Free 'gifts'

Originally posted by Suzianne
You remind me of a joke I heard a couple years ago.

There was a preacher somewhere in the South whose home was in danger of being washed away in a flood. He had no worries as the water rose, saying "God will save me." The water got higher, forcing the preacher to the roof of his home. One guy in a rowboat came by, saying, "Come aboard, preacher." The ...[text shortened]... Peter replied, "He sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"

O Suzianne: you are such a chider of heathens!

Originally posted by duecer
you should read the story of Abraham

How do you argue your supposed gods' test of faith is a 'good' thing? (and same question for the actual sacrifice of an animal which allegedly followed)

Arguing with theists is often like zooming in on the mandlebrot set. Every claim rests upon another claim, and as you peel back the layers you arrive at precisely the claim you were contesting in the first place!...and so the process continues. 😵

YouTube&feature=fvst

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]...St. Peter replied, "He sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"
Perhaps Jesus piloting the helicopter would have done the trick.

Anyway, as I said, I've no reason to assume your holy book is anymore divinely inspired than the Koran or the Vedas..indeed perhaps vishvahetu really is correct and his god sent a blundering fool to spread it's message (mysterious ways and all).[/b]

No one is asking you to assume anything. But what about trust, or... faith?

It's easy to doubt, it's difficult to trust.
It's easy to deride, it's difficult to admire.
It's easy to insult, it's difficult to praise.
It's easy to hate, it's difficult to love.
It's easy to reject, it's difficult to accept.
It's easy to destroy, it's difficult to create.
It's easy to scoff, it's difficult to believe.
It's easy to blaspheme, it's difficult to worship.

Would you respect a God who required the first things, or the second things?

If YOU were a God, would you require the first things, or the second things?

Man's sinful nature pushes him towards the first things. I say, "Faith in God isn't easy. If it was, everybody would be doing it. But it is difficult, and it's the difficult that makes it great." (Adapted from a line in A League of Their Own, 1992)

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
Attractive as your chain assuredly is, I shall resist the temptation to yank it.

As far as I can see, none of the theories you mention addresses my objection.

Rather, they all evade it.

Vicarious atonement is conceptually impossible. One could raise about 17 additional objections to each of the various theories of it put forward. But such objecti ...[text shortened]... e attempted explications of it. All such explications must fail because the premise is absurd.

Are you confusing atonement with repentance?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No one is asking you to assume anything. But what about trust, or... faith?

It's easy to doubt, it's difficult to trust.
It's easy to deride, it's difficult to admire.
It's easy to insult, it's difficult to praise.
It's easy to hate, it's difficult to love.
It's easy to reject, it's difficult to accept.
It's easy to destroy, it's difficult to creat akes it great." (Adapted from a line in A League of Their Own, 1992)

Well implicitly you are asking me to assume the Bible true. When I contend your god has not done enough to guarantee sufficient evidence to believe it exists you retort RTFM (the Bible). For this rebuttal to stand I have to take it as a given the Bible is a true account of a god that exists! As for trust or faith, I am a skeptic through and through...that's just the way my mind works. Reveal Hidden Content

Also if I were a god then I see no reason why I would require any of those things (either in the first or second tense).

Originally posted by Agerg
How do you argue your supposed gods' test of faith is a 'good' thing?

As it turns out, Abraham passed this test of faith and yet, the people who were his descendants (through Isaac and Jacob), the Hebrews, showed time and again in the Old Testament their willingness to NOT put their faith in God, but rather to sin against Him, ultimately resulting in the Hebrews being exiled from Israel for a generation.

Someone, though, asked earlier about why should God command his subjects [sic] to do something he's not willing to do himself. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son. Many generations later, God Himself did indeed sacrifice His own son to pay man's sin debt.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Implication or not, I don't believe your problem is ignorance.

I agree that the word 'ignorance' may not be the best fit in this instance, but you did essentially state that I would only know the true value of the gift at a time after making the choice.
So let me rephrase my point:
I do not generally blame myself for making wrong decisions when I did not know at the time what the consequences would be. Here, 'not knowing' could include having been told, but not believing eg I do not know that God exists.

In this example, you know what 500 dollars is. You are not rejecting the gift through ignorance of its worth. You simply do not believe I have 500 dollars to give you. If I then just walk away, then you can tell yourself you haven't lost anything because it didn't exist in the first place. Now if I show you the 500 dollars before walking off, then you can kick yourself all day for not just taking the gift.
No, I would not kick myself all day. I would respect the fact that I did not believe you and accept that I made the best decision based on the facts.

You know (through reading this forum) of the worth of salvation to Christians.
Actually I know of many different accounts of its worth, but you are essentially correct.

You just choose not to accept it because you don't believe it exists.
I don't call that choice. Do you choose not to accept money from the Tooth Fairy?

I wouldn't call that ignorance. Arrogance, maybe, but not ignorance.
Now you are really loosing it. You must be one of those Christians who thinks everyone is a closet Theist.

Edit: I admit that the wording of my original statement could have been better.
I said, "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."
Perhaps I should have said "how real the Gift was".
That does change the meaning somewhat, but I still maintain that I do not blame myself for decisions based on lack of belief (or ignorance of existence).

Originally posted by Agerg
How do you argue your supposed gods' test of faith is a 'good' thing? (and same question for the actual sacrifice of an animal which allegedly followed)

Arguing with theists is often like zooming in on the mandlebrot set. Every claim rests upon another claim, and as you peel back the layers you arrive at precisely the claim you were contesting in the first ...[text shortened]... ..and so the process continues. 😵

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jGaio87u3A&feature=fvst

It is in that testing of our faith that we are offered the opportunity to reflect on who we are and who God is. People of faith see testing as a positive.

It is clear that you have a very negetive attitude about organized religion and people of faith, I wonder where that bitterness comes from? Perhaps you too were tested and found yourself lacking.

Originally posted by duecer
It is in that testing of our faith that we are offered the opportunity to reflect on who we are and who God is. People of faith see testing as a positive.

It is clear that you have a very negetive attitude about organized religion and people of faith, I wonder where that bitterness comes from? Perhaps you too were tested and found yourself lacking.

It is curious how you resort to challenging me on a personal level the deeper I delve; especially since you are the Christian (supposedly walking the moral higher ground) and I have not formed or stated any conclusions of mine about your character.

Of course people of faith are going to find tests of faith a good thing!! If they didn't then they would question their faith till they found it good (somehow), suppress the issue and assume (or have faith) it is good, or lose their faith.

What I'm asking of you (given I possess no faith) is an objective defence of your gods' tests, and of your gods' character in general. If you cannot then admit this, and concede that you
a) lack the basis to talk about your god and it's "gift" being intrinsically good. (other than it's good to you because you have faith it is good) and
b) lack the basis to say my non-belief is worthy of the punishment your god would supposedly administer.

Originally posted by Agerg
It is curious how you resort to challenging me on a personal level the deeper I delve; especially since you are the Christian (supposedly walking the moral higher ground) and I have not formed or stated any conclusions of mine about your character.

Of course people of faith are going to find tests of faith a good thing!! If they didn't then they would quest ...[text shortened]... eing intrinsically good. (other than it's good to you because you have faith it is good)

asking where your bitterness comes from is not resorting to questioning youre moral character, its an attempt to try and understand your poin tof view. Logically I understand many peoples objection to belief in God, rarely do they seem angry about others having a belief in a higher power, you however quietly smolder in your posts. So where does that come from?

Originally posted by duecer
asking where your bitterness comes from is not resorting to questioning youre moral character, its an attempt to try and understand your poin tof view. Logically I understand many peoples objection to belief in God, rarely do they seem angry about others having a belief in a higher power, you however quietly smolder in your posts. So where does that come from?

I see any charge that I hold a negative view of Christians in general as a challenge to my own integrity. It implies I have assigned an unfavourable value to your worth as a human solely because of the beliefs you hold; to this end you seem to be confusing my lack of reverance for your conception of god and holy book with a lack of respect for fellow humans.
Perhaps you're doing this to avoid answering my queries, the last one being:


What I'm asking of you (given I possess no faith) is an objective defence of your gods' tests, and of your gods' character in general. If you cannot then admit this, and concede that you
a) lack the basis to talk about your god and it's "gift" being intrinsically good. (other than it's good to you because you have faith it is good) and
b) lack the basis to say my non-belief is worthy of the punishment your god would supposedly administer.

Originally posted by Agerg
I see any charge that I hold a negative view of Christians in general as a challenge to my own integrity. It implies I have assigned an unfavourable value to your worth as a human solely because of the beliefs you hold; to this end you seem to be confusing my lack of reverance for your conception of god and holy book with a lack of respect for fellow humans.
...[text shortened]... s to say my non-belief is worthy of the punishment your god would supposedly administer.

faith is not an objective construct, so I reject the premise of your questions. Faith is completely subjective

Originally posted by duecer
faith is not an objective construct, so I reject the premise of your questions. Faith is completely subjective

Then I'll assume you concede (a) and (b) in the above and let you walk away. Particularly noteworthy is that my contention still stands :]

Originally posted by Agerg
Then I'll assume you concede (a) and (b) in the above and let you walk away.

I concede no such thing. You asked for an objective answer, such an answer does not exist. If you would like a subjective answer I would be happy to provide that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Are you confusing atonement with repentance?

No. By arguments work for both repentance and atonement.

Repentance is feeling sorry for one's sin, and atonement is making amends for one's sin.

Clearly, if X sins against Y, Z1 can compensate Y, or Z1 can placate Z2, if Z2 is upset about the sinning, because he sees the sin as against him.

However, my position is that Z1 can neither repent nor atone for X's sins. Only the person responsible for the sin, X, can atone, because it is X's sin, not Z1s. Z1 can compensate or placate, but not atone.

One reason is that, to atone a sin, X must first repent a sin. But only X can repent X's sins. No one else can. Since, atonement by X requires prior repentance by X, Z1 cannot atone for X. No matter what Z1 does, the sin remains unatoned until X first repents, as a preamble to atoning himself. Indeed, even if X repented, Z1 could not atone for him, as atonement by X intrinsically builds upon repentance by X.