Can you imagine

Originally posted by KellyJay
What kills the drowning man, the fact he drowned, correct?

The life preserver offered was choice to make, but it was his drowning
that killed him. If the choice was not there he still drowns, correct?

The fact he had a choice puts some responsibility about his death on
his own head, but that is all.

Now Hell and death are coming to man because of ...[text shortened]... leaves us where we are
and like the drowning man where we are isn’t a good place to be.
Kelly

You're not addressing my main charge against your analogy. If one deliberates on whether or not to do this or that, that sounds like engagement in practical reasoning. But when one deliberates, say, on whether or not such or such is the case, that sounds more like an appointment with theoretical reasoning. The end result in engaging in pratical reason might be some active decision about what to do; but the end result of theoretical reasoning might be some passive belief about what is or is not the case. Doesn't your analogy confuse the two types of reasoning, in portraying believing in core Christian propositions as being like choosing to do this or that?

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're not addressing my main charge against your analogy. If one deliberates on whether or not to do this or that, that sounds like engagement in practical reasoning. But when one deliberates, say, on whether or not such or such is the case, that sounds more like an appointment with theoretical reasoning. The end result in engaging in pratical reason portraying believing in core Christian propositions as being like choosing to do this or that?

And further, he didn't specify which life preserver - the blue one or the red one? I believe he was reaching for the blue one. When he dies and confronts a deity who expected he would be smart enough to grab the red one he will realize that he just wasted everyone's time on this thread. 🙂 (It is called "Pascal's Wager" - look it up - people with the actual ability to reason long ago demonstrated the fallacies that underlie it (before Pascal proposed it!)) Unfortunately there is no section to teach logical reasoning in any bible so what a treat it is to hear this over and over and over.

Here's a wager for you (that isn't an idle problem) - "your integrity or your life?" Which do you choose? (I know what Patrick Henry said.)

Originally posted by buckky
I know what your thinking now. You think I know what your thinking and it bothers you. You must think a life preserver is nothing more than a way out of Torment. If you keep thinking like this you could end up in need of a life jacket.

You know what I'm thinking now, had you just engaged in a
conversation I was willing to telling you. You think this is some type
of contest or something, a struggle with winners and losers between
us?
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're not addressing my main charge against your analogy. If one deliberates on whether or not to do this or that, that sounds like engagement in practical reasoning. But when one deliberates, say, on whether or not such or such is the case, that sounds more like an appointment with theoretical reasoning. The end result in engaging in pratical reason ...[text shortened]... portraying believing in core Christian propositions as being like choosing to do this or that?

My question went to a single point, what killed the man that was
drowning, and the answer was he drowned. The if he did this or
that didn't really come into it, did it? I asked what killed the man,
not what would have saved his life had he made a choice to take
the life preserver. I did point out that with out that choice he was
going to die, with his choice and the rejection only made it clear
he could have avoided death; however, what caused his death
remains drowning.

So nothing changed with the choice being given him outside of he
had the opportunity to avoid the death by drowning, no one came
up and shot him in the head and caused death another way. I can
give you a life preserver but if you are not drowning so you do not
have any need for it, it will not save your life if you take it nor will
you die then by drowning if you reject it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My question went to a single point, what killed the man that was
drowning, and the answer was he drowned. The if he did this or
that didn't really come into it, did it? I asked what killed the man,
not what would have saved his life had he made a choice to take
the life preserver. I did point out that with out that choice he was
going to die, with his ...[text shortened]... l not save your life if you take it nor will
you die then by drowning if you reject it.
Kelly

Okay, so what you're saying is that in your hypothetical in which a guy died by drowning, the guy died because he drowned. Yes, that seems painfully clear enough.

Now, what do you think about my objection to your analogy?

Originally posted by buckky
I also feel God must be just or he would not be a God. The confusion comes about when you read the Christian Bible, and hear about a God that get's angry, and dishes out severe punisment on us mere mortals for believing a certain way. The Christian concept of God makes him sound petty and scary, not loving.

Do you not get angry about what happens here on earth? Is it not because you see injustice? The question is not why he gets angry, the question is why is there injustice? In fact, if he did not get angry, would he not be injust?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
"Just" for me (because without presuming to speak for a deity (or anyone else) you surely must have a definition of that word for yourself or your words were meaningless) means that no one goes to the fiery pit who is thinking, speaking and acting honestly according to their conscience so it must mean that it doesn't matter what you profess to believe. ...[text shortened]... en you have nothing to fear - no omnipotent sociopath will hunt you down to hurt you. Agreed?

I believe that God came down in the image of Christ. Therefore, I rely on the teachings of Christ. Christ taught that only through him and his sacrifice could man come to God. Of course, some presume, mainly Christians, that this means that those who have not accepted Christ and follow him will have eternal life. However, in the same breath they will tell you that people from the OT, such as Abraham, will have eternal life even though they lived before the time of Christ. It is my contention, therefore, that Abraham will have eternal life ONLY because of the sacriice many years later of one Jesus Christ.

Having said that, the question then becomes, what of those who don't believe Christ was God in the flesh and reject him? What of people who have never seen nor heard of him? All I can say is, ask God not me if you even believe he exists.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're not addressing my main charge against your analogy. If one deliberates on whether or not to do this or that, that sounds like engagement in practical reasoning. But when one deliberates, say, on whether or not such or such is the case, that sounds more like an appointment with theoretical reasoning. The end result in engaging in pratical reason ...[text shortened]... portraying believing in core Christian propositions as being like choosing to do this or that?

I'm merely pointing out one thing, your sins cause you to stand before
God condemned. Your sins are the weight that is going to pull you
down no matter what you think is true about the devil, man, or God.
Your beliefs all by themselves do not "get you saved", they play a
part yes, but it isn't you that matters, the devil believes in God and it
will do him no good what so ever.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know what I'm thinking now, had you just engaged in a
conversation I was willing to telling you. You think this is some type
of contest or something, a struggle with winners and losers between
us?
Kelly

No winners or losers. It's a neutral field of mind reading I'm engaged in. I know what you think, and you hate it. I mean no harm. Open your heart to the new idea me reading your mind.

Originally posted by buckky
No winners or losers. It's a neutral field of mind reading I'm engaged in. I know what you think, and you hate it. I mean no harm. Open your heart to the new idea me reading your mind.

LOL, you’re delusional; as well as I know my family I don’t make that
claim with them, let lone with people who I don’t at all.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have faith He is merciful and just too, that does not at all mean He
still cannot throw someone into Hell, since to show mercy can mean to
over trump justice, and to show justice is to ignore mercy at times.
Kelly

As I said before, that is up to the Almighty in his infinite wisdom and righteousness, not me.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
"Just" for me (because without presuming to speak for a deity (or anyone else) you surely must have a definition of that word for yourself or your words were meaningless) means that no one goes to the fiery pit who is thinking, speaking and acting honestly according to their conscience so it must mean that it doesn't matter what you profess to believe. ...[text shortened]... en you have nothing to fear - no omnipotent sociopath will hunt you down to hurt you. Agreed?

All I will say is that sin is the cause for God's creation to go awry. Therefore, it seems that there is some purging to do. Now does that involve eternal death, whatever that may entail? I think it is the case as indicated by scripture.

Of course, you could cry foul and say that God is not righteous for doing this, but if God were to allow sin and suffering to continue indefinately, is that a righteeous thing to allow? Naturally, the question then becomes why he allowed sin and suffering to occur in the first place but that is for a whole other thread. What puzzles me are those who see sin and suffering in this current world as many experience hell on earth yet somehow we are to believe that cannot be the case in the next life.

Originally posted by whodey
All I will say is that sin is the cause for God's creation to go awry. Therefore, it seems that there is some purging to do. Now does that involve eternal death, whatever that may entail? I think it is the case as indicated by scripture.

Of course, you could cry foul and say that God is not righteous for doing this, but if God were to allow sin and suff ...[text shortened]... xperience hell on earth yet somehow we are to believe that cannot be the case in the next life.

It can be the case for the next life, nobody suffers hell on Earth.

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, you’re delusional; as well as I know my family I don’t make that
claim with them, let lone with people who I don’t at all.
Kelly

Delusional ? Please Senor not that old come back. Face it I'm reading your mind.

Originally posted by daniel58
It can be the case for the next life, nobody suffers hell on Earth.

You don't get around much do you?