One Question

Originally posted by Suzianne
They got another think coming. When they see how glorious the Kingdom of God is compared to their tiny glass worldview, I'm sure attitudes will change real quickly once they see the folly of their entire lives' worth of lame justifications and ignorance.

So you basically concede the following:
1. I currently do not see how glorious the Kingdom of God is, whereas you do.
2. If I did know this, my attitudes and presumably any decisions I would make would change.
3. I do not currently see the folly of my current entire lives' worth of lame justifications. But you do.

So please explain to me how I am still responsible for my decisions, given that I am not privy to the necessary information to make the right decisions?
Also explain to me how your decision making was more worthy, given that you are privy to all this extra information that I do not have.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
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?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[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]

Answer Twhiteheads question.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
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?

You keep using the word "uncoerced" and then evading any proper discussion of it. Coercion is front and centre in your ideology. The question is, though, would you seriously have us believe that threats of hideous perpetual violence and torture can somehow force someone to believe in something that they simply do not believe? And if [perhaps for some sort of psychological reasons] they do bend to the threats, how can you seriously claim it was "an uncoerced decision"?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Answer Twhiteheads question.

Page?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Page?

The top of this one ffs.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The top of this one ffs.

He posed his questions to Suzi.... I respect her prerogative to reply.

Originally posted by FMF
You keep using the word "uncoerced" and then evading any proper discussion of it. Coercion is front and centre in your ideology. The question is, though, would you seriously have us believe that threats of hideous perpetual violence and torture can somehow force someone to believe in something that they simply do not believe? And if [perhaps for some sort of ps ...[text shortened]... easons] they do bend to the threats, how can you seriously claim it was "an uncoerced decision"?

Originally posted by Borinquen (Page 6)
Uncoerced? Satan does all in his power to coerce humankind. To keep humans from knowing the truth.
The most compelling reasons to reject would be natural. You can take your pick, from fear of the unknown to self preservation, lust, etc.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Hi, Borinquen. Welcome to Red Hot Pawn. "Satan does all in his power to coerce humankind." Absolutely; the great deceiver has counterfeited absolute truth since the garden. "... an uncoerced decision [uncoerced by God who respects human volition which coexists with God's Sovereignty in time] to believe [place their confidence] in Christ for their salvation".

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
He posed his questions to Suzi.... I respect her prerogative to reply.

So it was, I apologise.

I'm so used to people pressing you for answers to questions you never ever
answer that I assumed [as this was your thread] that twhitehead was
pressing you for an answer. I should have paid more attention, as you are by
no means the only person here who never answers questions.

Having said that however, I'm pretty sure twhitehead has asked you questions
to which you have given no answer and you really should answer those.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So it was, I apologise.

I'm so used to people pressing you for answers to questions you never ever
answer that I assumed [as this was your thread] that twhitehead was
pressing you for an answer. I should have paid more attention, as you are by
no means the only person here who never answers questions.

Having said that however, I'm pretty sure ...[text shortened]... has asked you questions
to which you have given no answer and you really should answer those.

Hey, everyone: Look!
An atheist who actually admits when they are wrong.

Well, almost.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Hey, everyone: Look!
An atheist who actually admits when they are wrong.

Well, almost.

Yes, I admit it when I make a mistake.

When are you going to start doing that?

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.

After digging back through the thread to find what the argument between you and FMF is. I found the post I'm replying to. The bit I'm interested in is this part:

...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!

Are you saying that the faithful get ushered into the kingdom of God while us infidels have to justify ourselves - and may yet be allowed in provided our lives were blameless?

If you are then this is a new viewpoint to me. Although I don't see any reason why not I don't believe that is standard Christian doctrine. It strikes me there are two moral hazards. One is that people could start believing that they can get away with a couple of murders - provided they have faith. The other is that, well, I don't have to believe as long as I'm good. The doctrine I was brought up with is that faith is one's only hope and one has to be good. Have things changed in the meantime?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Borinquen (Page 6)
Uncoerced? Satan does all in his power to coerce humankind. To keep humans from knowing the truth.
The most compelling reasons to reject would be natural. You can take your pick, from fear of the unknown to self preservation, lust, etc.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Hi, Borinquen. Welcome t ...[text shortened]... d's Sovereignty in time[/i]] to believe [place their confidence] in Christ for their salvation".

These two copy pastes are just you evading my question. You keep using the word "uncoerced" and yet you just dodge any proper discussion of it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
After digging back through the thread to find what the argument between you and FMF is. I found the post I'm replying to. The bit I'm interested in is this part:[quote]...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 insis ...[text shortened]... at faith is one's only hope [b]and one has to be good. Have things changed in the meantime?[/b]

Bump for FreakyKBH.....