04 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357"One might even say it is more reasonable, if this entity is loving..." One might, also, reasonably conclude that "an alive and powerful, eternal entity" would be an entire entity of wholeness, i.e., of love and of justice (fairness) as well. -Bob
Universal reconciliation by a more strenuous route is a reasonable alternative, for those who approach this question with an open mind. One might even say it is more reasonable, if this entity is loving. But while it may also be reasonable that the loving entity would not openly disclose this fact directly, it is not reasonable that the entity would misr ...[text shortened]... d, discard the ones that cast the entity in a bad light. They need not be disproven, just discarded.
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdYes, I've been aware of his erudition in these matters before today. In passing, I've wondered if perhaps public displays such as these today reflect in depth ministerial training at an earlier time.
I should add that Rwingett is a skilled exegete of Biblical texts when he chooses, a fact that seems to surprise Christians sometimes. I am starting with (for me) old stuff, but in the kind of Christic naturalism and social gospel that Rob sometimes presents, soteriology takes on a different dimension.
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by rwingettI'll try.
You really need to get over yourself. You're really not all that. Is that really how shallow your theology is? A big daddy in the sky to tell you how special you are and that you'll be together for all eternity, no matter what? I can't imagine a more narcissistic view. That you (or I) am the validation of the universe? It's simply nonsense. I couldn't ...[text shortened]... l every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.[/i]
~ Carl Sagan
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMinisterial training? No. I just find religion to be a fascinating topic even though I don't believe most of it to be literally true. So I've read a number of books about religious topics over the years that pretty much run the gamut from Richard Dawkins to liberation theology. Pantheism is something I've been throwing into the mix lately (as the posts in this thread should attest).
Yes, I've been aware of his erudition in these matters before today. In passing, I've wondered if perhaps public displays such as these today reflect in depth ministerial training at an earlier time.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWe agree. Perfect love is just and fair. This corollary to love is assumed in my reply, but I might have stated it.
"One might even say it is more reasonable, if this entity is loving..." One might, also, reasonably conclude that "an alive and powerful, eternal entity" would be an entire entity of wholeness, i.e., of love and of justice (fairness) as well. -Bob
PS if you bold something of mine in a reply & quote, please state "bold added" in your reply. I have no objection to your bolding the part you are replying to. It's quite efficient.
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by JS357JS, I viewed the housekeeping as "Bolding Elimination" as compared with "Bold Added". Quote &Reply automatically "Bolds" the entire body of the quotation, as can be seen above. This mass of black ink militates against the impaired vision in both eyes. Often, I'll "Unbold" it all when Copy& Pasting's involved. Will try to keep your first ever in six years request in mind. Pleased we agree. -Bob
We agree. Perfect love is just and fair. This corollary to love is assumed in my reply, but I might have stated it.
PS if you bold something of mine in a reply & quote, please state "bold added" in your reply. I have no objection to your bolding the part you are replying to. It's quite efficient.
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by rwingettThanks for the clarification.
Ministerial training? No. I just find religion to be a fascinating topic even though I don't believe most of it to be literally true. So I've read a number of books about religious topics over the years that pretty much run the gamut from Richard Dawkins to liberation theology. Pantheism is something I've been throwing into the mix lately (as the posts in this thread should attest).
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI must be monumentally stupid. I just can't seem to understand how I am expected to believe the words of an anonymous person on the internet.
Oh, you're aware of it alright. If you've read this thread for longer than a week, then you're aware of it, unless you are monumentally stupid.
You just refuse to believe it. Your refusal is your choice, no one is rejecting it for you.
I bet that if the same sort of dilemma was presented to you you would not even consider believing it. Are you monumentally stupid too?
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou must be speaking of a new religion. The Abrahamic god concept is a farce. Any god who watches and does nothing while his "loved" followers are butchered for thousands of years is little more than a sadist 🙄🙄🙄
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."
Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by caissad4Any chance their own willful decisions played a role?
You must be speaking of a new religion. The Abrahamic god concept is a farce. Any god who watches and does nothing while his "loved" followers are butchered for thousands of years is little more than a sadist 🙄🙄🙄
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative?"
No, of course not. Hence my question as to why you, or anyone else, is rejecting it.
Rejection of what?
04 Jun 13
I think people ask this question "What about the people who never hear the Gospel?" God is just and we really don't know what happens but if God is just then it is not for us to worry about. I'm of the opinion and it is just opinion but there will be many in heaven that did not say the sinners prayer and are yet in heaven. If they are in heaven it is because Christ let them in and He paid the price for their sins so it is in His power to do what He wills. The aborted humans I think they make go to be with God (my opinion) This however does not excuse one from the message of repent and believe. It is a sort of gun being put to ones head. It is a warning. The very breaths we take are granted by God yet people wanna say this or that and well people have the right of free will
Manny
04 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOk, here's a condensed summary.
LJ, your intellect overwhelms me. Please summarize in a few distilled sentences, if you would. Thanks. -Bob
First, my answer to your hypothetical question in the opening post of this thread would be "No."
Second, I commented that you labor under the notion that atheists stand in willful rejection of some putative gift from some eternal supernatural entity; whereas such a notion is false.
Third, I asked for clarification concerning how your medical example was in any way apt in response to rwingett's concern about your perverting the term 'gift'.