http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2629719&postcount=360
Town Heretic said:
No real sense in using an inferior place holder for the same essential and undivided notion, but I never said all men believe, only that they were their own bar to it, that disbelief is neither inevitable nor anything more or less than a fundamental choice. And all choices have a measure of reason in them.
Except beliefs are
not a choice. You can only 'choose' what actually convinces you. I cannot be convinced of Christianity or any specific religious belief until I am actually convinced that it is true (and in some cases, moral).
And if I plug my ears and sing loudly enough I will not know the song you're singing. But, again, God isn't hidden from men who refuse to avail themselves of the means by which He might be known.
This is laced with the assumption that God is actually able to be known. The method by which you propose to know God is for all intents and purposes identical to becoming fluent in Christian theology. You yourself have embraced it wholeheartedly but in doing so you mistake your devotion towards it to literally understanding God.
I'd imagine you would, given the implications.
The implications don't come into it. It is the fact that it smears the very character of all non-theists.
Rather you appear to have ignored two different addresses of the inappropriate use of the word here. I've given you an entirely coherent answer with an actual advancement of the why. I suppose I could have adopted your practice here instead and saved myself time.
Yes, you've given a justification for hell. It was however underwhelming and laced in hyperbole. It also smeared those it referred to by suggesting that those who go to hell somehow choose it, or rather gain it as a consequence of their actions and/or desire (whatever that may be). It did not address the very core point that such a hell in the face of an allegedly omniscient and omnibenevolent God need not exist in the very first place.
If you read my answer then you understand mercy would be an extension of the thing willfully rejected, and at that point would be unwanted.
No-one is rejecting mercy. Many atheists do not count themselves as anti-theist such as I and even amongst anti-theists the majority would only reject a specific rendition of God rather than all Gods.
Me said:
You're welcome to keep such a view.
Yes. So? I didn't like the ideal that you espoused as moral.
Or, you have a point you want out and my unconformity to the preset you had on hand isn't going to deter you.
I already queried whether you believed heaven involved utopian ideals. You didn't actually answer rather than complain that I didn't support it.
Well, no. It doesn't follow. It's a bit like you suggesting that the failure of particular, academic tests being offered in post graduate life invalidates the pursuit of advanced and particular understanding within an ivy encrusted confine.
Not quite. For you suggested that life was meaningless without trial. If you view heaven as nothing but absolute perfection then one might query whether or not it would have meaning to you.
You might as easily ask who on death row willfully put themselves in line for execution. The answer (assuming guilt) would be every man who put the selfish desire of his flesh above the right.
You're skirting the question. No-one removes themselves from contention. Not an atheist, scientologist or vehement anti-theist. Millions of non-religious people don't see the relevance of Christianity and live mundane lives in apathy towards it. Do you say that they have removed themselves from contention?
Rather, you're doing, as an anti-theist, precisely and inescapably that.
How so?
No. You understand it exists. You reject the application. And you are accountable for your actions.
I understand that there are people who
claim it exists. It does not mean that I understand the proposition itself actually exists.
No. You're judged by perfection or forgiven by it, but not for failing a standard you can't meet, as I've set out prior, but as you will not meet it. And even then there's the grace you ignore.
Can we meet perfection then?
And the "grace I ignore" is the literal equivalent of a supernatural pardon based on belief - something that you can't will upon yourself.
