"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Rejection of what?

Presumably the "the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship".
It is your posts, not mine. What do you think you are rejecting?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Presumably the "the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship".
It is your posts, not mine. What do you think you are rejecting?

"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?"

In context, precisely: willful rejection of the opportunity to receive the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship; electing permanent separation, instead, as the only viable alternative. We agree. OP rests its case.

Originally posted by vistesd

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, t ...[text shortened]... ink Irenaeus put it) is universal in Eastern Christianity, just that it is more prominent there.

vistesed, this lengthy comment appears to reinforce the fundamental concept of human volition co-existing with absolute sovereignty in time. If so, our present understandings are identical. And, yes, the parables (in which you are extraordinarily well versed and the koine) do reinforce the primacy of free will. Flawed humanity is easily tempted. Temptation per se is not the sin. The only sin God's Perfect Character cannot condone or forgive is rejection of His Gracious Gift of Salvation. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Any chance their own willful decisions played a role?

If one reduces logic to absolutes there is always a "chance".
But the tens of millions murdered in the 20th century by Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists and others indicates something else entirely.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
In context, precisely: willful rejection of the opportunity to receive the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship; electing permanent separation, instead, as the only viable alternative. We agree. OP rests its case.

I am not sure what you think we agree on, or what case you think the OP makes. I notice though that you have avoided answering my questions. Why so evasive? It seems you do the same in nearly every thread. You make a statement then refuse to discuss it. Why?

Originally posted by caissad4
If one reduces logic to absolutes there is always a "chance".
But the tens of millions murdered in the 20th century by Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists and others indicates something else entirely.

Point taken; any more examples?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I am not sure what you think we agree on, or what case you think the OP makes. I notice though that you have avoided answering my questions. Why so evasive? It seems you do the same in nearly every thread. You make a statement then refuse to discuss it. Why?

Apparently we have no common ground, twhitehead. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I must be monumentally stupid. I just can't seem to understand how I am expected to believe the words of an anonymous person on the internet.

I bet that if the same sort of dilemma was presented to you you would not even consider believing it. Are you monumentally stupid too?

The dilemma WAS presented to me when I was in college. I used my intelligence to suss it out and I accepted it. I never rejected it, so the 'dilemma' as presented in the OP was not actually mine, so I can't understand the measure of pride some take in its rejection. I believed it from the outset. It made sense to me then, it makes sense to me now.

Of course, you can continue pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. If so, then "Apparently we have no common ground, twhitehead. Thanks for contributing to the conversation."

Like GB, I refuse to battle wits with an unarmed person.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what you think we agree on, or what case you think the OP makes. I notice though that you have avoided answering my questions. Why so evasive? It seems you do the same in nearly every thread. You make a statement then refuse to discuss it. Why?

What he is really talking about is this:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

(John 3:16 NKJV)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Apparently we have no common ground, twhitehead. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

Its not that we lack common ground, its that you refuse to answer simple straightforward questions and I wonder why.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The dilemma WAS presented to me when I was in college. I used my intelligence to suss it out and I accepted it. I never rejected it, so the 'dilemma' as presented in the OP was not actually mine, so I can't understand the measure of pride some take in its rejection. I believed it from the outset. It made sense to me then, it makes sense to me now.

I said that if the 'same sort of dilemma' was presented to you, you would reject it. I stand by that claim. First of all, accepting it would almost certainly require you to reject the one you currently accept.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Its not that we lack common ground, its that you refuse to answer simple straightforward questions and I wonder why.

Please restate your top three questions in "simple straightforward" sentences. Thank you.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
JS, I viewed the housekeeping as "Bolding Elimination" as compared with "Bold Added". Quote &Reply automatically "Bolds" the entire body of the quotation, as can be seen above. This mass of black ink militates against the impaired vision in both eyes. Often, I'll "Unbold" it all when Copy& Pasting's involved. Will try to keep your first ever in six years request in mind. Pleased we agree. -Bob

Quoting myself: We agree. Perfect love is just and fair.

I see arguments here and there that do not disagree with this; instead they disagree whether God as depicted in the Bible IS just and fair.

Then I see (as in Job) that God says to them, who are you to judge?

But this pointed question goes to both sides: the person who judges God to be just and fair, and the person who judges God to be unjust and unfair.

I think the believers in a just and fair God need to consider that the question goes to them, too.

God asks them, "Who are you to judge that I am just and fair?"

Dear mankind,

We are offering a special gift
with no strings attached. It is
found in John 3: 16. To all who
accept it there will be a celebration
party in heaven with many
remarkable rewards.

Date to be announced. Please R.S.V.P before D.O.A.

Love God

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Please restate your top three questions in "simple straightforward" sentences. Thank you.

1. Why do you think anyone would reject the offer?
2. Why did you reject the offer?
3. Why are you going to great lengths to avoid answering these questions?