No need to be snippy, I just don’t know what you are asking.
Forgive me Dave, my bad as I’ve probably read more into your comment than you actually intended… all good 
1 Like
Possibly… but believing a lie will often lead to all manner of false experience.
I’m more inclined to take responsibility… as opposed to transferring my bad to God and then calling it God’s wrath — but that’s me.
Yes… God is love.
Response #1 What does a “false experience” mean, if it’s not false that many experience alienation?
#2 It’s St. Paul that calls God’s wrath: “being turned over to the consequences of our sinful choices,” but he doesn’t agree with you that this removes our responsibility for such outcomes.
#3 You say that God’s disposition has changed, and that He is Love. Do you mean that God was not love until after AD70? My sense is that God’s essential nature never changes, and that it’s always been the case that God is love.
IF you tell somebody something false and tell it to them often enough and long enough that somebody is likely to believe that false report. Religianity has told many for so long that they are worthless and far from God, and then have had the audacity to propose a programme whereby that someone can come close to God… when in reality He has been ever-so close for so long.
Paul in Romans 1 was NOT speaking about “the consequences of our sinful choices.” He was talking about Israel’s idolatrous and adulterous past sinful choices… and thus the consequences they suffered.
No Bob… that’s just you playing your semantic dodge-ball 
If you’re agreeing that his disposition of love didn’t change, what disposition did change?
Does God’s omnipresence falsify the reality that we can experience alienation from God?
What convinces you this is only addressing “Israel”? Paul says he’s writing to both Jews and Gentiles, and most see Romans 1’s reference to “all the godlessness and wickedness of people” to be outlining the predicament of all sinful humanity. Are they wrong?
This is shocking! Simple shocking! It probably belongs in this thread, as this news story - could be a game-changer. 
Let me quote a bit, from the experts. And the strong reaction, to the story.
And while the majority of the sushi was spicy salmon rolls, tuna rolls. and California rolls, archaeologist Dr. Gilbert Rothschild maintains that at least one of the rolls had a touch of beef in it.
“When Jesus broke bread with his disciples, we now know it was, in fact, a large piece of yellowtail sashimi,” says Rothschild, antiquities professor at famed England’s Fellingham University. “There was some edamame as well. What was really amazing was how the chefs kept the fish fresh as they traveled to Jerusalem and up Mount Zion. They were very skilled with the fish. And they prepared a special Judas Roll for the occasion.”
Rothschild and his team of researchers spent the better part of 10 years digging and sifting through the room where the Last Supper was held, as well as the outlying areas of the Dormition Abbey on Mount Zion.
They claim they uncovered the remains of chopsticks and an empty soy sauce bottle. And an in-depth lab analysis confirmed particles of wasabi had adhered to the ancient flooring in the room.
The findings from the archaeological team have drawn sharp criticism from the Catholic Church, in particular.
“How can these quack researchers say that sushi was prepared for Jesus and His apostles at the Last Supper?” decries Father Terrence O’Donoghue of the Archdiocese of Boston. “They make it sound like it was some sort of pizza and poker night with the guys. They need to bone up on their Bible readings, I’ll tell you that much I want them all to sit down and read the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luka. and John. I suppose they think the Eucharist at Sunday Mass should be spicy tuna rolls.
Paul was indeed addressing both Jews and Gentiles… about Israel.
Really? the same most might likewise question your univeralsim… are they wrong?
I’m not saying that a consensus view must be right, but asking why you find them all wrong?
(In my 20 diverse Romans commentaries, most do reject universalism, though several exegete 5 in a universalist way. Though all find it apparent the early chapters outline the plight of all sinful humanity.)
In any event, as you insist all such NT scholars read this text wrong, what do you see in chapter one that they miss which shows that it is NOT teaching “the predicament of All sinful humanity”?
Just more evidence Bob of your sneaky semantics. I have not insisted… “all such NT scholars read this text wrong” — they may not agree with my position (if they knew it) and that’s fine, i.e., we can all agree to disagree without framing these things in terms of your divisive dogmatics of right or wrong.
Thanks, that’s good! So let your yes be yes and your no be no! Are you now clarifying that you do
Not claim it is ‘wrong’ (incorrect) to read Romans 1 as about “the predicament of all sinful men”?
And if you still maintain that Romans one is really about “Israel’s sinful choices,” why?
How many iterations of your post are you going to keep making in CHANGING actual quotes 
What quote? How many ways can you dodge every honest question that just asks how you reached your bare assertions that my exegesis is wrong, by only complaining about how I word the question?
1 Like
1 Like
Is there a hidden message in that post Dave ?
!! Or have you just learnt how to post live images 
No - I’m just enjoying the back and forth in this discussion!
Ahhh - I was guilty of taking to much notice of the final shot after a good rally - apologies.