23 May 10
Originally posted by vistesdObfuscation was not the intention, as evidenced by my posts which offered the key. Even as folks started down the path away from the subject, I endeavored each time to correct the definitions back to the original offering.
The Greek noun [I]pistis[/I] essentially means to trust, to have confidence in; often translated as “faith”, it was also translated in the KJV as “belief”. At the time, this may have been an appropriate (if somewhat poetic) rendering. Similarly, “believers” was used to render [I]piston[/I], and “unbelievers” was used to render [I]apiston[/I] (I am ignor ...[text shortened]... I am too lazy to go back and change all of them. Apologies if that makes this harder to read.
23 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI did not assume that you were trying to obfuscate. But I, myself, did not find your endeavors to be clear. I really think that faith/non-faith (or trust/non-trust) are (400 years later) simply better renderings than belief/unbelief. At the same time, I stand by my comments about cultural and linguistic (and issue) context.
Obfuscation was not the intention, as evidenced by my posts which offered the key. Even as folks started down the path away from the subject, I endeavored each time to correct the definitions back to the original offering.
That would not remove argument (as you well know!), but it would shift it all away from what "believe" really "means".
As I reviewed some of the thread, I thought I saw you trying to clarify--though, again, I think you failed--which is why I didn't simply jump in with LJ and FMF; otherwise, I simply would have. 🙂
There have been Christians on here, as you know, who take the (quite technically, presumptuous) view that those of us who profess not to believe (conventional sense) in the God that you do (and hence the gift) are, at best, self-deceptive and, at worst, just dishonest. Sometimes, even between such old-timers as you and me, it's just hard to keep track of whose theology is whose! And whose position has altered somehwat over time. It was likely just our personal history (at times rocky, but mostly congenial) that gave me a clue as to what might be going on...
EDIT: Got to go for awhile, so don't feel dissed if I don't get back to whatever response you might make to this. (BTW, isn't it kind of neat that you and I--who never agree about anything! (well, hardly anyway)--have managed to keep a good relationship going? I think sometimes it's your humor, at just the critical moment, that has done it. 🙂
23 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe emphatically and unequivocally does. He accepts the given for the sake of argument and then gives his reason for rejecting the gift, thus positioning himself as an unbeliever.
[b]Man, you're just dense.
Highly populated or reel dum? Let me guess...
What I said is that Starrman responded to your OP with a comment against the coercive and offensive nature of your God concept.
Just because the words you used are different doesn't mean you're not saying the same thing. Starrman offered his reason for rejection unde ...[text shortened]... sult, then depart owing to some unknown defect on the part of the other. Good stuff.[/b]
I'm afraid you are still confused. An 'unbeliever' in the bizarre sense you employ the word is in fact committed to the stance that the 'gift' actually has a referent (such that he can then stand in willful rejection to it). Sorry, Starrman doesn't qualify. You can simply ask him yourself; and you will see that he doesn't take the 'gift' to have an actual referent since he doesn't even think your silly God concept is instantiated in the first place. I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain that to you. If you still don't get it, I don't consider it my problem at this point.
I have to think your "unbeliever" would be a very strange bird indeed -- and one I do not believe I have ever come across.
You know, it's okay if you want to use "believer" and "unbeliever" in bizarre ways. That's fine, we can still trudge through the confusion. At the other side, I still know what you mean. It's just that your arguments -- even when we dispel the confusion -- still suck.
Actually what occurred in that thread was the typical soft shoe executed by atheists when confronted by the fact that they label themselves in terms of the thing they are against.
I think you should actually read that thread again. On your part, this thread is just a stupid rehash of that one.
That's really all I have to say here. So, cheers.
23 May 10
Originally posted by black beetleThe two exist because of the One,
[b]So my Wise Sister you feel it is neither existent nor nonexistent
nor both existent and nonexistent
nor neither!
I bow.
But hold not even to this One;
When a mind is not disturbed,
The ten thousand things offer no offence.
Light Reflected
ALA!!!
*All Love, Always!!!
24 May 10
Originally posted by vistesdAgree with pretty much everything. I suppose my subconscious refusal to move off the designation of believer/unbeliever as opposed to trust/non-trust was an equal split between holding to the biblical definition as well as operating from the assumption that the given is, well, given!
I did not assume that you were trying to obfuscate. But I, myself, did not find your endeavors to be clear. I really think that faith/non-faith (or trust/non-trust) are (400 years later) simply better renderings than belief/unbelief. At the same time, I stand by my comments about cultural and linguistic (and issue) context.
That would not remove argume ...[text shortened]... I think sometimes it's your humor, at just the critical moment, that has done it. 🙂
24 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis.
He emphatically and unequivocally does. He accepts the given for the sake of argument and then gives his reason for rejecting the gift, thus positioning himself as an unbeliever.
I'm afraid you are still confused. An 'unbeliever' in the bizarre sense you employ the word is in fact committed to the stance that the 'gift' actually has a referent (s rehash of that one.
That's really all I have to say here. So, cheers.[/b]
Part and parcel, this is exactly why conversation doesn't happen on these forums, but instead we are left with condescending put-downs and diversionary distractions, always at the ready to take the crux of the idea as far afield as possible. One would think that it's much easier to simply answer a question, give a response to a statement or simply act in kind rather than spend a mountain of effort not addressing the issue. I know I've used the analogy previously, but the infamous line comes to mind, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." However, even in this game, a message is conveyed. The real answer (by not answering) is more telling than any of those causing distraction could possibly know.
An 'unbeliever' in the bizarre sense you employ the word is in fact committed to the stance that the 'gift' actually has a referent (such that he can then stand in willful rejection to it).
Well, of course it's "bizarre" to you. Despite the multiple explanations as to how it is used in the Bible, your thinking has you stuck with the one arena in which the term 'believer' is not even a consideration, i.e., God's existence.
Sorry, Starrman doesn't qualify. You can simply ask him yourself; and you will see that he doesn't take the 'gift' to have an actual referent since he doesn't even think your silly God concept is instantiated in the first place.
Now here we have a truly bizarre situation. The words are being typed on a keyboard, are making their way to your monitor and from there to your eyes and then to your mind. It appears it is in that final phase where the breakdown is occurring. No one has yet contended anything about Starrman's actual position; rather, the statements from me have been about his position in response to the OP. He is the only person who responded to the OP. What was his response? "Even if... " meaning, hypothetically, or assuming to be true... and then his reason for his rejection of the gift.
If his rejection was, as you stubbornly insist, because he didn't "even think your silly God concept is instantiated in the first place," his response would have been along those lines, not the words he chose. He expressly accepts the given with his own words, as a hypothetical.
You know, it's okay if you want to use "believer" and "unbeliever" in bizarre ways. That's fine, we can still trudge through the confusion. At the other side, I still know what you mean. It's just that your arguments -- even when we dispel the confusion -- still suck.
So I guess that means after all of this, you refuse to answer the question. Can't come down from your lofty ivory tower and play pretend just a for a few minutes, eh?
24 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStarrman rejected your premise. Then - in his "even if" bit - Starrman rejected your definition of the "gift". Your whole premise here has been flat on its face since the OP, and flat on its face and squirming ever since you started claiming that Starrman had somehow proved you correct. His reason for his rejection of the "gift" was because he believes it is not what you claim it to be.
No one has yet contended anything about Starrman's actual position; rather, the statements from me have been about his position in response to the OP. He is the only person who responded to the OP. What was his response? "Even if... " meaning, hypothetically, or assuming to be true... and then his reason for his rejection of the gift.
24 May 10
Originally posted by FMFStarrman rejected your premise.
Starrman rejected your premise. Then - in his "even if" bit - Starrman rejected your definition of the "gift". Your whole premise here has been flat on its face since the OP, and flat on its face and squirming ever since you started claiming that Starrman had somehow proved you correct. His reason for his rejection of the "gift" was because he believes it is not what you claim it to be.
Well, of course he did! That's why he said...
Even if it were a given, I'd protest.
Oops! Guess you got it wrong.
Then - in his "even if" bit -...
"Then?" There is no "then," since he started off with "even if." That puts his "even if" as primary, not subsequent. Everything that follows is seen in light of it, not the other way around.
Starrman rejected your definition of the "gift".
I'd say 'No thanks, I don't take blood money, subterfuge and threats kindly.
I'd concede that he rejects the gift on the basis of his misconceptions about the Giver. He certainly said nothing whatsoever about the gift.
Your whole premise here has been flat on its face since the OP, and flat on its face and squirming ever since you started claiming that Starrman had somehow proved you correct.
I only contend that Starrman was the only person who actually responded to the inquiry within the OP. All others have been quibbling about the OP instead of responding to it... like you, for instance.
His reason for his rejection of the "gift" was because he believes it is not what you claim it to be.
So I guess that kind of contradicts your assertion that he isn't considering it in light of the given, huh. However, again, he's said nothing about the gift, instead offering the reason for his rejection by citing his perception of the Giver's intentions and/or character.
24 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is a blatant lie at my expense. I have several times attempted to respond to the OP directly. I have changed my response over time as my understanding of your question has changed (as it was far from clear from the beginning and remains far from clear).
All others have been quibbling about the OP instead of responding to it... like you, for instance.
My current response stands as follows:
1. Since the 'given' is not a valid statement about the universe, any response must be in the hypothetical, unless we are talking about people who believe the given dispute it not being true.
2. If we are talking about people who believe the given but reject the gift, then it again must remain hypothetical unless we can find someone who matches the OP. No, starman clearly does not match as he doesn't accept the given.
3. Unless more details are given about the consequences of accepting the gift (or more importantly what consequences the receiver believes exist), we cant even speculate as to why the potential recipient might choose to reject said gift.
4. If you are really talking in riddles and your real question is what most people thought it was when the thread started ie "why do people choose to reject salvation from God" then my answer remains what I originally said: If someone believes in God and believes that salvation is possible and believes the most commonly held claims about Heaven and Hell, then nobody in their right mind would reject the gift and to my knowledge, nobody ever has. If however the conditions are different then we need more details to give a suitable answer. For example starman suggested that if heaven is not all its cracked up to be, then he would choose not to go there.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't see your responses as varying too far from the crowd, in that the questions revolved around the definitions of believer/unbeliever and the like. No offense was intended, to be sure.
That is a blatant lie at my expense. I have several times attempted to respond to the OP directly. I have changed my response over time as my understanding of your question has changed (as it was far from clear from the beginning and remains far from clear).
My current response stands as follows:
1. Since the 'given' is not a valid statement about the u ested that if heaven is not all its cracked up to be, then he would choose not to go there.
Let's try a different tack.
PRETEND that the real you is your soul and that it lasts forever.
PRETEND that your soul will either spend the eternal state in a place of unimaginable pleasure or unimaginable pain.
PRETEND that you get to make the decision about that final destination.
PRETEND that the only choice you must make relative to that decision is whether or not to accept a gift.
PRETEND that the gift is given to you by the Person who made all of reality.
PRETEND that acceptance of this gift puts you in a place of unimaginable pleasure, whereas rejection of this gift puts you in a place of unimaginable pain.
PRETEND there are no other stipulations to the gift, thus to where you will spend eternity, other than acceptance or rejection.
QUESTION: In light of such a scenario, why would anyone make a decision to reject the gift?
25 May 10
1 edit
After following this thread with equal parts bemusement and bewildermant I would like to offer my take.
The "gift" of eternal life is not a gift because if it is indeed eternal then it has always been there and always will be. That being said it would follow that if this "eternal life" is indeed true we already have this "gift" and that we fail to recognize ourselves on that plane of existence,ie. "existing eternally".
I realize all this sounds silly and I would venture to say the confusion here comes from the christian term "afterlife" . Afterlife refers to a future life where a proper understanding of eternity would suggest there is nothing that comes after it. Therefore if it is a "gift" , as Freaky claims, then we already possess this "gift" and perhaps are just not "aware/awake/concious" of[to] it.
There is, as many before have claimed an "eternal Now" which is not the same as "living in the now", however this is highly recommended😵
25 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course my questions revolved around those definitions as they are central to understanding the question. It is difficult to honestly answer a question you do not understand, and therefore perfectly reasonable to ask for clarification. The fact that the 'crowd' all asked for the same clarification implies that the original question was unclear (despite your attempts to blame the crowd for the misunderstandings).
I didn't see your responses as varying too far from the crowd, in that the questions revolved around the definitions of believer/unbeliever and the like. No offense was intended, to be sure.
PRETEND that the real you is your soul and that it lasts forever.
PRETEND that your soul will either spend the eternal state in a place of unimaginable pleasure or unimaginable pain.
PRETEND that you get to make the decision about that final destination.
PRETEND that the only choice you must make relative to that decision is whether or not to accept a gift.
PRETEND that the gift is given to you by the Person who made all of reality.
PRETEND that acceptance of this gift puts you in a place of unimaginable pleasure, whereas rejection of this gift puts you in a place of unimaginable pain.
PRETEND there are no other stipulations to the gift, thus to where you will spend eternity, other than acceptance or rejection.
QUESTION: In light of such a scenario, why would anyone make a decision to reject the gift?
In light of such a scenario, I doubt that anyone in their sane mind would reject the gift.
So, now that I have answered (as I have before, and we more or less agreed on the answer that time.) what conclusions do you draw from that? Why is it of interest? I would have thought the answer was obvious, so why ask the question?
Do you believe any such people exist? (No, don't lets start talking about Starrman as he quite clearly does not fit).