1. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    09 Oct '14 15:572 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    The notion that there's eternal torture in burning agony for being an unbeliever is not a threatening topic for me. It's only threatening for those who believe there's truth in it.
    The notion that there's eternal torture in burning agony for being an unbeliever is not a threatening topic for me. It's only threatening for those who believe there's truth in it.


    You simply mentioned it as a threatening topic.

    Back to the traffic example. A speeder of 75 mph in a 15 mph zone may not believe at all that he will receive a ticket. Perhaps he sees no policeman ever in the neighborhood and has no reason to think he will ever be stopped.

    So he is not "threatened" by a discussion on the matter. That is just his subjective feeling which doesn't guarantee there will never be any consequences. He doesn't know there will never be consequences. He assumes there will never be.

    Since this is an analogy I hear the objection that maybe a driver NEVER exceeds the speed limit so is unconcerned altogether.

    I suppose the parallel would be " I do not feel concern for any consequences for not believing in the Son of God because I never determined not to believe."

    But the warning is to unbelief. Rationalizing " But I never did not believe " might be thought as exemption from culpability. I think at best that is just some kind of gamble. If God turns out to be true you have gambled on God being somewhat of a dummy, not too intelligent. You may be gambling on your ability to muster before God a good argument that will subdue Him.

    Now I may be drifting. So let me make sure I am addressing your comment.

    This "threatening topic" is not threatening to YOU. It is only threatening to those who believe such nonsense. I think that is your drift.

    I encourage people to READ the Bible for themselves. This did wonders for me. I don't encourage people to take everything second or third hand but to read with the horses mouth of the Holy Spirit impressing upon their hearts that which God wants them to know.

    If some one came from a gathering in which eternal hell was preached and complained that that was a "threatening topic" I would encourage them to pick up a New Testament, indeed the Bible in general, and begin to read. Maybe God will impress them with the warning of eternal separation from God. Maybe He will impress them with something else.

    My question to you - Is a so called "threatening topic" a topic necessarily of something not true ?

    I think the subject of sink holes opening up in the middle of a neighborhood, swallowing up cars and houses, is a "threatening topic". But such things do in reality occur as I have noticed in the news.

    Probably arguing over whether eternal separation from God is a "threatening topic" or not is fruitless to dispute. Does a "threatening topic" necessarily mean that truth is not being related ?

    Some of us are mad because God is a God of ultimate. His love is ultimate. But His love being ultimate does not make His displeasure not ultimate as well. We are dealing with an Ultimate Governor who is ultimate on more than one side of His being.

    Can I say it one more time? The Bible deals with an Ultimate Governor Who is ultimate in MORE than just ONE angle of His character.

    And He has decreed that He incarnated and died a death on His cross to redeem us out from under the curse of infraction against His perfect moral law. He commands us to believe into the Son of God.

    I pointed out in the past, which got me sharp criticism - In the whole Gospel of John I cannot find the word repent or repentance anywhere. God commands us, at least in THAT basic book on eternal life, to believe in the Son of God.

    The real issue here is are we in a position to determine what should be the consequence of disobeying the command of God to believe in the Son of God ? We may argue "That is not big deal. There should be no penalty. There certainly should not be an eternal punishment."

    But a congress of rapists might convene and decide simarly - "Rape is no big deal. We decide that there really should be no penalty for the crime of raping someone. It is not that bad. Why, maybe it is not even a crime at all."

    Can we be trusted to decide what God should do with those who refuse to believe into the Son of God ? Probably our vested interest forbids us from deciding what that penalty should be.

    Length calls for me to stop here. Sorry if you feel evaded.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    09 Oct '14 16:07
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    At least a theist has something to discuss when discussing the afterlife.

    Atheist 1: I don't believe in an afterlife.

    Atheist 2: Neither do I.

    Conversation over.
    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    (1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV)
  3. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    09 Oct '14 17:012 edits
    Sometimes people point out that Trinity is not a word found in the Bible.
    Point taken.

    But then "afterlife" is also a term I cannot find in the Bible.

    I see "resurrection".
    I see "a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." That I see.

    I see a LOT of the use of the Greek word ZOE - meaning a divine life.
    I see "eternal life" .
    I see "life" - "Lay hold of the life which is really life" ( 1 Timothy 6:19) .

    I don't see "afterlife".

    In my opinion the danger of Christians emphasizing (not saying anyone recently did) "afterlife" gives the impression that one has to DIE in order to go meet God.

    This is not too good. This makes God the God of the dead. This implies that the normal relationship between human beings and God is that they have to DIE in order to have fellowship with God.

    He is the God of the living. So I much prefer to speak of a more biblical term "resurrection" as a coming back to physical life and that with a new indestructible power of immortality, seemingly a new physics.

    Resurrection is better in the Christian vocabulary than "afterlife" I think.
  4. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    09 Oct '14 19:03
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    I imagine the font and/or size you use is probably different than the font and/or size I use. Plus, I have a 22" wide screen on my desktop.

    I'm just saying that not everyone sees 123 characters on a single line.
    I imagine the font and/or size you use is probably different than the font and/or size I use. Plus, I have a 22" wide screen on

    Suzi, the truncated line above is what I see on the first line of your reply. Do you see the same line length or less or more?
  5. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    10 Oct '14 00:00
    Originally posted by sonship
    You simply mentioned it as a threatening topic.
    Yes, in quotation marks.
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    36571
    10 Oct '14 00:11
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    I imagine the font and/or size you use is probably different than the font and/or size I use. Plus, I have a 22" wide screen on

    Suzi, the truncated line above is what I see on the first line of your reply. Do you see the same line length or less or more?
    I see less, by 9 characters (or 10 characters, it's hard to tell with spaces).

    "I imagine the font and/or size you use is probably different than the font and/or size I use. Plus, I have a 22" wide " is what I get on the first line of that reply from me to you.

    But then again, my browser only shows RHP in a width of about 2/3 of my screen, too. That's another factor accounting for a difference in line length among users.

    So font choice, type size, screen width, and browser choice are all factors in determining what the user sees. I imagine almost everyone's perception of the site is subjective because of this.
  7. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    10 Oct '14 00:142 edits
    Originally posted by sonship
    Some of us are mad because God is a God of ultimate. His love is ultimate. But His love being ultimate does not make His displeasure not ultimate as well. We are dealing with an Ultimate Governor who is ultimate on more than one side of His being.
    Trying to "inspire" love with demonstrations of demented "displeasure" and threats of "eternal punishment" strikes me as depraved, as I have said. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a God figure can be as depraved and as morally obnoxious as this, regardless of the fact that you feel you do have reason. In my case, I simply do not believe it.
  8. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    10 Oct '14 07:23
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Here's a link to a language translator you may find useful: http://translation2.paralink.com/English-Swedish-Translator
    Du är en påse med vind
  9. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    10 Oct '14 11:14
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Russ obviously wanted this forum to have wide appeal when it was created as a spin off from the Debates Forum.
    I guess I just don't get it!

    What's this thread supposed to be about? You said something about trimming some fat. What fat? Like banning atheists? 😉
  10. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    10 Oct '14 12:11
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    I see less, by 9 characters (or 10 characters, it's hard to tell with spaces).

    "I imagine the font and/or size you use is probably different than the font and/or size I use. Plus, I have a 22" wide " is what I get on the first line of that reply from me to you.

    But then again, my browser only shows RHP in a width of about 2/3 of my screen, too. That' ...[text shortened]... he user sees. I imagine almost everyone's perception of the site is subjective because of this.
    Understood. Since font choice is available on emails only, screen width makes the most sense to low tech me. Thank you.
  11. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    10 Oct '14 12:36
    Originally posted by josephw
    I guess I just don't get it!

    What's this thread supposed to be about? You said something about trimming some fat. What fat? Like banning atheists? 😉
    "RHP Spirituality Forum Gym Topics: "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after." (OP)

    Let's trim some thread fat by exercising the muscles of focused thought on the above topics with single lines of lean text."

    > The thread's about focused thought as opposed to rambling repetitive thought ~ which balloons posts beyond the size of their thought content. You know, like the old chestnut: 'Sorry for such a long letter, Joe, but I was pressed for time.'
    __________________________________________

    Of the topics, does "religion" seem to trump "the supernatural" and "the life after" in popularity on this forum? If so, why?

    Purpose of this post is to stimulate conversation. In my experience, atheists are often better conversationalists than theists.
  12. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    10 Oct '14 12:41
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Du är en påse med vind
    Tack!, tack så mycket!
  13. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    10 Oct '14 14:343 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    Trying to "inspire" love with demonstrations of demented "displeasure" and threats of "eternal punishment" strikes me as depraved, as I have said. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a God figure can be as depraved and as morally obnoxious as this, regardless of the fact that you feel you do have reason. In my case, I simply do not believe it.
    Trying to "inspire" love with demonstrations of demented "displeasure" and threats of "eternal punishment" strikes me as depraved, as I have said. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a God figure can be as depraved and as morally obnoxious as this, regardless of the fact that you feel you do have reason. In my case, I simply do not believe it.


    The punishment must match the dignity of the one transgressed.
    It makes sense to me that rejection of the ultimate dignity would result in the ultimate punishment.

    I don't consider this "obnoxious" of God at all. I consider it really His sober responsibility which accompanies His highest and most ultimate majesty and dignity.

    What you might consider "depraved" is that God would leave all creation with the impression that to reject Him one could still have an immortal blessed existence. It is evident that temporarily God makes His blessing come upon the righteous and the unrighteous alike - but not eternally so.

    Anyway, as fearful as eternal damnation is, I spend probably more time considering with awe all that God went through in His love that we be saved from that greatest error of rejecting God - the Ultimate and Most High - the ground of all being.

    As for God being happy about some of His created being being lost ? I think He is sad about it, possibly even eternally sad. At the same time He has perfect self control. And He will do what has to be done. It must be manifested to all beings that if God is rejected all well being and blessedness is also rejected.

    No being can eternally reject God and win - period.
  14. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    10 Oct '14 16:07
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    "RHP Spirituality Forum Gym Topics: "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after." (OP)

    Let's trim some thread fat by exercising the muscles of focused thought on the above topics with single lines of lean text."

    > The thread's about focused thought as opposed to rambling repetitive thought ~ which balloo ...[text shortened]... late conversation. In my experience, atheists are often better conversationalists than theists.
    Well, of course it's religion. Atheists don't know anything about the after life or about anything spiritual, that's why they spend so much time arguing about religion.

    After all, that's all they can see.
  15. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    10 Oct '14 17:34
    Originally posted by sonship
    The punishment must match the dignity of the one transgressed.
    It makes sense to me that rejection of the ultimate dignity would result in the ultimate punishment.

    I don't consider this "obnoxious" of God at all. I consider it really His sober responsibility which accompanies His highest and most ultimate majesty and dignity.

    What you might con ...[text shortened]... eing and blessedness is also rejected.

    No being can eternally reject God and win - period.
    Dignity? What are you on about? It's depraved.

    "Sober responsibility" is the creed of abusive partners and wife beaters down through history.

    Your ideology is deeply obnoxious.

    What do you have to say to make a non-believer believe the morally unhinged thing that you just so happen to believe? If your ideology is sound, what have you got to say to a morally sound person who isn't a "rapist" or a member of a group of "rapists" (your earlier attempted analogy)?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree