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?"
Presumably the "the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship".
It is your posts, not mine. What do you think you are rejecting?
In context, precisely: willful rejection of the opportunity to receive the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship; electing permanent separation, instead, as the only viable alternative. We agree. OP rests its case.
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdvistesed, this lengthy comment appears to reinforce the fundamental concept of human volition co-existing with absolute sovereignty in time. If so, our present understandings are identical. And, yes, the parables (in which you are extraordinarily well versed and the koine) do reinforce the primacy of free will. Flawed humanity is easily tempted. Temptation per se is not the sin. The only sin God's Perfect Character cannot condone or forgive is rejection of His Gracious Gift of Salvation. -Bob
Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan is more on point: The Samaritan (representing theos/Christos[/i]) refuses to help/heal (salvation = soterias, healing) until he is sure that the man in the ditch is conscious and of his own free will chooses to (a) believe that the Samaritan is there to help, and (b) willingly says yes. Otherwise, t ...[text shortened]... ink Irenaeus put it) is universal in Eastern Christianity, just that it is more prominent there.
04 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am not sure what you think we agree on, or what case you think the OP makes. I notice though that you have avoided answering my questions. Why so evasive? It seems you do the same in nearly every thread. You make a statement then refuse to discuss it. Why?
In context, precisely: willful rejection of the opportunity to receive the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship; electing permanent separation, instead, as the only viable alternative. We agree. OP rests its case.
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadApparently we have no common ground, twhitehead. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
I am not sure what you think we agree on, or what case you think the OP makes. I notice though that you have avoided answering my questions. Why so evasive? It seems you do the same in nearly every thread. You make a statement then refuse to discuss it. Why?
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe dilemma WAS presented to me when I was in college. I used my intelligence to suss it out and I accepted it. I never rejected it, so the 'dilemma' as presented in the OP was not actually mine, so I can't understand the measure of pride some take in its rejection. I believed it from the outset. It made sense to me then, it makes sense to me now.
I 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.
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?
Of course, you can continue pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. If so, then "Apparently we have no common ground, twhitehead. Thanks for contributing to the conversation."
Like GB, I refuse to battle wits with an unarmed person.
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat he is really talking about is this:
I am not sure what you think we agree on, or what case you think the OP makes. I notice though that you have avoided answering my questions. Why so evasive? It seems you do the same in nearly every thread. You make a statement then refuse to discuss it. Why?
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
(John 3:16 NKJV)
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI said that if the 'same sort of dilemma' was presented to you, you would reject it. I stand by that claim. First of all, accepting it would almost certainly require you to reject the one you currently accept.
The dilemma WAS presented to me when I was in college. I used my intelligence to suss it out and I accepted it. I never rejected it, so the 'dilemma' as presented in the OP was not actually mine, so I can't understand the measure of pride some take in its rejection. I believed it from the outset. It made sense to me then, it makes sense to me now.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyQuoting myself: We agree. Perfect love is just and fair.
JS, 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
I see arguments here and there that do not disagree with this; instead they disagree whether God as depicted in the Bible IS just and fair.
Then I see (as in Job) that God says to them, who are you to judge?
But this pointed question goes to both sides: the person who judges God to be just and fair, and the person who judges God to be unjust and unfair.
I think the believers in a just and fair God need to consider that the question goes to them, too.
God asks them, "Who are you to judge that I am just and fair?"