Originally posted by TheSkipper
I wanted to make those points, but was to lazy, so thanks! Rec'd

You are welcome! Usually I am the one who lets others make my points. 😉

Originally posted by Nordlys
So, do you think that a punitive system in which criminals get punished severely without being given a chance to change or learn how to make better choices is more loving than a system in which criminals are allowed to learn and change and are given a new chance when they are ready for it? I don't believe that anyone makes bad choices because they want to li it's true that nobody is without sin, as the bible says, do we really have a choice?

If you know that going insane will lead to eternal misery, choosing to go insane means choosing misery, so you would have to be insane to choose to go insane.

QED.







_____________________________

EDIT: I owe the insanity argument to snowsinscotland.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I wanted to make those points, but was to lazy, so thanks! Rec'd

That's just the new atheist in you talking. Call it lazy if you want, but we all recognize it for what it is --- sloth.

Originally posted by Nordlys
So, do you think that a punitive system in which criminals get punished severely without being given a chance to change or learn how to make better choices is more loving than a system in which criminals are allowed to learn and change and are given a new chance when they are ready for it? I don't believe that anyone makes bad choices because they want to li it's true that nobody is without sin, as the bible says, do we really have a choice?

So, do you think that a punitive system in which criminals get punished severely without being given a chance to change or learn how to make better choices is more loving than a system in which criminals are allowed to learn and change and are given a new chance when they are ready for it?

Mankind is already in a correctional facility. We are presently serving our time in earthly, corruptible bodies. In this life we are given a chance to seek God, repent (change), and through Christ find salvation. Hell is not the correctional aspect of a soul's life, earth is. Hell is the fruition of a lifetime of sin without repentance; the end of the line.

What's the rationale for that? Death is a pretty random point. Why does someone who unexpectedly dies in an accident at the age of 20 not get a chance to change anymore, while someone who lives until he's 90 gets a lot more chances to change?

This is one of those questions which is impossible to answer without a little more information. For instance, perhaps the ninety year-old never heard the gospel preached. In which case, it is not inconceivable that God, knowing the secret desires of our hearts, might nevertheless grant him salvation. Scripture does not rule this possibility out. What it does rule out is the salvation of anyone who adamantly and explicitly rejects Jesus Christ. So the twenty-something who has heard the gospel preached is held accountable for his decision to reject Christ (assuming he has reached an age of accountability in God's eyes, i.e. God, being omniscient, knows exactly when a soul can be held accountable for its decisions).

If God is merciful and loving, why doesn't he simply let them die?

Because the soul of man is immortal.

In my experience, it's mostly Christians who are preoccupied with achieving eternal life. I think most atheists accept that their life will end when they die.

You're leaving out a step. In order to "achieve" eternal life, you first have to surrender your life to Jesus Christ. When Jesus says, "...if you cling to your life...," the life He is referring to is not eternal life, but the life of the flesh. Being preoccupied with achieving eternal life is by definition not being preoccupied with this life, i.e., with worldly pursuits driven by self-will.

If you know that going insane will lead to eternal misery, choosing to go insane means choosing misery, so you would have to be insane to choose to go insane.

Yes, you are right. However, it is not as simple as someone "choosing misery." You are neglecting the underlying cause of sin, and the desired result which the sinner aims for. Yes, a sane person would not choose misery, so there must be some other reason (or reasons) why a person nevertheless does so. The simple answer is, the lusts of the flesh.

For instance, desire for money and power may cause a person to make decisions which are contrary to not only the conscience, but, likewise, God's will. By doing so, a person is knowingly disregarding right and wrong in order to fulfill a worldly desire. This person actively chose misery because of a temporary desired result. All sins have this same character, a blatant disregard of God's will in order to fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Here is a description of those who actively say no to God (and thereby incur misery) in favor of fulfilling the lusts of the flesh in pursuit of worldly gain:

"[They are] filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (Romans 1:29-32).

What causes a person to sin? What is the distinguishing characteristic of a fallen race, that which makes mankind so susceptible to temptation? It is the very cause of our Adamic curse: pride. "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18). Nevertheless, God's spirit strives with man (Gen 6:3), convicting our hearts of right and wrong and of the Gospel; giving everyday sinners the power to become children of God should they so choose.

The bottom line is, people say "no" to God over and over again by following the desires of their flesh rather than His will. But God is the source of all joy and life, and saying no to Him is saying yes to misery! Regardless, many choose misery.

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever" (1 John 2:15-17).

I also wonder at which point in life you think a person chooses to go insane. If a child tells a lie, has this child already chosen to go insane? And if it's true that nobody is without sin, as the bible says, do we really have a choice?

People are given a choice, because the Spirit of God strives with all men, convicting the conscience of right and wrong, and convicting the heart of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are indeed born self-centered and prideful, and are susceptible throughout our lives to the temptations of the flesh, but we still are given the opportunity by God for a way out.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]If you know that going insane will lead to eternal misery, choosing to go insane means choosing misery, so you would have to be insane to choose to go insane.

QED.







_____________________________

EDIT: I owe the insanity argument to snowsinscotland.[/b]

It is a flawed argument, vistesd, and it does not fit the data. Your QED is premature. Don't forget that people choose misery because of a vested interest in fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and pursuing worldly gain. The insanity defense does not apply here. In order to say, "yes," to the world, one must say, "no," to God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is a flawed argument, vistesd, and it does not fit the data. Your QED is premature. Don't forget that people choose misery because of a vested interest in fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and pursuing worldly gain. The insanity defense does not apply here. In order to say, "yes," to the world, one must say, "no," to God.

Au contraire! I have said yes to much of what the world has to offer, and I have never once said no to God. Of course, God has yet to ask me a question, but when He does you can be sure I will consider my answer carefully.

I just can't get past the theists assumption that God exists. I have no reason to believe He does, and therefore I cannot reject His requests any more than I could reject the requests of the Easter Bunny. In both cases, no requests have been made.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Au contraire! I have said yes to much of what the world has to offer, and I have never once said no to God. Of course, God has yet to ask me a question, but when He does you can be sure I will consider my answer carefully.

I just can't get past the theists assumption that God exists. I have no reason to believe He does, and therefore I cannot reject ...[text shortened]... an I could reject the requests of the Easter Bunny. In both cases, no requests have been made.

God has yet to ask me a question, but when He does you can be sure I will consider my answer carefully.

If there is a God, wouldn't He be able to cure lepers, give sight to the blind, heal cripples, and raise the dead? Christ did these things, acts which only God could accomplish, and had many witnesses. By every conceivable standard the biblical account is a reliably preserved document of what happened and what was said during Christ's ministry. If there were not miracles involved, nobody would be questioning the Bible's historical legitimacy or accuracy.

Accusations that Christ's ministry was divinized by later disciples is unrealistic. Someone could only have done so 150-200 years after Christ's ministry; any earlier and such claims would have been refuted by those who followed the "real" merely human Jesus (there is no record of such a refutation). But the earliest documents are right out of the first century, right after Christ's ministry on earth ended. From the get-go Christ's disciples were teaching His message and telling of His miracles -- an eye-witness account which they died for (it is inconceivable that they would die for something they knew was a lie).

In light of all this, how can you be sure that God has not asked you a question?

I just can't get past the theists assumption that God exists. I have no reason to believe He does, and therefore I cannot reject His requests any more than I could reject the requests of the Easter Bunny. In both cases, no requests have been made.

I respect your atheism, and I understand the temptation to disregard the claims of scripture. There's probably not much I can say to dissuade you, and I'm fine with that -- it's not my job. I will say, though, that God has made requests (as I pointed out above), since no one but God could have performed the miracles which Christ did.

The Easter bunny's roots lie in traditional celebrations of Christ's resurrection (proving his/her non-existence), while Christ's roots lie in the prophecies of the OT and in the first-century eye-witness accounts of His disciples. It is an exaggeration to assume Christ and the Easter Bunny are on equal footing, to say the least.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Au contraire! I have said yes to much of what the world has to offer, and I have never once said no to God. Of course, God has yet to ask me a question, but when He does you can be sure I will consider my answer carefully.

I just can't get past the theists assumption that God exists. I have no reason to believe He does, and therefore I cannot reject ...[text shortened]... an I could reject the requests of the Easter Bunny. In both cases, no requests have been made.

I have said yes to much of what the world has to offer, and I have never once said no to God.

According to the scriptural data, it is impossible to say, "yes," to the world without saying, "no," to God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I have said yes to much of what the world has to offer, and I have never once said no to God.

According to the scriptural data, it is impossible to say, "yes," to the world without saying, "no," to God.[/b]

Saying "yes" to God's creation means saying "no" to God?

Sorry that I haven't replied to your reply to me yet, I didn't get around to it yet, but hopefully will soon.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Saying "yes" to God's creation means saying "no" to God?

Sorry that I haven't replied to your reply to me yet, I didn't get around to it yet, but hopefully will soon.

The world in itself is not evil. What is evil is to covet after the things of the world, e.g., coveting money, power, sex, etc., at the expense of pursuing God and God's will. Natural desire is different than coveting; natural desire is God-ordained, coveting is not. By definition coveting is inordinate desire, and the reason it is inordinate is because it is contrary to God's will. When a person sins, he or she is manifesting a desire for the world rather than for God; in effect, saying, "yes," to the world and, "no," to God.

But we weren't created to be fully satisfied by the things in the world. We were created by God for God; that is, our only hope for fulfillment is in finding God. The sad state of everyday sinners is, we usually try and get by on mere "things," but mere "things" (e.g., money, sex, power, toys, etc.) do not satisfy and dependence upon them only leads to misery. Even if that misery is covered up well, or handled intelligently or suffered with dignity, the bottom line is man habitually lives below his calling.

----------------

Take your time responding, as much as you need; I am in no hurry.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is a flawed argument, vistesd, and it does not fit the data. Your QED is premature. Don't forget that people choose misery because of a vested interest in fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and pursuing worldly gain. The insanity defense does not apply here. In order to say, "yes," to the world, one must say, "no," to God.

An abridged review—


Vistesd: Normally, we consider a person who knowingly chooses pain, torment, suffering, and torturous, intensely painful self-destruction as insane. I submit that no sane person would knowingly choose hell. Ergo, no sane person can be the adjudicator of his/her own eternal condemnation to hell.

________________________________

Epiphinehas: Exactly. We are spiritually insane. It is insane to sin, yet people choose to do it every day. Instead of moving towards repentance and forgiveness, many choose to move toward disobedience and misery. "The wages of sin is death," i.e. the death of joy (the definition of hell), and yet we sin. We are insane. Only the insane prefer misery to joy.

. . .

In sinning, a person chooses to go insane.

_________________________________

Nordlys: If you know that going insane will lead to eternal misery, choosing to go insane means choosing misery, so you would have to be insane to choose to go insane.

_________________________________

Vistesd: QED.

__________________________________

Epiphinehas (to Nordlys): Yes, you are right. However, it is not as simple as someone "choosing misery." You are neglecting the underlying cause of sin, and the desired result which the sinner aims for. Yes, a sane person would not choose misery, so there must be some other reason (or reasons) why a person nevertheless does so. The simple answer is, the lusts of the flesh.

Epiphinehas (to vistesd): It is a flawed argument, vistesd, and it does not fit the data. Your QED is premature. Don't forget that people choose misery because of a vested interest in fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and pursuing worldly gain. The insanity defense does not apply here. In order to say, "yes," to the world, one must say, "no," to God.

__________________________________

I don’t think the QED is premature at all. In terms of my three options from the post on page 7—

Is God the adjudicator of eternal punishment? Or am I the knowing adjudicator of my own eternal punishment? Or am I the unknowing adjudicator of my own eternal punishment? If the second, are you arguing that—

(1)(a) People choosing the “lusts of the flesh” are doing so in order to be miserable; and

(b) Such a choice is in fact sane?

Or—

(2)(a) People choosing the “lusts of the flesh” do so because they think the pleasures thereof are worth the torment of eternal hell; and

(b) They actually believe they will spend eternity in eternal torment; and

(c) Such a choice is in fact sane?

Originally posted by vistesd
An abridged review—


[b]Vistesd: Normally, we consider a person who knowingly chooses pain, torment, suffering, and torturous, intensely painful self-destruction as insane. I submit that no sane person would knowingly choose hell. Ergo, no sane person can be the adjudicator of his/her own eternal condemnation to hell.

____________________________ they will spend eternity in eternal torment; and

(c) Such a choice is in fact sane?[/b]

LATE EDIT:

Epi, I just realized I may have been misreading you. Is your position that sane people are led astray by the “temptations of the flesh”, and that “spiritual insanity” is the result of that? Rather than the cause?

In that case, while they are still “sane,” they cannot be choosing knowingly, in the face of the prospect of eternal torment. Therefore, they are choosing in ignorance.

Now, I still cannot call a God who knowingly allows (and who still seems to me to be the one who has set up, so to speak) the existence of eternal misery “love”.* We may have entirely different concepts of what that word means, however. I have presented my lengthy version here; I have abridged it radically in my last post on whodey’s thread. How do you, in your own life, conceive of love?

____________________________________

* That is, a God who has the power to prevent it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]God has yet to ask me a question, but when He does you can be sure I will consider my answer carefully.

If there is a God, wouldn't He be able to cure lepers, give sight to the blind, heal cripples, and raise the dead? Christ did these things, acts which only God could accomplish, and had many witnesses. By every conceivable standard the bibli on to assume Christ and the Easter Bunny are on equal footing, to say the least.[/b]

By every conceivable standard the Qur’an is a reliably preserved document of revelations received by Muhammad. If there were not claims of divine revelation involved, nobody would be questioning the Qur’an’s historical legitimacy or accuracy.

Accusations that Muhammad’s role as a true prophet was made up by later disciples is unrealistic. Someone could only have done so 150-200 years after the Prophet’s life; any earlier and such claims would have been refuted by those who followed the “real” Muhammad (there is no record of such a refutation). But the earliest written documents are right out of the first century (H), right after the Prophet’s ministry on earth ended. From the get-go Muhammad’s disciples were teaching his message and telling of his revelations from God—an eye-witness account which they died for (it is inconceivable that they would die for something they knew was a lie).

You may not like the Prophet’s message, and may reject it based on that. But, in light of all this, how can you be sure that God has not asked you a different question from the one you think he has?

Originally posted by vistesd
LATE EDIT:

Epi, I just realized I may have been misreading you. Is your position that sane people are led astray by the “temptations of the flesh”, and that “spiritual insanity” is the result of that? Rather than the cause?

In that case, while they are still “sane,” they cannot be choosing knowingly, in the face of the prospect of eternal torment. T ...[text shortened]... ve?

____________________________________

* That is, a God who has the power to prevent it.

In that case, while they are still “sane,” they cannot be choosing knowingly, in the face of the prospect of eternal torment. Therefore, they are choosing in ignorance.

I beg to differ. Your logical extrapolations, though they make sense within their own propositional universe, suffer from insufficient scriptural data. None will be without excuse on Judgment Day (Rom 3:20, 23). After eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil mankind is now without excuse, knowing the difference between right and wrong. When a person chooses to do wrong they are consciously rejecting God in word and deed. So that, without Christ, all are destined for hell.

You imagine that people could not possibly consciously reject God, but it happens everyday, everywhere. Should it matter to them what consequences there are for rejecting God? Yes, it should, but it doesn't. And why? Because when people choose to reject God, people choose to reject what God says about the consequences of rejecting Him, ipso facto. What really matters is that people choose to reject God, not whether they know the true consequences of rejecting Him.

God's Spirit is everywhere striving with man, convicting his heart of the truth of the Gospel, beckoning people to surrender themselves to the only trustworthy One, Jesus Christ. But man is a free creature and does not have to obey the call (hell is a prison cell locked from the inside). When a man rejects God, he is really just refusing to surrender himself to God.

God cannot violate a man's right to refuse surrender.

How do you, in your own life, conceive of love?

In my three-year-old daughter's case, I express my love in several distinct ways. I provide for her needs, feed her, clothe her, etc. I lavish her with attention, gifts, hugs, kisses, encouragement, etc. I prepare her for the world, teaching her the value of hard work, intelligence, creativity, common sense, obedience, good attitude, etc. I teach her about Jesus Christ, how to pray, by example and explanation, etc.

At some point, though, no matter how excellent a parent I have been, she may choose to reject me in order to go her own way. Like the father in the parable of the prodigal son, I will always be watching for her return and ready to run to her with open arms. But after she is eighteen years-old and moved out of the house, I cannot force her to obey me. If she chooses a life of sin, I cannot stop her. I can try, but nothing will truly help unless she of her own volition chooses to return to God and the values which I've instilled in her.

If her choices bring her to the edge of ruin and beyond, I can only mourn.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]In that case, while they are still “sane,” they cannot be choosing knowingly, in the face of the prospect of eternal torment. Therefore, they are choosing in ignorance.

I beg to differ. Your logical extrapolations, though they make sense within their own propositional universe, suffer from insufficient scriptural data. None will be without exc illed in her.

If her choices bring her to the edge of ruin and beyond, I can only mourn.[/b]

Correction: above it should read, "All will be without excuse on Judgment Day (Rom 3:20, 23)."

(Those darn double-negatives...)