15 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephwIn that event my options would be to just relax and be the puppet or wind-up toy that I would be under this scenario.
Consider a being eternal. A being of infinite power. One of a kind. A being with no equal. A single, solitary being that creates everything that exists.
It's all His. He can do with His creation whatever He wills. And there's nothing anyone or anything can do to stop Him from doing as He pleases.
Consider that!
Now consider your options.
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou are now getting dangerously close to feeling what I believe God would feel under similar circumstances. All you need to do is meditate on that situation, and consider that we are all God's children
An unimaginable hypothetical [grandfather/grandchildren in peril yet refusing rescue from someone they love] scenario isn't a workable premise. If the victim was a great king rat... I'd drag it to safety by its tail. Then offer it a frosty beer. :-)
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou just can't bring yourself to answering this question, can you? Everyone who's been reading this thread - including you - understands why I and others would be asking you this question and yet you refuse to give an answer.
An unimaginable hypothetical [grandfather/grandchildren in peril yet refusing rescue from someone they love] scenario isn't a workable premise. If the victim was a great king rat... I'd drag it to safety by its tail. Then offer it a frosty beer. :-)
Why?
Because as long as you speak about unmeasurable, unprovable, unbelievable, unobtainable situations you can say whatever you want. "Believe in the god that I speak of, GKR, or you will be punished in the afterlife whereas I sit I heaven." Easy, because you know you can't prove any of it so you consider just saying it as plenty of proof.
But translate these farfetched ideas to the real world, where we can measure and prove things, where we know what can and can't happen, where we have an idea about how we respond in different situations, where we base our morals not on other people's quotations but on logic and natural instict, and suddenly it becomes crystal clear just how much of your "belief system" actually is a plastic cardhouse, ready to crumble when just a tiny bit of logic is applied to it.
I won't ask the question again, GB, don't worry. Your unwillingness to answer sadly once again showcases the fear you have of being critical and doubtful* about what you profess to belief.
Oh, and for the record: if the situation were so that I was the only one who could save your grandchildren and they were unwilling to cooperate, I would force them to be saved, no doubt about it. I'd knock them unconcious if I had to.
* Doubt is good, theists! Remember that, all of you!
Originally posted by CalJustNot sure why you'd think emotions somehow belittles God since God is
Thanks for so deftly avoiding the question, K.
Of course God is not a man. Yet strangely the Bible is chockfull of incidents of God being described as having "human" emotions - anger, jealousy, love, remorse, compassion, the full gamut - so trying to imagine what emotion He would have in such a situation is neither far-fetched nor anti-scriptural.
Love, He is defined by emotions His very essence is an emotion. So I’d say
they are not human emotions, but godly ones that we were given.
The trouble people have with God is that they cannot play with God like
they do when they view politics where we pick and choose what we like and
dislike according to who is doing it. The people we vote for tend to get
passes from us (I can do this too) and we will rail against the other party
for doing something we would denounces as bad, yet when are our people
are in power it is justified. The act is the same, yet when only seen
through the eyes of party politics we justify people not the acts as good or
bad. On TV you’ll even hear things like this is a Republican issue or a
Democrat one, it can be rare to see anything as just an issue. The acts we
see are rarely standing on their own merits, they standby the party who is
doing them. With God this is never so He judges without favorites, if you
sin, you are a sinner.
God when He denounces something, He will always denounce it, and He will
just as quickly judge those that are following Him as those that are not. It
is like going up against gravity, I don’t care if you want to fly you will fall
if not having properly accounted for everything when travelling through the
air. God acts He can have mercy, forgiveness, grace, so He isn't just a
creature bound by some programmed rules, but He will only act where it is
justified for a righteous reason, not just because.
God also isn’t a man, so He is not bound by everything man is from man’s
limitations for justifying bad behavior, or his limited ability to understand
the universe around him. So when God acts He does so with clear eyes
while we never have them. We also didn’t setup the universe with all the
laws of physics, and everything that holds this place together and allows it
to function, so when we act outside of the bounds we should be acting in
we will get smacked down. Not liking that smack down does not hold sway
with God though you may feel some delight in having some others who also
dislike God’s judgment agree with you. It may feel all warm and fuzzy to
jointly dislike God’s judgment, but it will get you and those who agree with
you nowhere in the end, the full world could agree hand in hand, but since
they neither built the universe nor have the power to maintain it, going
against God is a losing proposition every time.
Kelly
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by CalJustBut, if you can say that, then it is evidence for volition. You are created with the ability to choose between options. The fact that you can identify options and make a conscience decision means you have enough intelligence to know the difference between right and wrong.
In that event my options would be to just relax and be the puppet or wind-up toy that I would be under this scenario.
If you THINK you're a puppet, then a puppet you are!
Originally posted by CalJustMy dad once told me a story. A man, who loved God was hiking in the mountains. Something startled him, he slipped and fell. Slipping down the side of a cliff and landed on a small branch. He called out, "Lord, Lord, save me.". Some other hikers saw it happen, and they rushed to help him out. Setting down a rope, they yelled for him to take the rope. But he refused, saying God will rescue me. They left, but called the police, who called a rescue team. Where the man was located made it extreemly difficult for a helicopter or another to repell down. The rescue team, yelled to the man that he had to just loop the rope around his waist and they would pull him up. Still the man refused, saying, i know God heard me, and He will rescue me.
Hi Freaky,
Sorry, your fruit salad/apple analogy escapes me....
When you disagree with a particular statement i make, or challenge a position i take, that's perfectly fine - that is what discussion is about.
But it seems to me that you haven't even read my OP. I really can't see how I can state the problem that I am posing any simpler.
I don't disa ...[text shortened]... God apparantly cannot?
I see i am beginning to repeat myself. Time to close this thread.....
Finally the branch broke, and the man fell to his death.
Standing before God the man said, Why didn't you rescue me? The Lord in responce said, What did you want? I sent hikers and a rescue team.
Are we so certain that those who respond are not sent by God?
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy on earth do you say that "I think emotions belittle God"??
Not sure why you'd think emotions somehow belittles God since God is
Love, He is defined by emotions His very essence is an emotion. So I’d say
they are not human emotions, but godly ones that we were given.
Kelly
Far from it! Our own emotions are a reflection of God's, since we are created in His image!
But again, you chose to give a looooong lecture about God rather than answer the simple question I posed.
Because facing the answer would cause you some mental gymnastics, methinks.
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephwAnd your point is....?
But, if you can say that, then it is evidence for volition. You are created with the ability to choose between options. The fact that you can identify options and make a conscience decision means you have enough intelligence to know the difference between right and wrong.
If you THINK you're a puppet, then a puppet you are!
Did I ANYWHERE in this or other threads question volition?
We ALL have free will - that is NOT the point of this thread. The question posed is that some Christians say that God will NEVER violate man's free will, whilst acknowledging that doing so on the human level is seen (under certain conditions) as a virtue.
With such an unwillingness to face difficult issues, does it come as a surprise when Atheists on RHP heap such scorn on the Christians?
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by PudgenikI told the same story here before only it was a flood and two motorboats and a helicopter. 😀
My dad once told me a story. A man, who loved God was hiking in the mountains. Something startled him, he slipped and fell. Slipping down the side of a cliff and landed on a small branch. He called out, "Lord, Lord, save me.". Some other hikers saw it happen, and they rushed to help him out. Setting down a rope, they yelled for him to take the rope. But he ...[text shortened]... sent hikers and a rescue team.
Are we so certain that those who respond are not sent by God?
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by CalJustSorry, your fruit salad/apple analogy escapes me....
Hi Freaky,
Sorry, your fruit salad/apple analogy escapes me....
When you disagree with a particular statement i make, or challenge a position i take, that's perfectly fine - that is what discussion is about.
But it seems to me that you haven't even read my OP. I really can't see how I can state the problem that I am posing any simpler.
I don't disa ...[text shortened]... God apparantly cannot?
I see i am beginning to repeat myself. Time to close this thread.....
Fruit salad (typically) contains, among other fruits, apples.
This situational topic contains, among other things, morality.
A fruit salad is not an apple; there's more to the dish.
We are not discussing an isolated aspect of morality; there's more here to consider.
...that such a fireman would be praised and even win some kind of medal.
Methinks thou dost assume too much.
In fact, there are many assumptions herein which are being accepted without even a second thought.
For instance, WE (society in general) would honor the fireman's apparent sobriety and action in the face of another's apparent incapacitation, mental-physical or both.
Case closed, right?
Let's imagine another scenario with all of the same elements, with a minor tweak or two.
The man in the burning house set it himself.
He is married with two school-aged children, one boy and one girl.
All four members of the family are of sound mind and good health, except the girl is in desperate need of a kidney: she will die without an operation within the next six months.
Any of the other three members of the family are suitable donors.
But the family has no money or insurance to pay for the operation (obviously pre-Obama care).
They have no option but to slowly watch their beautiful daughter/sister wither and die before their eyes.
But the man does have a sizable life insurance policy, one which will provide for the family for the rest of their lives as well as take care of the desperately needed operation.
The policy excludes suicide, so the man cannot do the deed conventionally.
He doesn't want to risk not dying in an auto "accident," nor will he gamble on them being unable to find his body in the local lake.
So he sends his family out for dinner and a movie and sets the perfect arson-free fire: loosens a gas line in the kitchen ever so slightly then waits for the house to slowly fill before he lights a celebratory candle.
The blast sends the man hurtling across the room, rendering him mercifully unconscious for the coming blaze.
Good guy fireman out walking his dog hears the blast, sees the flames, jumps into immediate action.
The house now alive in flame, the man regains consciousness due to the shouts of assistance from the fireman just outside his window.
Kicking, screaming, fighting for his death and his little girl's life, the man is nonetheless dragged from the burning house.
Saved.
Next day, the town goes nuts for the good guy fireman, eventually giving him a medal for valor and a parade.
The man does not attend.
Four months later, the family of three is standing beside the grave of the little girl.
Do you think the man appreciated the fireman's efforts?
15 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHClap clap clap! You should be an author! (Maybe you ARE??)
[b]Sorry, your fruit salad/apple analogy escapes me....
Fruit salad (typically) contains, among other fruits, apples.
We are not discussing an isolated aspect of morality; there's more here to consider.
...that such a fireman would be praised and even win some kind of medal.
Methinks thou dost assume too much.
Let's imagine another scenario with all of the same elements, with a minor tweak or ?[/b]
Two things: firstly, I never said the fireman would be praised under ALL circumstances! Clearly, there are MANY situations where this would not be the case.
Secondly, by pointing out a situation where the fireman was WRONG in saving somebody against their will, this in no way negates the many, many situations where it would be RIGHT!
Somehow you are still avoiding the question, which is very simple, and not at all a fruit salad. It is you and the others who have introduced the extraneous, misleading and totally irrelevant extras.
Let me (breathe deeply!) patiently point out again the following:
The thread started by pointing out the horrendous concept of everlasting punishment. THAT is the background. My thesis is that no normal human being would consider such punishment as fair and just. Why do we assign such inhuman malice to god?
The response (predictably!) of the Christian Superstars has been to point out that God will NEVER go against the Free Will which He gave us. We must make the final choice, and he respects that.
I countered with my fireman scenario. It should go without saying, but clearly doesn't, that a scenario is only that - a picture to make a point. It does NOT have to cover all eventualities!
So in this picture, a noble fireman saves somebody (a child, a relation, a total stranger, makes no difference,) but SOMEBODY WORTH SAVING, that's the point. Now , why should God do less than that?
The responses have been, on second thoughts, predictable.
" God is God and not a man, don't think you know what he will do!"
"God gave you free will. He won't go against it" - i.e. basically merely restating doctrine without additional comment on the scenario.
And so it goes. Some (like you now) comes with minuscule details, challenging the scenario.
Why isn't anybody prepared to seriously give consideration to the problem?
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by CalJustBeing one of the Christian Superstars Inner Circle™ as well as serving on the board of directors for the Secret Ring Decoders™ it would be irresponsible for me to keep the following information from you.
Clap clap clap! You should be an author! (Maybe you ARE??)
Two things: firstly, I never said the fireman would be praised under ALL circumstances! Clearly, there are MANY situations where this would not be the case.
Secondly, by pointing out a situation where the fireman was WRONG in saving somebody against their will, this in no way negates the many, ...[text shortened]... ing the scenario.
Why isn't anybody prepared to seriously give consideration to the problem?
So in this picture, a noble fireman saves somebody (a child, a relation, a total stranger, makes no difference,) but SOMEBODY WORTH SAVING, that's the point. Now , why should God do less than that?
God, the model upon which we base nobility, has already erased the curse and punishment of sin.
No one goes to hell for sin.
Everyone who has ever been born began this life with their name written in the Book of Lives.
Only those who rejected the gift have their names blotted out of the same.
In the case of the person in the fire (which, by the way, was a scenario originally offered by me, not you), the fire is allegorical to eminent danger, not hell.
In the scenario, rejecting the help results in death.
Eternal spiritual death is equated with an eternal fiery torment.
The burning house is threatening to extinguish the life of the person inside, thereby escorting him to that eternal state of spiritual death.
God (as the fireman) has already found a way to keep that person who is inside alive, but they must move from their current position to the position He is offering: from nonacceptance to acceptance of the gift.
I tweaked the scenario to show the contrasts between assumptions and perspectives from one view to another in order to underscore the importance of scale.
In the noble fireman scenario, he is admired for overriding the person who is clearly not thinking soberly and saving them.
In the Pulitzer Prize-worthy scenario I concocted, that same fireman is reviled by the sober-minded man he saved because it cost the man his daughter.
In real life, God speaks through firemen/Christians in order to compel sober-minded people to leave their positions of nonacceptance and simply accept the gift.
For whatever reason, some of those sober-minded people simply refuse to accept the gift.
No matter what those reasons are, the bottom-line is they are rejecting the gift.
You can't expect God to override their rejection and force them to accept it.
The concept of 'accept' requires willingness and therefore, will.
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by Great King RatIf we remove my six grandchildren from the premise, the answer is 'of course' I'd leap or wobble into action to attempt rescues from the house enveloped in flames. Proviso: if the children were in fact children and not accountable for their irrational decision to refuse help. Subjective premises result in closed loop arguments: too many qualifiers. Frosty beer?
You just can't bring yourself to answering this question, can you? Everyone who's been reading this thread - including you - understands why I and others would be asking you this question and yet you refuse to give an answer.
Why?
Because as long as you speak about unmeasurable, unprovable, unbelievable, unobtainable situations you can say whate ...[text shortened]... . I'd knock them unconcious if I had to.
* Doubt is good, theists! Remember that, all of you!
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by CalJust"In that event my options would be to just relax and be the puppet or wind-up toy that I would be under this scenario.
And your point is....?
Did I ANYWHERE in this or other threads question volition?
We ALL have free will - that is NOT the point of this thread. The question posed is that some Christians say that God will NEVER violate man's free will, whilst acknowledging that doing so on the human level is seen (under certain conditions) as a virtue.
With such an ...[text shortened]... icult issues, does it come as a surprise when Atheists on RHP heap such scorn on the Christians?
"Did I ANYWHERE in this or other threads question volition?"
In the quote above you said that you would be a puppet under this scenario. By that I assume you mean you would have no free will.
The scenario of a creator God who is sovereign over His creation and just in all His judgements is the reality you live in Cal.
It is your choice to believe or not.
15 Feb 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSimple question, Freaky, yes or no:
You can't expect God to override their rejection and force them to accept it.
The concept of 'accept' requires willingness and therefore, will.
Do you believe that anybody who has not accepted Christ as their Personal Saviour will be punished by God in hell for all eternity?