved. While God saves people from every nation, for the millions upon millions that are elected and saved, billions upon billions are not. That still comes out to 99.99999999% never elected. However, there is always hope and God is not a respector of persons.....For those never elected of God, the evidence they are not is that they are offended at election as it cuts their souls.....

Joined: 10 Oct 2010 Posts: 1195 Location: Canada

LAMBSFURY wrote

No, far less than 2%. .....

So much for that idea. I was hoping Father Camping had that right about the 2% seeing how he hit it right on the head with 1988 being the EOTCA and May 21/11 being Judgement Day...."Spiritual" that is!
Curses! Foiled again!

Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 951

didymus wrote

Greg: your foul mouth exceeds even the excesses of Lambsfury. You are a hypocrite and your vile temperament and language only fuel and antagonize his angry disposition. Whatever you like or don't like about LF says, at least what he writes is somewhat comprehensible and has a point.

Thanks, Didy. You are now included in the group of retards that can't see the forest for the trees. You are one of the rudest people on this board. You insult people all the time. Yet because you agree with LF, and fancy yourself a hand-picked electist, you somehow can justify your own rudeness, and defend LF who exhibits every characteristic of the Accuser. Typical of electists. Typical.

We are all hypocrites. We believe something we cannot perfectly live.

I do not apologize for consistently pointing out "Christ alone". The Cross alone. The Bible alone. I do not bow at the feet of a man. I do not need you, or LF, to explain to me the Gospel as taught in the New Testament.

Please now continue preening yourself in your mirror. I hope that makes you feel good. Just don't try to define doctrine and behavior for me.

Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 951

LAMBSFURY wrote

For those never elected of God, the evidence they are not is that they are offended at election as it cuts their souls.....

Oh brother. For those never elected by God? They don't even believe in God. They never heard of election. It doesn't cut their souls in this life because they don't believe any of it. This is a religious fantasy for you.

Joined: 08 Mar 2011 Posts: 368

tonks wrote

While I will not defend the tone of Tom's posts, nevertheless, you are decidedly one-sided in your accusations. You take him to the woodshed yet your silence is deafening despite the vile invectives consistently spewed forth by Greg.

Tonks,

Tom's problems go well beyond his tone. He is an antagonist. He falsely accuses professing believers, at times when they agree with him. He lacks compassion, is at times cruel, and attempts to bully any who dare to even comment on his posts. He has made references to his physical dominance over those who disagree. He has made derogatory remarks concerning the age of other posters. To challenge him in any way brings accusations of apostasy and feebleness. To argue a single point in contradiction to his view brings an accusation of being unsaved and a sentence of eternity in hell, handed down by Tom.

He is wrong on so many levels (that have nothing to do with doctrine), it can't be covered in a single post. He does all this while proclaiming to preach God's truth, yet will not profess to be saved. If he truly believes all he posts, and I sense he does, he is a mess of a human being. He appears to be utterly lost, while accusing all others of the same. I was trying to help him, because I can, to some degree, relate to his situation.

If it seemed one-sided, that was not my intention. I thought I could help him. I still wish I could, and will continue to pray that someone, by God's grace, reaches him.

Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Posts: 711

frank wrote

tonks wrote

Chris wrote

Your tone, lack of compassion, false accusations, and twisting of verses so that you may accuse others of not knowing Christ should be troubling at least. Whether your doctrine is correct is irrelevant at this point. Your pride is preventing you from any potential relationship with Christ. Your arrogance could never be construed as the demeanor of a Christian.

While I will not defend the tone of Tom's posts, nevertheless, you are decidedly one-sided in your accusations. You take him to the woodshed yet your silence is deafening despite the vile invectives consistently spewed forth by Greg.

Tonks,
Sorry, but I almost had to chuckle when I read you accuse Chris of being one sided when the fact is that Tom is the poster child for one-sidedness.

I think you misunderstood. My point is that Chris is one-sided in his criticism. He denounces Tom for his over-the-top posts and yet those who engage in the same - or worse - remain uncriticized. There's nothing evenhanded about it.

Quote

I'm sorry but there is far more wrong with Tom's posts than his tone. And frankly I'm getting tired of people excusing Tom's behavior with the excuse that he is a "little rough around the edges". No, his behavior is in utter rebellion against the Word of God:

Tone tactics - whatever. The point is another poster engages in reprehensible tactics. However, it appears neither you or Chris mind in the least that over-the-top behavior so long as it's not Tom engaging in it.

Quote

If unbelievers read this forum (and I'm sure some do), Tom is providing proof to feed the secular media narrative that Christians are nothing but a bunch of angry, self-righteous, sadistic, hypocritical know-it-alls. I don't know why we continue to tolerate such behavior from each other.

These unbelievers would also see that you quite readily tolerate this "bad" behavior so long as your name isn't Tom.

Quote

Yes, Greg has crossed the line too but I will say this...if it were not for Tom goading him, I don't think Greg would ever cross that line.

You can't possibly be serious! I have never for one moment "goaded" Greg yet his posts to me are the most despicable, disgraceful, contemptible, repulsive posts I've yet to read on this forum.

Quote

I would challenge everyone to make it a policy to offer one warning to another party if the tone of the post they wish to repond to crosses the line. If they choose to ignore that warning, then DO NOT RESPOND any further to that post. That is the only way to clean up the cesspool that this forum has become.

What good would that do? You and others turn a blind eye to another poster who mightily contributes to this "cesspool". Should this be taken as agreement with that certain "cesspool" contributor?

Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Posts: 711

Chris wrote

tonks wrote

While I will not defend the tone of Tom's posts, nevertheless, you are decidedly one-sided in your accusations. You take him to the woodshed yet your silence is deafening despite the vile invectives consistently spewed forth by Greg.

If it seemed one-sided, that was not my intention.

It does appear to be one-sided because that other poster is equally deserving of this criticism and yet he receives a pass.

That same poster repeatedly calls those who don't agree with him unsaved and even s-atanic along with a host of other invectives. I can see no good reason for the selective criticism; sadly, I suspect there is a common ground of agreement with him.

Reading, and more particularly, being the recipient of nasty posts is annoying and a waste of time. Unfortunately, if you respond it's tough not to sink to his gutter level and that's not a place I intend to be.

Joined: 08 Mar 2011 Posts: 368

tonks wrote

It does appear to be one-sided because that other poster is equally deserving of this criticism and yet he receives a pass.

That same poster repeatedly calls those who don't agree with him unsaved and even s-atanic along with a host of other invectives. I can see no good reason for the selective criticism; sadly, I suspect there is a common ground of agreement with him.

Tonks

Okay, I'll go through this again. I said if it appeared to be one-sided criticism that was not my intention. It's my opinion that Tom is using the doctrine of election in a manner in which it was never meant to be used. I was once guilty of the same offense. I didn't even view my exchanges with Tom as "criticism." I was genuinely trying to help him, as I can relate somewhat to Tom's issues. There is a lot on this board, and in life, that we do not address as we have to pick our battles, for lack of a better phrase. There is no tacit agreement with another simply because the conversation was with one poster. Unless, of course, you're looking for it. Then you can read into it anything you wish.

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

tonks wrote

You and others turn a blind eye to another poster who mightily contributes to this "cesspool". Should this be taken as agreement with that certain "cesspool" contributor?

I have not turned a blind eye to anyone. I conceded that Greg has indeed crossed the line. The difference is that Tom crosses the line with everyone. Greg has never been disrespectful toward me. On the other hand, I have been called a "half-man" by Tom for no other reason than that I disagree with him over some minor point of doctrine. Yes, Greg has been guilty of returning evil for evil. But his posture has been one of over-defensiveness toward angry self righteous posters (and those like yourself who seem quick to defend them). I confess I haven't been around this forum as much lately, so perhaps I've missed it, but I have never witnessed Greg setting a nasty tone with other respectful posters simply because they posted something he disagrees with. I'll say it again...Tom is the one who sets the nasty tone. Some like Greg can't resist the temptation to fight back with a negative tone of their own, but if Tom were not around I don't think there would be any nastiness coming from Greg. I don't know how long you have been around here Tonks, but I am not the first person who has called Tom out on his appropriate behavior both here as well as on other forums.

Also, I never said that you were the one goading Greg. I said Tom was. I'm sorry, but calling people "feeble half-men" for disagreeing with some point of doctrine, making fun of their age and weight, etc. is goading them. I don't see any posts of Greg making fun of someone's weight, age, etc. Greg and I do not see eye to eye on everything, I have made no secret of the fact that I agree with the five points of Calvinism while Greg does not. But he has never started calling me names simply because I stated some opinion he disagrees with. So there is no equivalence here.

This is not a defense of anything Greg has posted. One of the reasons I buttted into this thread was to encourage him to turn the other cheek and stop returning evil for evil when Tom starts with his name calling.

The problem is that you are more tolerant of Tom's posts because from a doctrinal standpoint you like what he is saying. I guess that is human nature but it's still wrong. I recognized this in myself quite recently, which is probably why have become sensitive to the issue. For years I listened to a local right wing radio show. The host's tone was totally unchristian and inappropriate...mocking people, making fun of their weight, etc. But I tolerated and even defended it because I agreed with his politics and I guess I even took a little guilty pleasure in hearing him personally attack people whose politics I abhor. Then one day it hit me that if this radio host were a left winger, I would be criticizing him severely, not only for his politics but for his on-the-air behavior. I realized that in my heart I was a hypocrite. So I stopped listening to the radio show. I also immediately started thinking of christian forums like this and how that same thing seems to play out here too, where people are tolerant of unchristian behavior from those with whom they are in doctrinal agreement. It's wrong. We need to hold everyone accountable for the tone of their posts whether we agree with their doctrine or not. In fact, it should bother us MORE when someone with whom we are in agreement gets nasty, since the true message is getting undermined by the messenger. Tom's behavior simply reinforces the stereotype of the angry, loveless, joyless Calvinist who can't wait to smack down their opponent over the slightest doctrinal disagreement. That's enough to drive any lurking truth-seekers away from Calvinism for sure.

Joined: 08 Mar 2011 Posts: 368

tonks wrote

Chris wrote

tonks wrote

While I will not defend the tone of Tom's posts, nevertheless, you are decidedly one-sided in your accusations. You take him to the woodshed yet your silence is deafening despite the vile invectives consistently spewed forth by Greg.

If it seemed one-sided, that was not my intention.

It does appear to be one-sided because that other poster is equally deserving of this criticism and yet he receives a pass.

That same poster repeatedly calls those who don't agree with him unsaved and even s-atanic along with a host of other invectives. I can see no good reason for the selective criticism; sadly, I suspect there is a common ground of agreement with him.

Reading, and more particularly, being the recipient of nasty posts is annoying and a waste of time. Unfortunately, if you respond it's tough not to sink to his gutter level and that's not a place I intend to be.

Tonks,

Have you, prior to this thread, said anything that contradicts or criticizes Tom's posts? You are quick to criticize Greg, but have you criticized Tom for worse? You're doing exactly that of which you accuse others. I never assumed simply because you don't take on Tom that you agree with everything he posts, including his "tone." I think Frank may be right. You agree with Tom's doctrine, so you're tolerant. Now you're walking the line, coming close to making false accusations of agreement with doctrine, even though you have no basis for them.

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 2819

While the critique of critics is notable, I'm not sure it is just a question of giving like minds a "pass".

The reason why LF doesn't bother me very much (and this has not always been the case) is because he uses shock tactics to create drama. He's like a religious drama queen (who considers these things -- sigh). So when he says outrageous things I just imagine him laughing silly over the responses that he is generating or about to generate. I don't take them seriously even though it is disturbing (for instance) that anyone would mock a suicide like he did recently.

This is not so much the case with others, recently on the scene, and it is not insignificant that numerous posts referencing the scummy nature of this forum have posted in correlation with said appearance(s).

Final thoughts: I believe the expression is "The Village Idiot". It is singular. Every village can tolerate one, but two at a time just isn't manageable for the typical village.

LF is a mess and he should come to grips with that fact soon. Chris tried to explain this to him but it is pretty unlikely that he is going to respond. We can all still hold out some hope.

And maybe Gregg should move closer to an area of higher populus with civilized human beings. He might be spending too much time up in the hills alone.

Joined: 22 Sep 2011 Posts: 37

didymus wrote

The reason why LF doesn't bother me very much (and this has not always been the case) is because he uses shock tactics to create drama.

While Tom does use drama, I don't think that is an adequate explanation.

Tom is reportedly the "Strongest man in the world". His Facebook page has MANY photos of him and his muscles. I do not intend any of this post to be an attack but his constant use of "smashed with an iron fist" seems to be based on the fact that *he* has an iron fist and he projects his own attitudes / emotions on God.

Tom seems to be a narcissist. He never shows empathy towards others. He always is contemptuous and sneering. He has totally redefined the word "sorry".

The problem is only secondarily his theology. The problem is that he is emotionally unhealthy. I think of a made up word "theopath" when I read his posts.

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 2819

Yes, "theopath" has more of a clinical note to it which may be more apropos. It takes more courage and strength to show compassion and a concern for others weaker than oneself than it does to manipulate and mock them. He should reconsider the correct measure of his manhood.

Joined: 03 Dec 2009 Posts: 2835

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame" Luke 16:22-24

900,000 have died since this post was made. The majority plundered to Hades where they are tormented and in terror in their souls, as they await the final Judgment Day.

"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. " Luke 12:4-5

Only by the will of God, if one is elected under grace, can they be spared...

Most will not be spared, as they are slaughtered in the terrors of hell forevermore....