toldailytopic: For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in

[Silent Hunter]

Silent Hunter. I am not saying any of these things are known apart from what the bible says. If the bible is man made and God had not part in it at all then all bets are off. Nothing of the nature of the supernatural can be known. There may not even be a supernatural or a god. Apart from the bible, all that can be said to be possibly true is that a powerful creator started the universe. Nothing else can be known.

. . . :yawn: . . . not true . . . except in your imagination.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You responded by saying saving time.... blah. Everything i stated in that post is based on my understanding of the bible. You want me to prove something apart from what the bible says. Very little can be proved apart from the bible. If that is your rules of the debate then there is no need for any further discussion. This thread is not about whether the bible is true. You are demanding we prove that before we make any declarative statements. If you want to have a meaningful discussion then just tack on the following statement to any declarative statement: If the bible is true.

:yawn: . . . you make declarative statements about the unproven . . . if you want to have a meaningful discussion . . . prove the Bible is what you assert it is.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So to be exact, non of this is known in a purely scientific sense. The follwing assumptions are made and really cannot be proven in this lifetime. It is simply impossible and that isnt because these are flat out lies. It is because the nature of these truths cannot be proven in the physical world. Only the existence of a creator God has plenty of evidence. But, even this evidence can be dismissed and explained away by a closed mind. There is great evidence for creation and the idea of creation is very plausible to an open mind. Unguided naturalistic evolution is possible but unlikely when the evidence is closely examined. When you cut the age of the earth to less than a million years, unguided, naturalistic evolution is absolutely impossible. An unbiased look at the evidence also show that a millions or billions of years old earth is very improbable if you can see that radioactive decay was faster in the past. 4.55 billion years is a very fragile glass house to build your belief system upon.

:rotfl: . . . submit your findings for scientific review . . .

 

[Skavau]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2629719&postcount=360

It's a rational impossibility. Faith describes belief, but is an effect, not a cause. Faith may sustain belief, but it cannot exist without the object of it present as the agent. That is, people don't simply and suddenly decide to have faith. They may decide to have faith in something, but then the something is the why and the faith is, again, the root.

Fair enough.

To set themselves and their desires above God, to become the arbiters of moral measure, to usurp the authority of the good and replace it with a lesser service to self.

Most people who would fall into this category don't actually believe in a God. They would be no more setting their desires above God than they would Thor. Them becoming an "arbiter of moral measure" is merely a pragmatic response to the society they live in. That is to say that you have to make decisions in your life as to what you ought or ought not do and those who do not adhere to a God may find their decisions contradict with this God, but they would not know it.

So I really think the above is a smear.

The first question isn't a serious one since you understand the premise of my faith and the necessity, within that, of grace.

Well then, you're more 'traditional' than I had you pegged down as.

The second leg begins with the very sort of usurpation I only just noted and then concludes with an errant usage that commonly denotes the act of one in power working harm against one subject to that power, which is nothing like what I only just finished setting out for my part in the last post on this.

Feel free to ignore it if you like, but it is an important question. I cannot see any coherent justification that would condemn all unsaved to eternal torture, be it through the enabling of them to feel their own torture or the direct act of providing them with torture. It would be more merciful to have their existence terminated or a reprieve offered especially given the circumstances.

You should advance questions rather than declarations to get at what another man thinks. You've missed my larger philosophy/theological understanding by no small distance there. And I have never needed or sought your permission for it. So kindly keep your condescension to yourself. You've done nothing that justifies it and will only find a worse treatment if you persist in it.

It wasn't condescension. It was an observation. Stop being so sensitive.

Who knows what you mean by that or how you'd support it. I could imagine, I suppose, but why work harder than you at it? If you have an argument don't be coy with it. And don't declare a conclusion without supplying the means to arrive at it.

If you vision heaven (presumably where you desire to be at eventually) as a utopia where there is no suffering of any kind then you would have undermined everything you've said about how suffering is relevant to (or a part of) life on earth. I suppose I could it easier in words like this. Many right-wing Christians despise totalitarianism and socialism on earth and are staunch libertarians (or even anarchists) but in heaven they would happily embrace some bizarre form of supernatural collectivism. Does that make it easier to understand?

Now given God has set out a means by which any man may rest in the authority of Christ and enter into relation, I have less hope for those who choose to remove themselves from the proposition. But, ultimately, I leave God's judgment to God and concern myself with my own witness and the unfolding of an abundant life...something to be moved toward, rather than a discourse on what is to be fled.

Who do you imagine literally chooses to remove themselves from the proposition? Not even I, as an anti-theist have done that. I literally don't believe that a proposition exists. To suggest that I have removed myself is to imply that I have willingly snubbed it with the knowledge that it exists.

The claim that the standards of God are ludicrous is unsupported, so I don't feel obliged to offer more in response than you've given in the making: they are demonstrably no such thing. Argue or be hanged, I don't give a twisted fig for posture in lieu.

We, as imperfect creatures are judged squarely on the standards of perfection and our failure is an everlasting disproportionate punishment.

 

[voltaire]

SilentHunter mockingly responded to my post by telling me to submit my findings to scientific review. Anything that mentions the possible existence of God is said not to be part of science. It is dead on arrival regardless of its merits. They would accept a paper showing evidence against a 4.5 billion year old earth if they were truly honest. They are not though. Evolution is a God regardless of how much you deny it. That god ceases to exist when you cut the age of the earth down to less than a million years. Thats is intolerable for these folks and simply will not be allowed to stand.

 

[voltaire]

. . . you make declarative
statements about the
unproven . . . if you want to
have a meaningful
discussion . . . prove the
Bible is what you assert it
is.------silenthunter. It cannot be proven any more than God can be proven or darwinism can be proven. There is evidence for it though. There are books written about this evidence. I guarantee that you would reject every last shred of this evidence for any reason you could and would be shown that these reasons are hypocritical because you do not apply this same reasoning in other situations. Besides, that isn't the topic and i'm not prepared as that isn't my expertise. A good defense that the bible is the word of God, would take several thousand words and really doesn't belong in this thread. You are just being a pain in the ***. In some discussions, it is worthwhile to make a few assumptions so that the topic does not get sidetracked.

 

[voltaire]

not true . . . except
in your imagination.----- SilentHunter. Which part of my post were you referring to?

 

[chrysostom]

. . . you make declarative
statements about the
unproven . . . if you want to
have a meaningful
discussion . . .

atheists are unreasonable
and
that rules out a meaningful discussion

 

[Skavau]

atheists are unreasonable
and
that rules out a meaningful discussion

Do you ever have anything mature to say? Ever? All I ever see you do is make stupid one-liners or ask obtuse questions.

 

[Silent Hunter]

SilentHunter mockingly responded to my post by telling me to submit my findings to scientific review. Anything that mentions the possible existence of God is said not to be part of science.

. . . and never will be either . . . unless you can prove the supernatural . . . good luck with that.

It is dead on arrival regardless of its merits.

. . . if your theory had merit it would stand up against review.

They would accept a paper showing evidence against a 4.5 billion year old earth if they were truly honest.

. . . I think that's been tried . . . and rejected as wishful thinking.

They are not though.

. . . as if yec'rs are . . . :nono:

Evolution is a God regardless of how much you deny it.

. . . no . . . it's a theory . . . and a darn good one.

That god ceases to exist when you cut the age of the earth down to less than a million years.

. . . it's hard to "cease to exist" when you never existed to begin with.

Thats is intolerable for these folks and simply will not be allowed to stand.

:mock: creationists.

 

[Silent Hunter]

. . . you make declarative
statements about the
unproven . . . if you want to
have a meaningful
discussion . . . prove the
Bible is what you assert it
is.------silenthunter. It cannot be proven any more than God can be proven or darwinism can be proven. There is evidence for it though. There are books written about this evidence. I guarantee that you would reject every last shred of this evidence for any reason you could and would be shown that these reasons are hypocritical because you do not apply this same reasoning in other situations.

. . . you sound exactly like a fundamentalist Christian . . . the evidence of evolution is overwhelming . . . Christian = na, na, na, na . . . not listening . . . na, na, na . . . not listening . . .

Besides, that isn't the topic and i'm not prepared as that isn't my expertise. A good defense that the bible is the word of God, would take several thousand words and really doesn't belong in this thread. You are just being a pain in the ***. In some discussions, it is worthwhile to make a few assumptions so that the topic does not get sidetracked.

. . . reasonable assumptions . . . yes . . . assumptions about the supernatural . . . no.

 

[Silent Hunter]

not true . . . except
in your imagination.----- SilentHunter. Which part of my post were you referring to?

. . . pretty much ALL of it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

atheists are unreasonable
and
that rules out a meaningful discussion

. . . @#$% . . . my irony meter . . . AGAIN !!! @#$%.

 

[Town Heretic]

Most people who would fall into this category don't actually believe in a God. They would be no more setting their desires above God than they would Thor.

No real sense in using an inferior place holder for the same essential and undivided notion, but I never said all men believe, only that they were their own bar to it, that disbelief is neither inevitable nor anything more or less than a fundamental choice. And all choices have a measure of reason in them.

That is to say that you have to make decisions in your life as to what you ought or ought not do and those who do not adhere to a God may find their decisions contradict with this God, but they would not know it.

And if I plug my ears and sing loudly enough I will not know the song you're singing. But, again, God isn't hidden from men who refuse to avail themselves of the means by which He might be known. That said, as I went decades in that very position I can understand how a man argues himself into or keeps another. It always begins with the placing of demands, the leveling of judgment, the usurpation, however gentile or reasonable in form.

So I really think the above is a smear.

I'd imagine you would, given the implications.

Well then, you're more 'traditional' than I had you pegged down as.

Depends on the particular. For instance, my belief in the particulars of hell isn't very...and time/predestination that embroils differing camps in a struggle relating to the will is, to my mind, mostly the product of a misapprehension of time and God's relation; but in any number of approaches I'm wholly traditional. All Christians, fundamentally, must be. The cross, after all, is a rather singular lesson.

Feel free to ignore it if you like, but it is an important question. I cannot see any coherent justification that would condemn all unsaved to eternal torture,

Rather you appear to have ignored two different addresses of the inappropriate use of the word here. I've given you an entirely coherent answer with an actual advancement of the why. I suppose I could have adopted your practice here instead and saved myself time.

be it through the enabling of them to feel their own torture or the direct act of providing them with torture.

Still not getting my part or answer then as neither of those find that mark.

It would be more merciful to have their existence terminated or a reprieve offered especially given the circumstances.

If you read my answer then you understand mercy would be an extension of the thing willfully rejected, and at that point would be unwanted.

It wasn't condescension. It was an observation.

Beans. And, to borrow,

You're welcome to keep such a view.

If you vision heaven (presumably where you desire to be at eventually) as a utopia where there is no suffering of any kind

Or, you have a point you want out and my unconformity to the preset you had on hand isn't going to deter you.

then you would have undermined everything you've said about how suffering is relevant to (or a part of) life on earth.

Well, no. It doesn't follow. It's a bit like you suggesting that the failure of particular, academic tests being offered in post graduate life invalidates the pursuit of advanced and particular understanding within an ivy encrusted confine.

I suppose I could it easier in words like this. Many right-wing Christians despise totalitarianism and socialism on earth and are staunch libertarians (or even anarchists) but in heaven they would happily embrace some bizarre form of supernatural collectivism. Does that make it easier to understand?

Let me know when you get back to our discussion. I can hardly answer for the right or their impression of heaven.

Who do you imagine literally chooses to remove themselves from the proposition?

You might as easily ask who on death row willfully put themselves in line for execution. The answer (assuming guilt) would be every man who put the selfish desire of his flesh above the right.

Not even I, as an anti-theist have done that.

Rather, you're doing, as an anti-theist, precisely and inescapably that.

I literally don't believe that a proposition exists.

No. You understand it exists. You reject the application. And you are accountable for your actions.

To suggest that I have removed myself is to imply that I have willingly snubbed it with the knowledge that it exists.

You're conflating the argument and the actual or potential. And as you have the means to test the argument and potential your defense will fail you.

We, as imperfect creatures are judged squarely on the standards of perfection

No. You're judged by perfection or forgiven by it, but not for failing a standard you can't meet, as I've set out prior, but as you will not meet it. And even then there's the grace you ignore.

and our failure is an everlasting disproportionate punishment.

Previously declared and answered. :e4e:

 

[Zeke]

If you read my answer then you understand mercy would be an extension of the thing willfully rejected, and at that point would be unwanted.

Debate lost, power unplugged, Gods Love becomes relative through tradistions of the christian religion of freewill, ungodly justification is fallin from grace, and the gates of hades refuse to obey the release order.

Way to go Nicodemus, John 3:12.


Next case!


Law, Zeke.

 

[Zeke]

Well, if you'll forgive me for jumping in myself here I'd like to take you up on certain points here once again. Try to contain your excitement at the prospect...lain:

Death row, and for that matter many other legal consequences for certain crimes can be verified and proven before any crime actually takes place. If one drives over the speed limit there's little surprise for most in receiving a fine if caught etc.

Those on death row were more than aware of the potential consequence for committing crimes of such magnitude that resulted in the penalty I would wager.

Hardly the same as an abstract concept where supposed eternal suffering/*becoming* suffering etc is the apparent penalty for not having believed or having a *heretical* belief etc etc....

Your initial premise for your *take* on hell involved a hypothetical relative who may never have even had a parking ticket but was not a Christian if you recall?



Why should it be accepted as a 'just end'? Why should your 'metaphorical' take on hell be given any more creedence in itself? All you effectively do is fashion a subjective opinion on a *traditional* notion of hell being an eternal realm of 'negative being'. Your concept may not be as contemptible as folk being 'burned alive' through infinity but in itself it's still devoid of hope or any ascertainable point....Why not just destroy altogether as annihilationists believe? We're all just fallible human beings TH. Senseless suffering makes no sense, and to think there's a Deity which IS love would create flesh and blood, and then consign them to eternal hopelessness for simple fallibility is as dark as it gets.



So that judgment has to incorporate an eternal state of being where there's no chance of change? Why? Is that because you personally believe it to be 'just' or because you believe the bible claims it to be such?

Seems the prodigal brother's just can't understand why the Father keeps looking out over the horizon, Waiting for is Word to do its job in the far country. The relative always forgets the absolute power of Love, and blinded to the work of God Luke 18:26,27, and 18:34, But God also lets some of the prodigal turn into his religious brother once he is inlightened to the truth of reconciliation, just to show what mans will is truly like, compared to His!.

But it will all be reconciled one day, and these tug of wars with mens will, and tradistions that birthed these zealous struggles of futility will submit to Gods will for all.


Grace, Zeke.

 

[alwight]

It is prejudice to say that a secular book is valid, but any spiritual/religious book must be invalid.

Nonsense, if a (secular)workshop manual say did not compare well with the real thing then it would soon have become invalided by someone somewhere, if not you, and so you wouldn't buy it or would want your money back.
Secular books outside fiction perhaps, can be demonstrably valid or not because they are falsifiable.

OTOH special pleading for a particular holy book, however earnest, most certainly does nothing at all to validate it, but here again a favourable comparison with something tangible and real would, which is quite fair imo.
This is why in practice only secular books can be (or not) validated and why holy books and myth can't, they will either match closely with tangible known reality or they won't.
It's not prejudice its called being rational, honest and reasoned.

 

[godrulz]

The Judeo-Christian world view is the only one that truly resonates with reality.

Play the game. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient Creator God, could He reveal Himself and communicate truth to finite creatures?

You seem to dismiss this possibility or at least dismiss the Bible as being from God. I don't think this is evidenced based as much as bias on your part.

Secular science/archaeology, etc. does prove much of the Bible. Some say Jesus was a myth, but they are wrong even from a secular viewpoint (cf. no moon landing). Some twist His words even if they assume they are accurate.

I am not sure what it will take to knock sense in you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The Judeo-Christian world view is the only one that truly resonates with reality.

. . . :kookoo:

Play the game. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient Creator God, could He reveal Himself and communicate truth to finite creatures?

. . . not if he/she/it doesn't exist in MY reality.

You seem to dismiss this possibility or at least dismiss the Bible as being from God.

. . . I don't dismiss the possibility of much of anything . . . I do, however, dismiss the probability of your particular deity over any other possible deity.

I don't think this is evidenced based as much as bias on your part.

. . . there goes my irony meter again . . . @#$%.

Secular science/archaeology, etc. does prove much of the Bible.

. . . Secular science/archeology, etc. proves as much of Harry Potter as it does the Bible.

Some say Jesus was a myth, but they are wrong even from a secular viewpoint (cf. no moon landing). Some twist His words even if they assume they are accurate.

:yawn:

I am not sure what it will take to knock sense in you.

. . . my irony meter would have detected this but you broke it with you post noted above.

 

[voltaire]

Quote:
It is dead on arrival
regardless of its merits.
. . . if your theory had merit
it would stand up against
review.-----That is absolutely false and you made my case for me in your first 2 sentences. You said God has no place in science. If i gave a brilliant proof for an earth younger than a million years, it would be roundly rejected solely on the basis that it could be used to promote the idea of a creator.