Originally posted by hakimaSo my Wise Sister you feel it is neither existent nor nonexistent
Thank you all for presence of being in this discussion. Here is something from personal readings today. I love how synchronicity happens...
A tenth of an inch's difference,
And heaven and earth are set apart;
If you wish to see it before your own eyes,
Have no fixed thoughts either for or against it.
2. To set up what you like against what you disl ...[text shortened]... F ZEN BUDDHISM
DAISETZ TEITARO SUZUKI, D.LITT.
[1934]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mzb/
nor both existent and nonexistent
nor neither!
I bow.
I wish you to purify obscurations arising from desire manifested as attachment, from aversion and from ignorance;
I wish you to purify obscurations which stem from anger, from pride, from desire manifested as attachment, from envy manifested as jealousy, from all emotional afflictions;
I wish you to attain the three conditions and realize awareness, equalness, discernment and awareness of basic space;
I wish you to avert all the negative consequences and all the negative influences;
I wish you to defeat anger, defeat pride, defeat desire manifested as attachment, defeat envy, defeat jealousy, defeat the armies of gods, demons and humans;
I wish you to bring on the spiritual accomplishment of compassion and kindness;
I wish you to transfer consciousness to the pure realms of experience of Manifested Joy, of Glory and Splendor, of Great Bliss, of Excellent Activity and of Unwavering;
Keep up swirling in the clear light😵
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRead his post again. Do you see those words "even if"? Clearly he does not match your OP. He is not only answering in the hypothetical but he doesn't understand the question he is answering in the first place. There is no mention of God in your OP, and eternal life is a given yet he suggests that it is the gift.
I see. So when this was posted by Starrman:
Even if it were a given, I'd protest. If god came down, revealed himself to me and offered me eternal life, I'd say 'No thanks, I don't take blood money, subterfuge and threats kindly.
he didn't really mean it?
The fact of the matter is, you have answered the question: that man who makes such a decision is either insane or has a death wish. Agreed.
It seems I too did not read your OP very carefully and read more into it than was really there and my answer is therefore incorrect. Your OP does not say what the consequences of accepting or rejecting the free gift are, so I cannot determine why anyone would accept or reject it. And it could be argued (as some people did) that any gift that has consequences is therefore not free.
If you want to know why starrman hypothetically rejected the hypothetical free gift it probably had more to do with his dislike of Christians than any actual considerations regarding the future of his own soul.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31937
Originally posted by FMFEgo.
Must say this thread has been an eye opener. I have come to realise that he's getting some kind of zealot's woody from luring people into a 'discussion' where they have to agree to assume that both believers and unbelievers believe, but the unbelievers are in denial. It really is as shallow as that. twhitehead was too charitable earlier. Bosse got it right: "Ten pages and counting of Freaky not taking 'your OP is stupid' for an answer".
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo, in addition to thinking it okay to use the terms 'believer' and 'unbeliever' in ways that actually have nothing whatsoever to do with belief...
So, in addition to thinking it okay to use the terms 'believer' and 'unbeliever' in ways that actually have nothing whatsoever to do with belief (not to mention the misguided use of 'gift'😉, you also apparently cannot count.
You are a tragic figure.
You seem a little confused about the term 'belief' and how it relates to the term 'believer.' Belief has a long, standing tradition (dating from the late 12c in Old English) as meaning a trust or confidence in God--- which can just as readily be applied to anything something or someone a person places their confidence in. Following this, a believer (which didn't appear on the scene until the 15c) originally acted as a noun for one who has faith in religion.
As I stated at the top of page two with my post, the term 'believer' has often been used as a label for those who have accepted the gift of salvation through the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ. Why? Because they have put their confidence in His work as opposed to choosing to stand before God on the basis of their own work. Using the traditional meanings of the words, they are called believers because they have a belief--- not in God, but about God: namely, that He is both willing and able to do what He has promised.
Conversely, the unbeliever is labeled as such for his position in relation to the gift of salvation. The unbeliever is not making a statement about God's existence, but instead taking a position regarding the gift. While the relatively few atheists would have everyone else in the world believe that the question comes down to a belief in God or a disbelief in God, this is simply not true. The default position of man is his conviction of divine existence and no amount of wishful thinking or manipulative word games played by atheists can change this fact. Therefore, the unbeliever is also making a statement about God--- or, possibly, his personal decision about His gift. That's pretty much what this thread has been making its way toward, really.
All of that being said, the given in the OP does not allow for a question of God's existence. Believer or unbeliever, neither are commenting on the given but rather making a decision about the gift.
you also apparently cannot count
How so, exactly?
You are a tragic figure.
As we all are. I'm asking for a rewrite, however. You?
Originally posted by FMFI have come to realise that he's getting some kind of zealot's woody from luring people into a 'discussion' where they have to agree to assume that both believers and unbelievers believe, but the unbelievers are in denial.
Must say this thread has been an eye opener. I have come to realise that he's getting some kind of zealot's woody from luring people into a 'discussion' where they have to agree to assume that both believers and unbelievers believe, but the unbelievers are in denial. It really is as shallow as that. twhitehead was too charitable earlier. Bosse got it right: "Ten pages and counting of Freaky not taking 'your OP is stupid' for an answer".
It's more of a semi, but thanks for thinking of me.
As stated several more times than several, both believers and unbelievers are under the same umbrella with relation to the given. Where they part is how they respond to the gift while under that umbrella. Believers accept the gift, whereas unbelievers reject the gift. Simple, shallow, superficial as that.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhile he does misapply the eternal life part (the OP states both have it), his use of the term "even if" is equivalent to an assumption of veracity: assuming it to be true. The assumption on my part is that he is saying he rejects the eternal life spent in the presence of God on the basis of the reasons he gave... not necessarily the reason you offer. I humor myself by thinking he may actually want to spend time with a guy as likable as me.
Read his post again. Do you see those words "even if"? Clearly he does not match your OP. He is not only answering in the hypothetical but he doesn't understand the question he is answering in the first place. There is no mention of God in your OP, and eternal life is a given yet he suggests that it is the gift.
It seems I too did not read your OP very ...[text shortened]... is dislike of Christians than any actual considerations regarding the future of his own soul.
As to the matter of free or not free, consequence or not, you are right: no mention was made as to the consequences. People were left to fill in the blanks with the two choices. Funny how folks did the expected in this area, don't you think? However, through several posts, an analogy was made referencing a life preserver and a drowning man. Is the life preserver free? No, someone made it and someone threw it, presumably from a place of relative security. What does the drowning man think of a life preserver:
"I wonder what strings are attached to this one?" or
"Thank God: I'm saved!"
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut I bet you cannot find one reference that uses the term 'unbeliever' or 'disbelief' in the way you have used 'unbeliever' in your OP. Though I realize that we have the words 'untrusting','distrusting','unconfident' etc, I am fairly sure that 'unbeliever' is not normally used in that way - hence the confusion throughout the thread as to its meaning.
You seem a little confused about the term 'belief' and how it relates to the term 'believer.' Belief has a long, standing tradition (dating from the late 12c in Old English) as meaning a trust or confidence in God--- which can just as readily be applied to anything something or someone a person places their confidence in. Following this, a believer (whic ...[text shortened]... r on the scene until the 15c) originally acted as a noun for one who has faith in religion.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd no amount of repeating the claim without substantiation will make it a fact. It remains your unfounded opinion.
The default position of man is his conviction of divine existence and no amount of wishful thinking or manipulative word games played by atheists can change this fact.
Therefore, the unbeliever is also making a statement about God--- or, possibly, his personal decision about His gift.
Are you now using 'unbeliever' in a different sense? ie as someone who doesn't believe in God?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut we both know that he does not believe it to be true. Therefore he is only answering in the hypothetical and does not fit your OP.
... his use of the term "even if" is equivalent to an assumption of veracity: assuming it to be true.
What does it take before you admit your error?
Funny how folks did the expected in this area, don't you think?
As you say, it is expected. Why is that funny?
However, through several posts, an analogy was made referencing a life preserver and a drowning man. Is the life preserver free? No, someone made it and someone threw it, presumably from a place of relative security. What does the drowning man think of a life preserver:
"I wonder what strings are attached to this one?" or
"Thank God: I'm saved!"
Well, an atheist wouldn't thank God, but most would grab the life preserver - mostly because they believe they know enough about the consequences of the choice. But that does not make it a free gift.
In your OP, the consequences are not laid out, the use of the term 'free gift' is clearly a suggestion that there are no negative consequences. Many posters who suggested that they might consider rejecting the 'free gift' did so on the basis that they believe there to be negative consequences.
You tried to further your point of no negative consequences when you say the recipient of the gift may continue to live life as normal, but what is not address - and is clearly of concern to most posters, is the consequences in the 'afterlife'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut I bet you cannot find one reference that uses the term 'unbeliever' or 'disbelief' in the way you have used 'unbeliever' in your OP.
But I bet you cannot find one reference that uses the term 'unbeliever' or 'disbelief' in the way you have used 'unbeliever' in your OP. Though I realize that we have the words 'untrusting','distrusting','unconfident' etc, I am fairly sure that 'unbeliever' is not normally used in that way - hence the confusion throughout the thread as to its meaning.
Bet you're wrong. This is exactly how the Bible uses the terms, exactly in line with (again) long-standing, traditional extra-biblical uses of the terms.
... hence the confusion throughout the thread as to its meaning.
I submit that any "confusion" has been self-induced, as the EXACT meaning of the terms were fleshed out within the first ten (count 'em) posts, clarified further with the (as stated) first post on the second page... in addition to the several posts since then which have not deviated from the first, tenth or any other posts as offered or referenced by me since then.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd no amount of repeating the claim without substantiation will make it a fact. It remains your unfounded opinion.
And no amount of repeating the claim without substantiation will make it a fact. It remains your unfounded opinion.
[b]Therefore, the unbeliever is also making a statement about God--- or, possibly, his personal decision about His gift.
Are you now using 'unbeliever' in a different sense? ie as someone who doesn't believe in God?[/b]
What type of substantiation are you looking for, besides what has been established by historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc., etc., etc.?
Are you now using 'unbeliever' in a different sense? ie as someone who doesn't believe in God?
Nay. I am remaining consistent with the OP, referencing that person who rejects the gift. He is not--- cannot--- say anything about God's existence; his response to the gift can only make a statement about his view of God, himself, or both.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut we both know that he does not believe it to be true.
]But we both know that he does not believe it to be true. Therefore he is only answering in the hypothetical and does not fit your OP.
What does it take before you admit your error?
Funny how folks did the expected in this area, don't you think?
As you say, it is expected. Why is that funny?
However, through several posts, an analogy was and is clearly of concern to most posters, is the consequences in the 'afterlife'.
Doesn't matter.
Therefore he is only answering in the hypothetical and does not fit your OP.
You know this makes no sense whatsoever.
What does it take before you admit your error?
Belief (ha-ha) that an error has been made.
As you say, it is expected. Why is that funny?
"Funny" as in ironic. Despite complaints otherwise, so many folks (at least posters herein) somehow know the story, know the score.
Well, an atheist wouldn't thank God, but most would grab the life preserver - mostly because they believe they know enough about the consequences of the choice. But that does not make it a free gift.
One poster rhetorically asked the question, "What does an atheist scream when having sex?" I thought that was kind of funny.
Back to the point, how is the gift not free to the drowning man?
In your OP, the consequences are not laid out, the use of the term 'free gift' is clearly a suggestion that there are no negative consequences.
Clear as mud, apparently. I see it otherwise, by virtue of the posts which followed. Nearly all of the posters (as stated) filled in the blanks all by themselves, quite accurately. While there is certainly no negative consequence to accepting the gift, just as with the drowning man who refuses the life preserver, it is presumed that rejection leads to unwanted endings.
Many posters who suggested that they might consider rejecting the 'free gift' did so on the basis that they believe there to be negative consequences.
Right. Those who reject on the basis of what would happen to them if they reject are doing so on the grounds of some supposed higher sense of fairness/justice/righteousness they consider themselves in possession of over and against the Giver.
You tried to further your point of no negative consequences when you say the recipient of the gift may continue to live life as normal, but what is not address - and is clearly of concern to most posters, is the consequences in the 'afterlife'.
That was a main part of the question! If acceptance of the gift places a person in an experience of unimaginable pleasure while rejection places them in a place of unimaginable pain, who would reject the gift?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat would be good enough, though since such groups of people rarely agree on anything, I doubt you could find consensus.
What type of substantiation are you looking for, besides what has been established by historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc., etc., etc.?