How to contact me

I care about my interactions with people more than almost anything else. But I'm not very good at keeping up with all kinds of different communications technologies coming at me at the same time. As a result, there are some practices you need to know about.

For one, if you're calling, and I don't recognize the number, I'm not going to answer. If I don't know why you're calling, I'm probably not going to answer either. Too many people have consumed multiple hours of my time in phone conversation, when I just couldn't afford it.

I also don't do text messaging. Both my voicemail and my text messages go to my Google Voice, and I receive them as email. That's how I deal with them, so you might as well email me, and save a step.

But maybe you don't have access to email, but do have access to text messaging or a phone. That's fine, send me a message, and I'll respond when I can.

So for my own sanity, and for yours, here's a short checklist:

Do you need to talk business with me?

Email. I've probably given you my email address already, and it's not that hard to find online. If you need something immediate from me, you should say so at the beginning or in the subject line.

Do you need to setup a meeting?

Email.

Do you need to ask me for something?

Email.

Do you need to text me something?

Email. Or, if you have to, text my Google Voice number, and I'll get it as email.

Do you need to call me?

Email. Or, if you have no other way to contact me, call my Google Voice number, and I'll get your transcribed message as an email.

Do you need to have a conversation with me about our personal relationship, or some dreamy idea-sharing, or just enjoying each other's company?

Let's schedule coffee, or some one-on-one conversation time...via email.



• • •

Comments

Why do you think Bob or Robert Bell recanted his position on there being no hell? Your stuff is so great I doubt it is irrefutable if anything can't say you did not do your homework. Let me know with even a short response. Thank you,
Jeff

Jeff, I'm not aware of Rob Bell recanting. Do you have a link to something about this?

It was on Christianity Today article.
You can google it

Google Rob Bell recanted
Or Rob Bell changes his mind
Or Rob Bell Christianity Today There is a hell.

That's not a recant. That's actually the same thing Rob Bell said in his book and in his talks: He believes in hell, he just doesn't believe that hell "wins". In other words, hell is not something that God locks you in for eternity.

As for my position, I said "hell doesn't exist", but another way of saying it might be that "hell is not an eternal torture chamber". The biblical story talks about consequences, and punishments, and suffering - but it never suggests that God is interested in eternally torturing people.

Regarding Universalism or no hell doctrine...

I already know the dialogue and it consists of reducing God and making Him subject to their emotional standards and then use these standards to employ the methodology of the cultists like the mormons, take possible applications of definitions, ignore that scholars have evaluated and reject that particular application and then fail to show why their claim makes it the application and why the scholars rejection is wrong. Just, here aeion can be temporal so because in my emotions I want it to be, therefore it is temporal here and nothing can change my mind because God must fit my limited understanding of love and justice. The fact aeion is used in numerous places inarguably as eternal and the only use of the repetition of the word in a sentence, 'aeion aeion' is always used to mean eternal and used in several proof texts to mean this is not dealt with.

Gary Dixon dealt with this as does another guy, bald headed, cannot remember his name.

Then the fact that universalism was never the historical position but has it's roots in a known heresy popularized later by Origen, a known heretic ends the debate. But they dont care about all this and more, they have their emotions made up and use them for eisogesis instead of exegesis. They have their theology in mind and interpret scripture in light of it instead of letting scripture give them their theology.

Eternal. No one has ever legitimately responded to my claim on Matthew 25:46. If Jesus meant two different things he committed the logical fallacy of equivocation.
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

The same Greek word is used for "everlasting" and "Eternal" in that verse. The best anyone has ever come back with is the word "αἰών" which is the root word of the word Jesus uses in that verse. "αἰώνιος"

If Jesus’ word “everlasting” is merely an age then “eternal” must also be merely an age. How can life be eternal and punishment be temporal when Jesus used the same Greek word for each? That is the logical fallacy of equivocation. I find it extremely hard to believe that Jesus would be so careless in his use of language; considering language is the very foundation of communicating his meaning.

The first of the two words "αἰών" can mean either an indefinite age of time or it can mean eternity. The word Jesus used, "αἰώνιος," ONLY has the following definitions.
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

Please notice that the definition of αἰώνιος does not include ANY limited timeframe. It is exclusively eternal and that is the word that Jesus used in that Scripture.

The Greek word that Jesus uses in that statement offers no possibility of anything other than eternity for each destination; thus the Greek word "κόλασις"[punishment], defined as punishment, can absolutely NOT be legitimately translated as correction. If the punishment is eternal it CANNOT be legitimately translated into English as correction.