25 May 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe gift is (forgive the ugly analogy) like a ticket: those who hold the ticket spend their eternal life in a place of unimaginable pleasure, whereas those who do not have the ticket spend their eternal life in a place of unimaginable pain.
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 reco ...[text shortened]... is not the same as "living in the now", however this is highly recommended😵
Both have eternal life, as stated in the given of the OP. Acceptance of the gift is the determining factor for someone to spend their eternal life in a desirable place.
25 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe 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).
Of 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 ...[text shortened]... people exist? (No, don't lets start talking about Starrman as he quite clearly does not fit).
The only blame you heard from me was after I had to repeat the same clarification to essentially the same question with no insertion of new information other than what was found in both the OP and the first post of the second page. The first two people to question the idea, avalanchethecat and LemonJello, incorrectly assumed the issue of belief was in view and applied the same to the wrong parts of the formula. The very next post from me responded to both of their misconceptions and should have righted the boat before anyone noticed any rocking. That it didn't quell any problems with understanding the concepts says more about the prejudices of those objecting than it does about the concept, as there has been nothing added... just a bunch of needless repeating.
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?
I consider it of great interest. I think that the Gospel isn't always presented in the manner in which it was intended to be shared. One of the parables used by the Lord Jesus Christ when speaking of the various signs of the end of the Church Age was that of a man who was intent on throwing a celebration. After sending out invitations to the dignitaries and so-called desirable but yielding no response...
"... the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'
" 'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'
"Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.
I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.' "
In my OP, I am asking people who have otherwise rejected the God of the Bible to consider His gift in light of the no-strings-attached scenario.
25 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd as we both agree, most people would accept said gift, if you could convince them that your OP is an accurate representation of reality. Your problem then is to convince people of this.
In my OP, I am asking people who have otherwise rejected the God of the Bible to consider His gift in light of the no-strings-attached scenario.
26 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would think so, but, for reasons enumerated previously, I consider something else to be afoot.
And as we both agree, most people would accept said gift, if you could convince them that your OP is an accurate representation of reality. Your problem then is to convince people of this.
The purpose of my thought experiment here was an attempt to get those who have passed the point of consideration of the issue to consider the issue from another angle: a way to check themselves, as it were. If a person unconvinced (or, in some cases, convinced otherwise) could set that aside to simply consider the gift and their attitude toward that, perhaps they would see something otherwise missed. For instance, am I rejecting that gift only on the basis of rejecting the given? Or, is it possible that my rejection comes from not liking some aspect of who I view God to be? Or maybe even I am rejecting it on the basis of not wanting anyone's help? Or... ?
27 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut don't you see that this essentially means they do not accept the given as being part of reality? Anybody who does not like some aspect of who you view God to be, does not accept your given and is unlikely to simply take your word for it that the given is factual.
Or, is it possible that my rejection comes from not liking some aspect of who I view God to be?
27 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry Freaky. I just cant see how this "gift" is possible.
The gift is (forgive the ugly analogy) like a ticket: those who hold the ticket spend their eternal life in a place of unimaginable pleasure, whereas those who do not have the ticket spend their eternal life in a place of unimaginable pain.
Both have eternal life, as stated in the given of the OP. Acceptance of the gift is the determining factor for someone to spend their eternal life in a desirable place.
There is such a thing as "science". And it does show some things in this universe to be either plausible , or not. Not everything, but come on...you'd have to be absolutely daft to believe in some of these Biblical premises literallly. I suggest you try the metaphoric approach. It would do your cause a great service.
In the event that there is a "place" of 'unimaginable pleasure', I accept that this premise may be true.
But my final word on this subject is this: you must work very hard to get to "heaven". You must become tough. As tough as nails!
All false analogies of this subject are the work of "Satan"(who does not exist unless we give It the power to exist).(I cant belive I just wrote that!)
As for spending an eternal life in "Hell", I would have to say that this is a crock. Just 'fear-mongering'. "Purgatory" would be the closest notion that we have in our belief systems for explaining "Hell" . Even this explanantion is unsatisfactory and short-sighted, at best.
Please use your intelligence to furthur the evolution of the human race.
Just because you christian theists keep repeating the same things ad nauseum, still doesn't make them true.
Just try to get into the right "ballpark". Then we can move forward.
Do you christian theists actuallly follow through the logical implications of what your eternal outcomes predict? They go against the basic premises of science and common sense in general.
30 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHUnbelief keeps the unbeliever from acting on anything they don't think need
Given that the soul lives forever and our only choice is where we shall spend that existence, what keeps the unbeliever in such a state? Meaning, why not simply accept a free gift and move on?
to act on, the real question is why is it that believers still act as if they
do not believe from time to time and lie, cheat, steal and so on?
Kelly
30 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayPerhaps because they have been told, and hence "know" at the back of their minds that there is the "repent clause".
Unbelief keeps the unbeliever from acting on anything they don't think need
to act on, the real question is why is it that believers still act as if they
do not believe from time to time and lie, cheat, steal and so on?
Kelly
31 May 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm quite sure that is real, but I'd be fearful of thinking along those lines
Perhaps because they have been told, and hence "know" at the back of their minds that there is the "repent clause".
as a way of life.The thiing about evil, it is like a drug you go down the path
you are on the path and it is difficult to see an off ramp when you want
one.
Kelly
Proverbs 11:6
The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires.
Proverbs 12:13
Evildoers are trapped by their sinful talk, and so the innocent escape trouble.
31 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYeah, but except for infants, there are no innocents. Or...(do you think there are a significant number of innocent people?)
I'm quite sure that is real, but I'd be fearful of thinking along those lines
as a way of life.The thiing about evil, it is like a drug you go down the path
you are on the path and it is difficult to see an off ramp when you want
one.
Kelly
Proverbs 11:6
The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires. ...[text shortened]... roverbs 12:13
Evildoers are trapped by their sinful talk, and so the innocent escape trouble.
It is my belief that there are way more christians that have the wrong interpretations of the bible and Jesus' word. What do you think?
(If christians were right, the sheer weight of their alignment with the proper truth would propel our world into state where hunger,war,etc. were non existent-which is clearly not the case.Not by a long shot)
31 May 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelThere is such a thing as "science". And it does show some things in this universe to be either plausible , or not.
Sorry Freaky. I just cant see how this "gift" is possible.
There is such a thing as "science". And it does show some things in this universe to be either plausible , or not. Not everything, but come on...you'd have to be absolutely daft to believe in some of these Biblical premises literallly. I suggest you try the metaphoric approach. It would do you ...[text shortened]... ey go against the basic premises of science and common sense in general.
Science is woefully inadequate to explain how, let alone why, life began. We made science up (as a discipline) because we wanted to know how things work. We haven't begun to scratch the surface!
... you'd have to be absolutely daft to believe in some of these Biblical premises literallly. I suggest you try the metaphoric approach. It would do your cause a great service.
I consider my company pretty telling. Not only do some of the greatest minds to trod the planet take the Bible to be what it says, when you throw in the pivotal Person in history as someone who accepted the accounts therein as historical, you have the makings of the most authoritative document on this ball of fun we call earth.
But my final word on this subject is this: you must work very hard to get to "heaven".
A uniquely human perspective, sans any orientation to reality. If you recall Adam and the woman's first reaction to their recognition of their status after the Fall, you'll see how effective our hard work really is: not at all.
All false analogies of this subject are the work of "Satan"(who does not exist unless we give It the power to exist).(I cant belive I just wrote that!)
As for spending an eternal life in "Hell", I would have to say that this is a crock. Just 'fear-mongering'. "Purgatory" would be the closest notion that we have in our belief systems for explaining "Hell" . Even this explanantion is unsatisfactory and short-sighted, at best.
Upon whose authority are we to take your rendering of reality, exactly? I eagerly look forward to your response, but I imagine it will not be forthcoming presently.
Please use your intelligence to furthur the evolution of the human race.
We've reached the peak and are working backward, I'm afraid. No amount of intelligence can stem the tide.
Just because you christian theists keep repeating the same things ad nauseum, still doesn't make them true.
True that. Hopefully, we're repeating it because we understand it's truth as being from God.
Just try to get into the right "ballpark". Then we can move forward.
Again, you'll need to cite your source of authority to make such statements. Until then, you're offering nothing but baseless gibberish.
Do you christian theists actuallly follow through the logical implications of what your eternal outcomes predict?
Um, huh?
They go against the basic premises of science and common sense in general.
You realize, I am sure, that science itself found its modern-day formation as a result of Christians... right? It's beyond laughable when neophytes such as yourself (no insult intended) go popping off about science and common sense, ramification of application and whatnot, when you've not the foggiest idea of basic history, let alone basic concepts such as the ones you wish to compare Christianity against. Why not simply throw out ALL meaning, just so your world view can have SOME?
31 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHstupid browser...
There is such a thing as "science". And it does show some things in this universe to be either plausible , or not.
Science is woefully inadequate to explain how, let alone why, life began. We made science up (as a discipline) because we wanted to know how things work. We haven't begun to scratch the surface!
... you'd have to be absolutely imply throw out ALL meaning, just so your world view can have SOME?
31 May 10
You realize, I am sure, that science itself found its modern-day formation as a result of Christians... right? It's beyond laughable when neophytes such as yourself (no insult intended) go popping off about science and common sense, ramification of application and whatnot, when you've not the foggiest idea of basic history, let alone basic concepts such as the ones you wish to compare Christianity against. Why not simply throw out ALL meaning, just so your world view can have SOME?
Actually, science also found its modern day formulation as a result of bread eaters, vehicle users, clothes wearers, and people who have previously suffered from some disease or other. (apologies to those who I have missed out).
Christianity itself as a system of belief and practices (as opposed to believers of Christianity) has and still is an impediment to science.