Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 10:11 PM
396 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, jar, nwr, Riggamortis (5 members, 391 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,380 Year: 16,986/21,208 Month: 2,875/3,593 Week: 342/646 Day: 105/115 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Would you give up your place in heaven...
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 632 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 31 of 113 (456714)
02-19-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by I-am-created
02-19-2008 5:05 PM


I didn't miss the 'if'. I was merely stating that the question that was asked was unanswerable. If I was unclear, my point was that God would not give me (or anyone) the capability of sending people into heaven who have already rejected Him. God did not turn them away from heaven, they CHOSE to be separated from him.

So you're compeltely incapable of so much as contemplating the hypothetical?

The OP is pretty clear here - IF you COULD give up your place in Heaven for someone else, would you?

It's like a discussion about how Superman flies. It's all hypothetical, and you're like the idiot who chimes in to remind everyone that people can't really fly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 5:05 PM I-am-created has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 6:03 PM Rahvin has responded

  
I-am-created
Junior Member (Idle past 3326 days)
Posts: 12
From: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Joined: 02-10-2008


Message 32 of 113 (456719)
02-19-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Rahvin
02-19-2008 5:10 PM


I'm sorry, I thought that this forum was a place to share your ideas on Faith and Belief. That's what I was attempting to do. I was merely sharing my thoughts and beliefs on this discussion.

Oh, you might also want to check the 'Rules' link at the top of the page.

quote:
10. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

Perhaps this discussion could be better disputed if you were more concerned about what is being discussed rather than whether or not you think that I'm an idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Rahvin, posted 02-19-2008 5:10 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 02-19-2008 6:26 PM I-am-created has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 632 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 33 of 113 (456725)
02-19-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by I-am-created
02-19-2008 6:03 PM


I'm sorry, I thought that this forum was a place to share your ideas on Faith and Belief. That's what I was attempting to do. I was merely sharing my thoughts and beliefs on this discussion.

...which were compeltely off-topic, as would be bringing up the fact that people can't fly in a discussion about Superman. If you're not going to actually respond to the hypothetical in the OP, you're not on topic.

Oh, you might also want to check the 'Rules' link at the top of the page.

quote:
10. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

Perhaps this discussion could be better disputed if you were more concerned about what is being discussed rather than whether or not you think that I'm an idiot.

Perhaps you should read the rest of the rules concerning remaining on topic, leave the moderating to the Moderators, and understand the difference between saying that you are "like the idiot who reminds everyone people can't fly" and saying "you're an idiot."

Now, before this little spat takes up any further posts away from the actual topic...

I'm not a Christian, but assuming such a choice was presented to me, I'd very much like to say I'd give up my place for someone else...but I'm pretty sure I would not, and neither would almost anyone else. I can't even answer whether I would honestly risk my life for another person with any degree of certainty, let alone take eternal torture over eternal bliss. Again, I'd like to say I'd give up my spot, but come to face it, I doubt I'd have that much moral fortitude. And I'd doubt anyone else seriously would be able to answer in the affirmative, either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by I-am-created, posted 02-19-2008 6:03 PM I-am-created has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 34 of 113 (456766)
02-19-2008 11:23 PM


Let's say that these ten are some of the most selfless, moral, charitable people on earth

If somehow I made it past Gods firewall and was presented with this choice I would choose Hell if it meant that 10 others would gain access to Heaven. I find this to be a simple choice really; if there really is such a thing as Hell then God really is as petty as most portray Him to be.

I also have to think about how I would feel lounging in Heaving knowing that God damned the "most selfless, moral, charitable people" for eternal torture. Who is the ultimate evil in this story?


Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 6:24 AM Vacate has not yet responded

  
willietdog
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 113 (456778)
02-20-2008 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
01-30-2008 6:25 AM


Hell is simply an eternal place people go separated completely from God. An Atheist chooses to be separated from God. The separation from God is torture to the person after they realize what they have done.

So my answer, Hell No.

Edited by willietdog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 6:25 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9436
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 36 of 113 (474011)
07-04-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by iano
02-01-2008 12:10 PM


Re: Changed my mind?
Iano writes:

But what about my love for God? Is my love for God greater than my love for family?

Surely God would understand ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 02-01-2008 12:10 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9436
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 37 of 113 (474295)
07-07-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
01-30-2008 6:25 AM


Theoretical Hypotheticals
cavediver writes:

..if it meant that ten others destined for everlasting torment could be granted a place in heaven?

Let's say that these ten are some of the most selfless, moral, charitable people on earth - they just happened not to choose Jesus as their saviour. Perhaps they are atheists, hindus, devout muslims, whatever - they have all heard the Christian message and rejected it for one reason or another.

If God gave you the free choice, would you go to hell for these ten?

Thats quite a choice! I suppose that God would be testing me...but I don't see how my going to "Hell" would be a good example.

Theoretically and hypothetically, the answer is an obvious altruistic choice. Yes, any good person would take a bullet for the rescue of ten.

Practically, however, this question makes no sense. If these ten went to Heaven, would they suddenly have the opportunity to "meet" God? If so, could they still hypothetically reject Him and could they still stay and attend the party?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 6:25 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 9:07 AM Phat has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 38 of 113 (474385)
07-08-2008 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
01-30-2008 6:25 AM


i would not make any deal with such a unjust deity ..

anyone who is one of the most selfless, moral, charitable people on earth is clearly a good person in the real meaning of the word ... i would aline myself with them , if they would have me ...

not the maker of silly rules ...

if ten of the most selfless, moral, charitable people on earth considered and rejected the message .. then it is a failing of the message not the people ....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 6:25 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 5:17 AM ikabod has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 628 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 113 (474391)
07-08-2008 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ikabod
07-08-2008 3:22 AM


quote:
if ten of the most selfless, moral, charitable people on earth considered and rejected the message .. then it is a failing of the message not the people ....

Or Cavedivers estimation of what constitutes selflessness amd morality differs somewhat from Gods idea of same. If these people are in fact, lovers of evil and insist in their refusal to love the truth - then the message they shall not get. For the message itself is truth.

The message says (amongst other things) that you have evil in your heart and no matter how selflessly you act that evil cannot be got rid of. That no matter how morally you try to act you know the immorality that resides within you.

Sticking your head in the sand isn't the messages fault. And the message won't face the consequences of persisting in doing so to the bitter end

quote:
not the maker of silly rules ...

Those silly rules happen to be the very things that will assist in saving you (in the event that you are finally saved). Or they will be the thing that will condemn you - in that case.

Your conscience is your rule giver in anycase. Gods law delivered to your door. I'm sure it's not silly you consider it after breaking it's law. Guilt and shame are more likely companions.

If not, you have reason to fear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 3:22 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 5:56 AM iano has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 40 of 113 (474392)
07-08-2008 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
07-08-2008 5:17 AM


Or Cavedivers estimation of what constitutes selflessness amd morality differs somewhat from Gods idea of same. If these people are in fact, lovers of evil and insist in their refusal to love the truth - then the message they shall not get. For the message itself is truth.

and here is the issue .. either we have a agreed measure of what constitutes selflessness amd morality , i am avoiding the "absolute" word here .. or we can never know if what we are doing is "right" .. either we can be our own critic .. or its just a mean game with hidden rules .....

Now i very carefully stated the Ten had considered the message .. they looked and found the message wanting ..and yet they still followed the path of good deads .. clearly without any hope of reward ... where as if the HAD accepted the message then they would have foreseen a expectation of a reward .. thus lowering the degree of their selflessness .. so have they not done the greater more noble thing of doing what is right for no gain .. compared to a belive of the message .

are you saying its better to accept the message and be only a little selfless .. than to be supremely selfless and reject the message ?

****Sorry i think we may be getting off topic if so please ignore ******

Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 5:17 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 6:42 AM ikabod has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 628 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 41 of 113 (474394)
07-08-2008 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Vacate
02-19-2008 11:23 PM


quote:
if there really is such a thing as Hell then God really is as petty as most portray Him to be.

Suppose for a moment that conscience is actually Gods voice (or influence) in-our-head. These "moral and selfless people", when they are acting morally and selflessly, are actually empowered by the urge placed there by God. He itches, they scratch - and the credit for their goodness goes to God. When they are not acting morally and selflessly (for no one is perfect) they are only willfully suppressing and rejecting the voice of conscience that tells them that they ought to be doing otherwise. Sometimes their conscience might be screeching at them - yet they suppress it and ignore it in order to have their wicked will done. The credit for their evil goes to them.

If Hell is an existance without the presence of God it is safe to suppose that the person in Hell will have no conscience anymore. God will have totally left: lock, stock and barrel. All that will be left is a person whose heart is evil without the restraint of conscience. There will be no redeeming features that impart even the merest iota of that which makes humanity attractive. They will be totally ugly - like one of those despicable creatures featuring in Lord of the Rings or Narnia. They would be impossible to even pity them, so ugly will they be.

So much for pining away for loved ones who end up in Hell.

If Hell is a place where Gods love isn't and if Hell is a place a person only ends up in due to their hearts desire - then your objection must struggle. God granting a persons hearts desire cannot be described as a petty act. Respectful of the humanity he gave them (and whose final act of respect is, ironically, to take that humanity away again) - but not at all petty.

It's a very serious business this life. But then, we all know that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Vacate, posted 02-19-2008 11:23 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 628 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 42 of 113 (474395)
07-08-2008 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by ikabod
07-08-2008 5:56 AM


quote:
and here is the issue .. either we have a agreed measure of what constitutes selflessness amd morality , i am avoiding the "absolute" word here .. or we can never know if what we are doing is "right" .. either we can be our own critic .. or its just a mean game with hidden rules .....

The issue is whether the righteous acts of a person are attributable them - making them the most selfless people in the world. Or whether the credit for their righteous acts goes to God. Believers in the Biblical God attribute their righteous acts to Gods influence and give glory to him. Unbelievers attribute their own righteous acts to themselves.

quote:
Now i very carefully stated the Ten had considered the message .. they looked and found the message wanting ..and yet they still followed the path of good deads .. clearly without any hope of reward ... where as if they HAD accepted the message then they would have foreseen a expectation of a reward .. thus lowering the degree of their selflessness .. so have they not done the greater more noble thing of doing what is right for no gain .. compared to a belive of the message .

The selfless person carrying out righteous acts does so because of Gods call upon them urging them to do so. Their conscience pricks them into action. The conscience is Gods voice and empowerment and the credit is thus Gods. The persons reward is a salved conscience at the very least. And the satisfaction that comes from loving others perhaps.

The believer can do good acts motivated by the reward he will get (which the Bible tells him that he will not get, in that case) or out of a convicted heart similar to the heart of the selfless unbeliever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 5:56 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 9:05 AM iano has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 43 of 113 (474404)
07-08-2008 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by iano
07-08-2008 6:42 AM


ok we must agree to differ ..

to me any act that needs the promting of someone else is no a truly selfless act .... such "goodness" comes without thought , reasoning , hints , directions , instructions and without the clause

...for this act to have value you must agree to the rule that you are nothing without me above you ....

if you have to refer to a book to act in a "correct" way then you are defering to anothers values ...instead of coming to the right values yourself ...

Unbelievers attribute their own righteous acts to themselves.

not the selfless ones .... they attribute their righteous acts to the Need that those act are done ..... and for no other reason ..

At the risk of going way off topic ... what about all the people born before the message was given .. by your rules none of them could have avoided hell ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 6:42 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 12:32 PM ikabod has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 628 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 113 (474426)
07-08-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ikabod
07-08-2008 9:05 AM


quote:
to me any act that needs the prompting of someone else is no a truly selfless act

Which is why, perhaps, Jesus said that only God is good.

I'm not sure from which source you suppose godless-good-acts to otherwise come from though: upbringing, influence of society, genetics? Are you not still co-reliant on something/someone else for the good act. As I am?

-

quote:
if you have to refer to a book to act in a "correct" way then you are defering to anothers values ...instead of coming to the right values yourself

That I conclude there to be no improving on his values and that I chose to adhere to his values doesn't render me different than yourself. You arrive at and adhere to whatever values you arrive at and chose to adhere to - just like I do. At the end of the day, we lie in the bed we make for ourselves.

-

quote:
Unbelievers attribute their own righteous acts to themselves.

quote:
not the selfless ones .... they attribute their righteous acts to the Need that those act are done ..... and for no other reason.

The need where? The need that arises in them that those acts be done, I suggest. Seeing as there is no one beyond themselves (they suppose) the need can be only sourced within themselves. And so the righteous acts that follow are attributable only to that need arising in themselves. Attributable to themselves thus, making the act a self-righteous one.

-

quote:
At the risk of going way off topic ... what about all the people born before the message was given .. by your rules none of them could have avoided hell ...

Not so. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation - not just words on a page or the call of a street evangelist. Abraham was saved by the gospel of God - and he lived long before Christ and the good news concerning him.

You might be confusing me with people who say that you must hear and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ (as commonly communicated) in order to be saved. Their rule isn't my rule.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 9:05 AM ikabod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by rueh, posted 07-08-2008 12:43 PM iano has responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 45 of 113 (474431)
07-08-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by iano
07-08-2008 12:32 PM


quote:
The need where? The need that arises in them that those acts be done. Seeing as there is no one beyond them (they suppose) the need can be only sourced in themselves. And so the righteous act that follows is attributable only to that something arising in themselves. Attributed to themselves thus, making the act a self-righteous one.

I believe your supposition is way off here. The other people around them would be where the need is sourced from. They may suppose that there is no higher power but not that there is no one else other than themselves that may need assistance. The act would then be not one of self righteousness but of selflessness. Since they are acting for the benefit of others for the others good alone.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 12:32 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 07-08-2008 12:54 PM rueh has responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017