"an ancient dilemma..."

"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]

It isn't a gift if refusing it brings disastrous consequences.

Originally posted by rwingett

It isn't a gift if refusing it brings disastrous consequences.

"It isn't a gift if refusing it brings disastrous consequences."

If I'm diagnosed as having developed an extremely high risk cerebral tumor, requiring immediate surgery, and refuse it with the result that my death follows within a few days, whom do you believe is responsible for this disastrous consequence?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]

OK, lets say there is, what of it?
Or is this not really a hypothetical and you genuinely think that everyone is individually rejecting, and repeatedly rejecting some unearned and undeserved gift? Would you care to tell me how I could be rejecting a gift that I am not aware of, and why you are rejecting it despite being aware of it and the consequences?

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, lets say there is, what of it?
Or is this not really a hypothetical and you genuinely think that everyone is individually rejecting, and repeatedly rejecting some unearned and undeserved gift? Would you care to tell me how I could be rejecting a gift that I am not aware of, and why you are rejecting it despite being aware of it and the consequences?

Eternal separation from anyone and everyone on earth or elsewhere your cuppa tea?

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, lets say there is, what of it?
Or is this not really a hypothetical and you genuinely think that everyone is individually rejecting, and repeatedly rejecting some unearned and undeserved gift? Would you care to tell me how I could be rejecting a gift that I am not aware of, and why you are rejecting it despite being aware of it and the consequences?

Oh, you're aware of it alright. If you've read this thread for longer than a week, then you're aware of it, unless you are monumentally stupid.

You just refuse to believe it. Your refusal is your choice, no one is rejecting it for you.

Originally posted by rwingett
It isn't a gift if refusing it brings disastrous consequences.

If you are drowning, someone throwing you a life preserver is a gift. They are saving you from disastrous consequences. Of course, you could choose to reject their gift and accept those disastrous consequences.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If you are drowning, someone throwing you a life preserver is a gift. They are saving you from disastrous consequences. Of course, you could choose to reject their gift and accept those disastrous consequences.

what about the billions of people who dont believe in god because they follow another faith? has somebody thrown them a fake life preserver?

Originally posted by stellspalfie

what about the billions of people who dont believe in god because they follow another faith? has somebody thrown them a fake life preserver?

"billions of people who dont believe in god because they follow another faith": What do these other faiths provide?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"billions of people who dont believe in god because they follow another faith": What do these other faiths provide?

exactly the same as christianity. a false sense of security and a real sense of belonging to something bigger. the important question is, if atheists are choosing to ignore god then what are people of other faiths doing? are they ignoring god too?

Originally posted by stellspalfie

exactly the same as christianity. a false sense of security and a real sense of belonging to something bigger. the important question is, if atheists are choosing to ignore god then what are people of other faiths doing? are they ignoring god too?

Unfortunately, stellspalfie, yes. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 King James Version (KJV)

Clarke's Commentary and Barnes Notes:

http://www.godvine.com/bible/john/14-6

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Unfortunately, stellspalfie, yes. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 King James Version (KJV)

Clarke's Commentary and Barnes Notes:

[b]http://www.godvine.com/bible/john/14-6[/b]

so who's voice are they listening to and feeling? they would argue that what they feel is just as strong (or even stronger) than a christian. are they delusional?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"It isn't a gift if refusing it brings disastrous consequences."

If I'm diagnosed as having developed an extremely high risk cerebral tumor, requiring immediate surgery, and refuse it with the result that my death follows within a few days, whom do you believe is responsible for this disastrous consequence?[/b]

To follow the analogy, I haven't been diagnosed with any malady. Or to use Suzianne's example, I'm not drowning. I'm doing just fine. I don't see why I need any remedy to a condition that does not exist. I don't want to buy into your protection racket, even if you put a gun to my head and insist I take your "free" gift, because I strongly suspect there are no bullets in the chamber.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]

Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan is more on point: The Samaritan (representing theos/Christos[/i]) refuses to help/heal (salvation = soterias, healing) until he is sure that the man in the ditch is conscious and of his own free will chooses to (a) believe that the Samaritan is there to help, and (b) willingly says yes. Otherwise, the Samaritan withdraws the offer, and leaves the man to his fate.

Or—

The man, in pain and perhaps a bit delirious, believes that the Samaritan is actually one of the men who beat him up, returned to finish the job, and starts screaming, “No! No! No!” Or, he is only half-conscious, and instinctually pushes the Samaritan away in pain and fear. Or, . . .

In any event, the Samaritan, being a gentleman and not wanting to violate the man’s free will, will not save him unless the man clearly believes and agrees. Otherwise, the man pays the consequence for his own sin (hamartia = error, failure to “hit the mark”—in this case, his failure to not get himself beat up for whatever reason), and the Samaritan continues on his way.

Well, in the parable, the Samaritan doesn’t wait, doesn’t ask, doesn’t come back later to see that the man is properly grateful, or has taken steps to mend his ways to make sure he doesn’t get attacked again. The Samaritan (God/the Christ) just saves, without question. He doesn’t even ask whether the man in the ditch is wicked or good—he requires nothing.

This is the difference between the model of (1)(a) sin = wickedness/evil nature, (b) salvation = pardon instead of punishment/condemnation—versus—(2)(a) sin = illness and diminished capacity, (b) salvation = healing (which is what soterias means).*

God’s “consuming fire” is agape, which is God’s essence. ** All attributes of God (e.g., righteousness, justness) must be interpreted as reflections of that essence, and not as counters to it (no “God is love, but&mdash😉. Sin as illness (a longstanding view of the eastern Church, based on exegesis of the Greek scriptures) means that the ability to make right decisions (whether applied to faith or works) is diminished: free will is not freely functional, we are not fully conscious (as the translators of the Philokalia put it, hamartia always implies plani, illusion).

The juridical model, which seems to have become conventional (though not universal) in the West, cannot be either loving or just, so long as hamartia affects the conscious mind (nous)—the Samaritan does not wait for the confession of belief, or repentance from the conscious man; Ieysou Christos says “Forgive them, for they don’t know … “.

_____________________________________________________

* Judgment is not the same as the verdict/sentence even in the juridical model; it is diagnosis in the healing model.

** John does not say that God is “loving”, but love; in the Greek the nominative predicate here is “qualitative”, indicating essence or essential nature. There is not in the Biblical corpus (so far as I am aware) any such counterpart with regard to righteousness or justness or even holiness—they are always given as attributes, which thus must be subordinated to essence.

NOTE: I do not mean to imply that the healing model of salvation (soterias as soterias, as I think Irenaeus put it) is universal in Eastern Christianity, just that it is more prominent there.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what about the billions of people who dont believe in god because they follow another faith? has somebody thrown them a fake life preserver?

I think when the message of the Gospel comes to a person, that person should consider his situation. It is often that he will insist rather to consider someone ELSE'S situation.

What about this person who died at birth?
What about this person in the jungles of Tin Buk Three ?
What about this person who is of this other here religion ?
What about this person who lived 2000 years before Jesus was born ?
What about this person who never heard the message ?

It is not that these are not matters one should contemplate.
What I emphasize is that whatever the situation of that other person that is probably not your situation.

At the coming of the Gospel proclamation a man should consider first his own situation, his own circumstances.
Your situation is not some hypothetical, controversial and debatable circumstance of that someone else you eagerly bring into the matter.