How many people would go for this if they could?

[Wicked Willow]

Evolution is the organism changing to meet the challenges and realities of his environment. Perception of God is found in most Homo Sapiens. Might this be because the Spiritual is part of his environment, and in his most highly developed mind, he has "become" to perceive and interact with it? As our primate ancestor reached for a real tool, the first man reached for the real heavens.

In a way, yes. It's got to do with two related abilities: the ability to structure and categorize information, and the ability to think in terms of abstractions and symbols.
Neither of these is *completely* unique to Man, yet no other species has reached our level of sophistication, and thus, never reached the point where they might write a symphony, design a steam engine, discuss morality, or conceive of and worship an abstract deity.

 

[Mobiosity]

But...but...but...You've said that those not in the Book cease to be. That, to me, indicates their existence is finite. How can a soul with a finite existence be tortured forever?

Their existence is finite, I was asking if you'd prefer infinite existence burning than finite existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Of course you choose. You are given the opportunity, repeatedly to accept His sacrifice for you.

I'm afraid I don't, any more than I have the opportunity to believe that Middle-earth is real, or that the Moon is made of green cheese. You may call this a "choice", but it strikes me as not a choice in any way suggesting deep conviction.

CS Lewis, one of the greatest Christian apologists started out as an atheist and in his attempt to prove it false, came to believe that it is true. The same can be said for Lee Strobel. There are many, many Christian apologists writing very readable books out there, when you choose not to read any of them, you are choosing total annihilation.

I am quite familiar with apologetics. I reject them as insufficiently persuasive for me to have honest belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[_JJM]

In a way, yes. It's got to do with two related abilities: the ability to structure and categorize information, and the ability to think in terms of abstractions and symbols.
Neither of these is *completely* unique to Man, yet no other species has reached our level of sophistication, and thus, never reached the point where they might write a symphony, design a steam engine, discuss morality, or conceive of and worship an abstract deity.

And perhaps if another species were to reach our level of sophistication, they might perceive the heavenly as well. Our evolution ever produces a heightened awareness, and into which, the reality of the heavens has come.

 

[Mobiosity]

I'm afraid I don't, any more than I have the opportunity to believe that Middle-earth is real, or that the Moon is made of green cheese. You may call this a "choice", but it strikes me as not a choice in any way suggesting deep conviction.



I am quite familiar with apologetics. I reject them as insufficiently persuasive for me to have honest belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Then you've made your choice.

 

[jpcedotal]

He told you this, personally?

No, that is what the Bible states. Jesus was not talking metaphorically when He begin explaining what the parable meant. He was being literal. Why explain a parable with metaphors? That just doesn't make any sense. It would be saying that Jesus didn't tell it to the disciples straight.

He did...exactly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then you've made your choice.

What specifically was the choice?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jpcedotal]

And you know this... how exactly?

See, there is a reason why the term "fundamentalism" has broadened in meaning, and is now being used to describe religious extremism in general, rather than just a specific self-styled Protestant denomination.

No, it is the way it is stated in the Bible. The Bible is not some vague group of writings with all these hidden meanings in it. God's Word was written so everyone who could read or listen to the Word being read could understand it.

We, as intellectuals, want to add all this extra to what is written. That is wrong. If Jesus explains a parable or whatever, then that is the only way it can be interpreted with no side notes. Who am I to say that though Jesus said this, He really really meant that.

That's how all these New Age denominations came about. They are a faith of interpretation..of intellect, not of our Lord...even Southern Baptists (which I am) to a certain degree.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ah, sorry. My meaning may have been unclear. When I say that I "reject" the apologetics that I've read as "insufficiently persuasive to have honest belief", I mean this in the very same way that I "reject" the idea that Middle-earth is real, or that the Moon is made of green cheese. This isn't really a choice on my part. The rejection is automatic. I have no choice, really, to believe that Middle-earth is fictional, or that the Moon isn't made from green cheese. The same thing is true of my reaction to apologetics.

I did make a choice in reading and pondering apologetics. That certainly was a choice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jpcedotal]

So... will there be any at the great white throne judgment who will NOT be thrown into the lake of fire? If not, why bother with going through the whole procedure of looking for them in the Book of the Lamb? Seems like a rather moot point, if you ask me. Empty ritual serving no purpose.
But then again, hell doesn't make any sense, either. It's not a deterrent, it's not a correctional facility, it's not even a protective measure to keep the virtuous save from the vile (for there are far less gruesome ways to achieve that, and besides, heaven isn't filled with the virtuous - it's filled with conveniently bailed out opportunists who were every inch as fallible as the ones who are toast).

Which brings me back to my initial sentiment: my slight horror at the thought that otherwise decent people would worship a deity they themselves pretty much describe as a monster, yet seemingly without noticing it.

You are confusing discipline with punishment.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Of course you choose. You are given the opportunity, repeatedly to accept His sacrifice for you. You, obviously, have the ability to read and yet you don't avail yourself of all the books written by those who start out to prove Christianity wrong and become convinced that God exists and Jesus, infact did die so that we could be saved.

What if I do read all of these books, and yet find them unconvincing, polemic, and at times downright dishonest? How do I "choose hell" if I simply find that the "Case for Christ" is a rather poor one, a lopsided, shoddily written and obviously biased affair?

Sorry, but no. I guess you'll continue to believe that I "choose hell", because it helps you to sleep at night - but honestly, I simply don't find Christianity any more convincing than a literalist reading of Egyptian mythology.

 

[jpcedotal]

... in the "lake of fire". That image certainly doesn't suggest a merciful coup de grace.

Alas, it's weird enough that people manage to read Revelation LITERALLY. There's hardly a text in the whole canon that is more obviously filled with all sorts of encoded symbols and metaphors than that one.

wrong again...It was written by a man who did not know exactly what he was seeing. He couldn't say nuclear bomb or helicopter, because he did not know what that was.

Sure there is a little symbolism, but the little that is there can be found in other parts of the Bible and so can the explanation of the symbolism. I don't sit it and pray and the answer is whispered to me (that's called being lazy)...it is already written down in His Word, I just gotta find it.

 

[_JJM]

What if I do read all of these books, and yet find them unconvincing, polemic, and at times downright dishonest? How do I "choose hell" if I simply find that the "Case for Christ" is a rather poor one, a lopsided, shoddily written and obviously biased affair?

Sorry, but no. I guess you'll continue to believe that I "choose hell", because it helps you to sleep at night - but honestly, I simply don't find Christianity any more convincing than a literalist reading of Egyptian mythology.

Do you believe in the Son of God?

 

[Wicked Willow]

No, it is the way it is stated in the Bible. The Bible is not some vague group of writings with all these hidden meanings in it. God's Word was written so everyone who could read or listen to the Word being read could understand it.

That is a rather naive and, I might add, pretty much disastrous assessment of the highly heterogeneous Biblical canon and its inherent complexities. To read the Bible as if it was a How-to-guide written in the early 2000s means to pretty much miss out on virtually everything contained therein.
It wasn't written for *everyone*. These texts were written for very specific audiences who lived in a very specific historical context, referencing very specific concepts that the man at the bus stop in 2010 might not necessarily be familiar with.

That's how all these New Age denominations came about. They are a faith of interpretation..of intellect, not of our Lord...even Southern Baptists (which I am) to a certain degree.

Southern Baptists? Weren't they the ones who seceded because they argued that the Bible supports slavery and condemns abolitionism?

 

[jpcedotal]

One can speculate anything, but evolution doesn't require such an explanation.

Belief in some sort of divine beings may be found in most human beings (in the present day), but that doesn't imply that most people literally perceive gods or goddesses as if through a sixth sense.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Everybody worships something, and that something is his/her god...whether is is money or science or even one's own intellect...it is still worship.

Worship, in itself is a God Given trait everyone has that no matter how tight you close your eyes and cover your ears....sorry atheists...you have it too.

It is that person's idol....

 

[jpcedotal]

That is a rather naive and, I might add, pretty much disastrous assessment of the highly heterogeneous Biblical canon and its inherent complexities. To read the Bible as if it was a How-to-guide written in the early 2000s means to pretty much miss out on virtually everything contained therein.
It wasn't written for *everyone*. These texts were written for very specific audiences who lived in a very specific historical context, referencing very specific concepts that the man at the bus stop in 2010 might not necessarily be familiar with.

It was written for every human being on the earth and it is a guide on how to live the way Christ lived and how God wants us to live. The morals in the Bible are just as true today as they were when they were written. God does not change, we as a people do.

Every problem I have ever had is discussed in the Bible and the moral or divine answer is given to what I should do or not do.


Southern Baptists? Weren't they the ones who seceded because they argued that the Bible supports slavery and condemns abolitionism?

Southern Baptists are a group of human beings...just like you and I. Have you ever made a mistake or believed a certain veiw was correct and found out it wasn't? Or have you always been right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everybody worships something, and that something is his/her god...whether is is money or science or even one's own intellect...it is still worship.

I don't agree. Worship strikes me as something more than simply valuing something -- even valuing something highly.

When Christians say that they worship God, I suspect they mean something much more than simply liking him or enjoying him, as one might like or enjoy having money.

It seems to me that you are watering down the concept or worship in order to apply it to everyone.


I'm puzzled, btw, at how your post is in any way a reply to the post of mine you were responding to.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mobiosity]

What if I do read all of these books, and yet find them unconvincing, polemic, and at times downright dishonest? How do I "choose hell" if I simply find that the "Case for Christ" is a rather poor one, a lopsided, shoddily written and obviously biased affair?

Sorry, but no. I guess you'll continue to believe that I "choose hell", because it helps you to sleep at night - but honestly, I simply don't find Christianity any more convincing than a literalist reading of Egyptian mythology.

Your future has no bearing on my sleep.

You disagreeing on this doesn't make it any more or less true.

 

[Mobiosity]

What specifically was the choice?


eudaimonia,

Mark

At the end, to cease existing. As you've already decided that is what is going to happen, it turns out, you're right.

 

[hikersong]

Of course you choose. You are given the opportunity, repeatedly to accept His sacrifice for you.

Nobody rejects "His sacrifice" for them. At the very most they reject a particular interpretation of something that may or may not have happened according to the books that were written. And even then, they don't do this repeatedly.

Having read your responses to others, I'm not sure which part of this you don't understand. It's a very clear and simple explanation. Repeating (in effect) "my version of events is the truth which is proven because some other people have been convinced by them too" till you are blue in the face doesn't make it true.

Do you believe a muslim who employs the same argument?

Having said that, it is refreshing to find that you (and it is you not God) are granting us heathen quickish annihilation rather than torture. Thanks. That's a big step in the right direction.