goddardbe@netscape.net wrote...
>
>
> paul4deb@hawknet.com.au wrote:
>
> > I take "destruction" to mean what it's plainest meaning is--the ACT of
> > destroying or the PROCESS of being destroyed. Whether it is the act or
> > the process would depend on context. Either way, destruction in itself
> > implies an outcome:
>
> And here we're talking about _eternal destruction_, so the ACT or the
> PROCESS must be an eternal ACT or PROCESS. You can't have point
> events in eternity.
>
>
> > If we say "everlasting destruction" means a process that inflicts
> > conscious pain upon someone forever--ie without end, then we turn
> > "everlasting destruction" into a kind of oxymoron i.e. indestructible
> > destruction. I find this unscriptural.
>
> You haven't explained how, in eternity, someone can be punished
> for a while and then ceased to be punished. There is no concept
> of "ceasing" without time, because for something to "cease", it
> has to happen at one time and then stop happening at another.
>
> You're not being logical.

Have you actually experienced eternity? No? Then is as if you're
presuming to teach someone about swimming based strictly on what
you've read about it.

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article , Gary says...
>
>
>"Matthew Johnson" wrote in
>message
>news:A5F36DCC-AC9D-4DB7-2717-2E790DFB9D94@srcbs.org...
>> In article
><7C26D8BD-98B5-9861-772F-8E035E68B3CB@srcbs.org>, Gary
>says...
>> >But I agree that all of us are "influenced" by external
>> >means.
>> >It is just that what I am saying is that these external
>> >things
>> >do NOT DETERMINE the choice. IF they do DETERMINE
>> >the choice, then the self has not determined it, and
>hence
>> >is
>> >relieved of responsibility.
>>
>> But this is where you go astray: why, oh why, are you so
>certain that there are
>> only two possibilities here? Doesn't that ring of 'false
>dichotomy' to you? It
>> does to me.
>>
>> How can you a priori rule out the possibility that
>'determination of choice' is
>> not a JOINT action resulting from BOTH external influence
>and internal
>> inclination/decision making/etc?
>
>Oh, I see what you mean, when Eve ate of the forbidden
>fruit, the fruit, and the serpent made the choice conjointly
>with her? :)

Very funny. When yo