Originally posted by FMF
How can 'Believe in me or else suffer an eternity of torture in burning flames' be described as a "free gift" to someone who does not believe in Him?

The burning flames may be an allegory of how the unsaved are eaten up, swallowed up and consumed by a fire within themselves. Or maybe the fire is just not the worst of it.

Someone could argue that there is no such thing as a free gift if I have to exercise a decision to receive one. If you extend a gift to me like a watch, I could argue that I had to "PAY" for this so called "free-gift" by going through the agony of reaching my hand out to take it.

So with some human cleverness one could argue that any "free gift" that one has to use his will to receive, is not a "free" gift. I think such is the rationale of some of the complainers that the Gospel's eternal life does not represent a free gift.

That is a lot of rationalization to drum up to justify remaining in sin against God.

The fact of the matter is that it seems free from the believer's perspective. From the Savior's side there was no such thing as a free gift. He paid the penalty for my sins and for the sins of the whole world.

It was not free from the standpoint of the Righteous and undeserving Savior who carried up your crimes to the cross to be judged by Divine Judgment.

That is an aspect of the plan of God. I don't think it can be blamed on any human who has ever lived as if out of man's imagination such a plan was invented.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not a Christian, as you well no, so therefore I don't subscribe to the concept of 'sin'.

If it is done against you I bet you subscribe to it in a hurry with little hesitation.

What did you think of the last person who did you dirt ?

Originally posted by sonship
The burning flames may be an allegory of how the unsaved are eaten up, swallowed up and consumed by a fire within themselves.

Someone could argue that there is no such thing as a free gift if I have to exercise a decision to receive one. If you extend a gift to me like a watch, I could argue that I had to "PAY" for this so called "free-gift" by going ...[text shortened]... an be blamed on any human who has lived as if out of man's imagination such a plan was invented.

You seem to be dodging a key part of my question. I will bold it for you:

How can 'Believe in me or else suffer an eternity of torture in burning flames' be described as a "free gift" to someone who does not believe in Him?

Take me for example, I do not believe the claims you make about your God figure. So how does this 'believe or suffer eternal torture' apply to me? Are you suggesting I pretend to believe? No. I don't think you are. So how is this threat [also being referred to here as a "free gift"] relevant to me? Do you think that threats can somehow force me to believe something that I don't believe?

Originally posted by sonship
If it is done against you I bet you subscribe to it in a hurry with little hesitation.

What did you think of the last person who did you dirt ?

I don't subscribe to the concept of sin because I am not Christian, I also don't subscribe to the concept of Sharia Law because I'm not a Muslim.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't subscribe to the concept of sin because I am not Christian, I also don't subscribe to the concept of Sharia Law because I'm not a Muslim.

That is nice but rather irrelevant. If you hold a concept of someone doing something TO you which in some way puts out of balance the scales of moral equality, then though you don't want to call it sin, you subscribe to the concept.

Sin, I am told, has the meaning of "missing the mark" as in shooting an arrow and missing the bull's eye. If you think someone has dealt with you and "missed the mark" of what is morally upright, then you subscribe to the concept even though you loath to adopt the word.

So if I bonked you on the head in the alley and stole your wallet, I think you would have no problem in holding that I have "sinned" against you.

Call it something else if it makes you feel better.

Originally posted by sonship
That is nice but rather irrelevant. If you hold a concept of someone doing something TO you which in some way puts out of balance the scales of moral equality, then though you don't want to call it sin, you subscribe to the concept.

Sin, I am told, has the meaning of "missing the mark" as in shooting an arrow and missing the bull's eye. If you think so ...[text shortened]... olding that I have "sinned" against you.

Call it something else if it makes you feel better.

Loath to adopt the word? Make me feel 'better'? What are you ribbiting on about?

I'm not a Christian, so why would I subscribe to the Christian concept of sin and use Christian terminology? If you attacked me and stole my wallet, you're right, I wouldn't be happy but I wouldn't call it a 'sin' anymore than I would call it a transgression of Sharia or Hindu Law.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]One Question

God's perfect plan provides the grace gift [free] of eternal life for all who choose to claim it with an uncoerced decision to believe [place their confidence] in Christ for their salvation. What are the most compelling reasons to reject this gift?[/b]

People are stupid and want to earn their way to God.

Originally posted by FMF

You seem to be dodging a key part of my question. I will bold it for you:

How can 'Believe in me or else suffer an eternity of torture in burning flames' be described as a "free gift" to someone who does not believe in Him?

This to me is like the complaint of one who wants to have no ultimate moral Governor in the universe. And for there to be one is "unfair".

But there is an ultimate Governor in the universe. As it stands He also became the Ultimate Savior as well.

All this you hold as not fair to you because you prefer that God did not exist. But He does exist and His laws exist.

Take me for example, I do not believe the claims you make about your God figure.

Oh. So if it is truth, your not believing will make the truth go away?

I can jump out the window of a six story building and wish that there were no law of gravity. But my wishing cannot control the real laws of the universe to that extent. It is better to heed the advice not to jump out of the window expecting that my preference will change the way things are designed to work.

So how does this 'believe or suffer eternal torture' apply to me?

I can say I wish to jump out of the window. But the law of gravity does not apply to me because I don't care for it. It is not up to my wish.

Your preferences can make some differences. Your preferences cannot make all and any differences in the ultimate things of life. One of those is that God is.

"I AM THAT I AM" (Exodus 3:14)

Sure we may say "I wish you weren't". But we cannot have the last word on this.

Are you suggesting I pretend to believe? No. I don't think you are. So how is this threat [also being referred to here as a "free gift"] relevant to me? Do you think that threats can somehow force me to believe something that I don't believe?

As I read the Gospel of John I see that there are a variety of cases about Christ bringing salvation to people. He does not bring the message of salvation to every person in the same way.

The woman at the well in chapter 4 was so unbelievably thirsty for enjoyment that she had had five husbands. Nicodemus was an upstanding man in his community looking for good ethical teachings. Another man was not strong enough to make it down to some miraculous pool to be healed for 38 years. Another man was born blind.

When someone is hung up on one aspect of the Bible, I think it is good for that person to consider viewing the teaching from other angles which are also there and just as valid.

When I came to Christ, hell was not an issue, other than the fact that I was IN a kind of "hell" in this life from which I needed saving.

I am reluctant to reduce the whole Bible to three little sentences:

IE.
" In the beginning God created.
Believe in God or be tortured.
The end. "

A lot of the arguments I hear from some of you seek to force a caricature of simplicity upon Jesus Christ and the Bible. Some of this is not all the skeptic's fault. But some of it is.

How do you know that it will not be the case that once confronted with the truth the conscience itself will cry out for punishment ? It may turn out to be that the lake of fire is the final escape from the agony of being found unjustified in the eternal love of a perfectly righteous Savior God.

It may be that the lost will so hate themselves that they will cry out for punishment for what they are and have refused to be saved from.

Originally posted by FMF
You seem to be dodging a key part of my question. I will bold it for you:

How can 'Believe in me or else suffer an eternity of torture in burning flames' be described as a "free gift" [b]to someone who does not believe in Him?

Take me for example, I do not believe the claims you make about your God figure. So how does this 'believe or suffer eternal to ...[text shortened]... Do you think that threats can somehow force me to believe something that I don't believe?[/b]

You're framing the issue incorrectly.

The question has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's belief in God.
The question has everything to do with the final analysis.
In the final analysis, do you stand before God and account for your life on the basis of your own works, your own good?
Or, in the final analysis, do you stand before God with the covering of the work done on the cross on your behalf by the Lord Jesus Christ?

Some of you will dismiss the scenario as unreal and therefore not worth considering, yet this is what it all comes down to: in that scenario, how will you stand before God?
The same who dismiss are tacitly affirming their decision to stand before God on the basis of their own goodness--- even if you insist such a scenario will never happen, you're assigning yourself that position by rejecting the work completed for you.
Of course, this brings up yet another question: on what basis can you reject the scenario asserted by Christianity, i.e., the final judgement?
Well, by faith, of course!

Did God 'threaten' the man and the woman in the Garden, pre-Fall, when He warned them to avoid the fruit of the one tree?
Reading the account, it sounds much more like a warning from a loving parent than a threat of ill-will.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Loath to adopt the word? Make me feel 'better'? What are you ribbiting on about?

I'm not a Christian, so why would I subscribe to the Christian concept of sin and use Christian terminology? If you attacked me and stole my wallet, you're right, I wouldn't be happy but I wouldn't call it a 'sin' anymore than I would call it a transgression of Sharia or Hindu Law.

The concept of sin goes beyond the Christian treatment of it. Muslims and Jews also have a concept of sin. I would imagine most theologies understand the concept. It is not a Christian invention nor exclusive to Christianity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

Did God 'threaten' the man and the woman in the Garden, pre-Fall, when He warned them to avoid the fruit of the one tree?
Reading the account, it sounds much more like a warning from a loving parent than a threat of ill-will.

but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.

Now, I agree, this could be read as a parental warning, or a threat. So which is it?

Well, you often read people who, when caught out making a sexist/racist remark, say 'it is office banter' or some such.

To which a friend of mine use to say 'When in doubt, ask yourself this. How did they actually behave?'

To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Notice the 'make'. Not, if you do this, be warned that it will happen to have the consequence that you will have pain in childbirth. I am choosing to do this as a punishment. A punishment that I will apply, for some unfathomable reason, to all women throughout the ages.

Sounds like someone making good on a threat to me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're framing the issue incorrectly.

The question has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's belief in God.
The question has everything to do with the final analysis.
In the final analysis, do you stand before God and account for your life on the basis of your own works, your own good?
Or, in the final analysis, do you stand before God with the cove ...[text shortened]... the account, it sounds much more like a warning from a loving parent than a threat of ill-will.

I can imagine Peter Griffin standing before God at Judgement saying, "Holy crap! The Christians were right after all! Who knew?"

Originally posted by Suzianne
The concept of sin goes beyond the Christian treatment of it. Muslims and Jews also have a concept of sin. I would imagine most theologies understand the concept. It is not a Christian invention nor exclusive to Christianity.

Sin - The violation of God's will.

How can an atheist subscribe to that concept?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
..In the final analysis, do you stand before God and account for your life on the basis of your own works, your own good? Or, in the final analysis, do you stand before God with the covering of the work done on the cross on your behalf by the Lord Jesus Christ?...

Utter foolishness.

Christ described absolutely no sceanrio like that. Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our salvation and he was very clear and precise in his description of what the final analysis would entail.

Matt 25 contains the final analysis. Please read it without the usual twisting and manipulating and you will understand who gets what and why.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sin - The violation of God's will.

How can an atheist subscribe to that concept?

You can sin against yourself too, if you condemn any action that
someone else does, yet you do it yourself, you've sinned by your
own condemnation.
Kelly