Free 'gifts'

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]#1 It is not a "tale" trumpeted by Christians. It is what the Bible says.
Coincedentally I neither believe nor have any significant reverence for your holy book.

#2 What do you find more gruesome, twisted, and sadistic? The supposed sending of Jesus to die for the gruesome, twisted, and sadistic acts of man, or the death of an innocent man for th to write don't work - I figure out where *I've* made the mistake)[/hidden]

"On the evidence I have so far,.."

Seriously Agerg, you really do have a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of "sin".

Please at least try to understand my understanding. It is impossible for me, or anyone else, to know anything perfectly. So, for us to meet in the middle ground, I would ask that you suspend your feelings about what you believe to be a fairytale, and hear with an objective ear.

Hypothetically; If there were a God, like the one described in the Bible, and he had all the attributes of unlimited intelligence and power, and was absolutely perfect without one flaw; In other words Holy beyond our comprehension, and without Him nothing would exist or have life in it, and He was the source of all life; And He created beings like Himself with free will, and those beings turned from Him, how long do you think they would be able to sustain themselves apart from the only source of life there is?

Sin is a word for, and about, so much more than just doing a bad thing, or telling a lie, or stealing. It's like saying to the one that gave us life "I don't need you". It's like telling your father "I hate you". Sin is much uglier than some petty rule breaking. It's like a cancerous infection slowing draining the life out of you, but all the while you're unaware of it's presence until it's too late.

Originally posted by Agerg
The inspiration for this one is a Gramby Bobby post and vague memories of a long dead thread by FreakyKBH...

If ASDA (Walmart) somehow managed to drive out of business every grocery vendor in the UK, then decided to set the price of a loaf of 'Smartprice' bread at 30% of the average weekly earnings, throwing in, as a free gift, a 1% off voucher and glossy p of the 'death'😉 I'd tell this God where it can shove it's free gift too.

Discuss.

This thread (your first couple of posts), the origonal subject (by freaky and bobby) and other mentions of this topic have been a great example for me that the bible is flawed or has been misinterpretted down the line so we can come up with such ridicoulous renderings of phrases like "free gift" .

I would say that "God" means you personal relationship to your own situation/understanding. Your own evaluation. Any concept of god being "out there" is frought with ridicoulousness.
This seems to be one of the main stumbling blocks for most christians on this site.

If we have proper understanding attributed to the words we use, we may construct a dialogue/story ,(of an internal nature), that will actually make sense.
Whether we call this process "God" really doesn't matter most of the time.

I still come across christian preacher types and they try to engage me with their claptrap. But whereas once I had listened patiently to here their blurbs I now instantly recognize where they are going with their dialogue. So I say "I gotta go" and they say "but..." and whatnot but my life is too short and my memory is too full of crap for me to waste even another minute on words that I already know.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"On the evidence I have so far,.."

Seriously Agerg, you really do have a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of "sin".

Please at least try to understand my understanding. It is impossible for me, or anyone else, to know anything perfectly. So, for us to meet in the middle ground, I would ask that you suspend your feelings about what you bel ...[text shortened]... ut of you, but all the while you're unaware of it's presence until it's too late.[/b]

Sin is anything that is "God-eclipsing". Go to the scource😉

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"On the evidence I have so far,.."

Seriously Agerg, you really do have a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of "sin".

Please at least try to understand my understanding. It is impossible for me, or anyone else, to know anything perfectly. So, for us to meet in the middle ground, I would ask that you suspend your feelings about what you bel ut of you, but all the while you're unaware of it's presence until it's too late.[/b]

I really have to wrangle with definitions here josephw.
"Sin" is defined as an act which is counter to the laws some proposed "God" has decreed; or equivalently, with the assumption "God's" morals are absolute,
---"sin is an act that violates a moral rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin)
Note: The words I emphasise serve to illustrate that this definition, "sin", only makes sense with respect to a particular entity who's existence has yet to be determined.
The reason I point this out is that though it is true (in some cases) my moral codes and those asserted to be those of your god coincide, on other occasions they do not (for example: failure to believe in your god). So from my perspective, I can 'sin' (betray your god's moral codes) whilst adhering strictly to my own (nice) moral codes.

Anticipating you may then ask me what makes me think my morals could possibly be better than those of your god's? I refer you to my OP.

Secondly, with respect to what you post in the third paragraph (and I'm tempted to start a thread on what follows) how do you define "holy"? If you humour me here consider how can a perfectly evil god, 'just' by it's own standards, fail to meet this definition? (if you introduce words like "good" and "loving" please define these too bearing in mind that they may differ from colloquial usage)

Originally posted by Agerg
I really have to wrangle with definitions here josephw.
"Sin" is defined as an act which is counter to the laws some [b]proposed "God" has decreed; or equivalently, with the assumption "God's" morals are absolute,
---"sin is an act that violates a moral rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin)
Note: The words I emphasise serve to illustr ...[text shortened]... ne these too bearing in mind that they may differ from colloquial usage)[/b]

"I really have to wrangle with definitions here josephw.
"Sin" is defined as an act which is counter to the laws some proposed "God" has decreed; or equivalently, with the assumption "God's" morals are absolute,
---"sin is an act that violates a moral rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin)"

Do you agree then that sin is an act that violates a moral rule?

Then what was it called before the moral rules were given?

Sure, we can say a "sin" is an act that violates a moral rule, but the issue here isn't about "doing" something that is a sin. We can certainly agree that doing some things are beneficial and doing others isn't. I'm trying to get you to see a deeper issue about the nature of sin as it relates to the Biblical definition.

Granted, you don't believe in the existence of God, so the point is moot.

Nevertheless the point remains. "Sin", beyond the superficial description, is about that thing which separates us from a Holy God.

Don't let it irk you. If I were in you shoes I'd be frustrated by a discussion about a non-existent God too. That's why I asked you to try to see it from my perspective in an objective way. After all, if you don't, then you'll miss the truth about it.

Sin isn't just about the superficial violation of some set of moral rules. At its' core sin is spiritual death. Death knows not life. Life is in God.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I really have to wrangle with definitions here josephw.
"Sin" is defined as an act which is counter to the laws some proposed "God" has decreed; or equivalently, with the assumption "God's" morals are absolute,
---"sin is an act that violates a moral rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin)"

Do you agree then that sin is an act that violates a ' core sin is spiritual death. Death knows not life. Life is in God.[/b]

I'll respond to this properly later...just to address your first comment:

"Do you agree then that sin is an act that violates a moral rule?"

I acknowledge there exists at least one moral rule for which sin is it's violation (trivial by definition of "sin" ). However, I also say that there are other moral rules (namely my own) for which "sin" has no relevance.
Preempting your rebuttal that morality is absolute as decreed by your Bible; as an atheist I am free to challenge that proposal, where you with your current stance cannot.

Originally posted by Agerg
The inspiration for this one is a Gramby Bobby post and vague memories of a long dead thread by FreakyKBH...

If ASDA (Walmart) somehow managed to drive out of business every grocery vendor in the UK, then decided to set the price of a loaf of 'Smartprice' bread at 30% of the average weekly earnings, throwing in, as a free gift, a 1% off voucher and glossy p ...[text shortened]... of the 'death'😉 I'd tell this God where it can shove it's free gift too.

Discuss.

first let me respond with the well known saying "there is no such thing as a free lunch" from an economics perspective this is true. Even if one pays no actual monetary compensation for the lunch in question, there is still something known as opportunity cost. In other words what am I giving up in order to get this "free lunch"? I could be sacrificing time, travel expenses, dignity, almost anything for that lunch.


second. I disagree that salvation is a free gift. It is a gift for sure, but if it were free then there would be no onus upon anyone who recieves it (or even to recieve it). Like most gifts there are strings attached. You can't accept Aunt Mildred's sweater without remembering that the next time she see's you she expects you to be wearing it.

In the case of Christian salvation there are strings attached as well. The believer must first repent (turn away) from unhealthy (sinful) actions and lifestyles. Those who accept the gift must also literally accept it. Though it is a gift and offered to all, it still must be accepted. Aunt Mildred's crudely wrapped hand knit sweater is under the Christmas tree, and it isn't yours until you drag it out, unwrap it, and smile sickly and say" Oh wonderful, ust what I was hoping for, another sweater with kittens embroidered on it, thanks so much".

Unlike the sweater, there is no familial obligation to drag that gift from under the tree. You can let it sit there unopened for all eternity, such is the greatness of God's other "free gift" to us...free will.

Originally posted by duecer
Unlike the sweater, there is no familial obligation to drag that gift from under the tree. You can let it sit there unopened for all eternity, such is the greatness of God's other "free gift" to us...free will.

I apologize for butting in here, but I cannot resist answering this little tidbit from your post.

I agree. This is the genius behind the concept of free will. If you choose not to accept the Gift of salvation, you can have no one to blame but yourself, when you finally discover just how priceless the Gift was.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Rush, Freewill

Originally posted by Suzianne
I agree. This is the genius behind the concept of free will. If you choose not to accept the Gift of salvation, you can have no one to blame but yourself, when you finally discover just how priceless the Gift was.

I never blame myself when my decisions are made in ignorance. Do you?

Originally posted by duecer
first let me respond with the well known saying "there is no such thing as a free lunch" from an economics perspective this is true. Even if one pays no actual monetary compensation for the lunch in question, there is still something known as opportunity cost. In other words what am I giving up in order to get this "free lunch"? I could be sacrificing time, t ...[text shortened]... all eternity, such is the greatness of God's other "free gift" to us...free will.

The penalties for rejecting the 'gift' are a little more severe than they are for rejecting Aunt Mildreds garish jumper. Aunt Mildred isn't going to set you on fire and condem you to eternal suffering is she?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The penalties for rejecting the 'gift' are a little more severe than they are for rejecting Aunt Mildreds garish jumper. Aunt Mildred isn't going to set you on fire and condem you to eternal suffering is she?

I don't believe that God will either. Its a choice between spiritual life and spiritual death...you won't feel a thing.

some decisions are more important than others, such is the nature of life

edit:Aunt Mildred isn't going to set you on fire and condem you to eternal suffering is she? never met your Aunt Mildred, but anythings possible eh?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never blame myself when my decisions are made in ignorance. Do you?

Just how ignorant could you possibly be concerning this particular Gift?

You know what it is, you just reject it. "Nope, don't want it, thanks anyway..." Believing that it doesn't exist is not ignorance of it. It's like someone offering you 500 dollars, and you say, "I don't believe you have 500 dollars." "Okay, suit yourself, then."

You made a choice. The cool part is that you can change your mind and accept this Gift of salvation later, provided you are sincere, and provided you don't die first.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just how ignorant could you possibly be concerning this particular Gift?

You know what it is, you just reject it. "Nope, don't want it, thanks anyway..." Believing that it doesn't exist is not ignorance of it. It's like someone offering you 500 dollars, and you say, "I don't believe you have 500 dollars." "Okay, suit yourself, then."

You made a cho ...[text shortened]... Gift of salvation later, provided you are sincere, and provided you don't die first.

Actually I'd say many atheists don't actually "know" what this free gift is at all given it's contradictory and inconsistent source. Anyway...this so called gift from god is no virtuous than a gift that came from a gun barrel.

Woohoo free bullet!!! 🙄

Originally posted by duecer
first let me respond with the well known saying "there is no such thing as a free lunch" from an economics perspective this is true. Even if one pays no actual monetary compensation for the lunch in question, there is still something known as opportunity cost. In other words what am I giving up in order to get this "free lunch"? I could be sacrificing time, t all eternity, such is the greatness of God's other "free gift" to us...free will.

but again, let's be sure what the gift is:

God decides the toll for displeasing it is spiritual death. This god supposedly has monopoly on such decisions (no other entity can provide spiritual life). It then sends its son to get the shaft, paying off some of this debt (levied by itself with the pompous claim it's a just(???) thing to do!). How is this better than:

I employ someone to work for me, call him Jim...when a month is up and it's time to pay him for services rendered I decide that the price of only putting one sugar in my brew one time when I like them with two is to withhold his pay for 5 years. I then, because I'm such an awesome geezer employ my son and don't pay him so as to help pay off Jim's debt....can I be any less awesome?...what a guy I am!...what benevolence!!! 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Actually I'd say many atheists don't actually "know" what this free gift is at all given it's contradictory and inconsistent source. Anyway...this so called gift from god is no virtuous than a gift that came from a gun barrel.

Woohoo free bullet!!! 🙄

Except it is the gift of life, not death.