yes, it is pretty clear. not necessarily comprehensive since it had to fit publication constraints. but the source site, run by those educated in the languages of the original text and in theology, are a wee bit more trustworthy than those who cite wikipedia as a fount of knowledge.
bye.
What! That's insane!
I read it on the interweb so it must be true!;-)
yes, it is pretty clear. not necessarily comprehensive since it had to fit publication constraints. but the source site, run by those educated in the languages of the original text and in theology, are a wee bit more trustworthy than those who cite wikipedia as a fount of knowledge.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
You’re getting abrasive for no reason.
I didn’t cite Wikipedia as the end-all and be-all of knowledge. I used it as an example of the author not even scanning the most rudimentary of sources (and I consider Wikipedia to be a VERY rudimentary source - a starting point ONLY, eventually leading to actual, dependable, primary sources) when making arguments for or against a particular position.
The fact that the author conflated a universalist position with the annihilationist one is a good example of poor argumentation. Annihilationism shares nothing with universalism; it would be easier to argue that the doctrine of eternal torture leads to universalism than to argue annihilationism does.
Does your “bye” mean that you no longer want to discuss the matter with me? I still have questions I’d like ask you, if you’d be gracious enough to answer them.
I’ll start off with the following:
Question #1:
When does the soul begin to exist?
Question #2:
Assuming souls are personal and individual, are we each responsible for the state of our souls, or do ancestors affect the state of an individual’s soul, e.g. must a son’s soul pay for the sins of the father? Does the salvation of a father affect the son’s soul in any direct way?
Question #3:
Is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Savior and the Only Begotten Son of God the only way to enter Heaven (or to attain eternal life)?