Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; Chronos
It is true that if one holds on to the torch one has consented to holding on. If the alternative to being holding on to what is forced on oneself is death and one chooses not to die, one is consenting, but under duress. By no stretch of the imagination can this be the "reception" of a "gift." That was the point of the illustration.

If a woman is raped does she consent? Does she receive a gift? She "receives" something (I won't be more specific) but do you call that a gift? Does she "consent"--only in the sense that she chooses not to suffer additional harm or death. But surely you would not call a "non-refusable" offer a "gift" even though you permit it to be placed in your hands rather than die.

Your point actually proves our pro-free-will argument. We do argue that even under duresss we remain free. We do not believe that God forces himself on us against our will. We do not believe that God rapes us or treats us like puppets on his strings. We believe that a tiny bit of consent is involved in in unjust tyrannous forcings of things up on people.

But that was not even the point at issue. We started with the Scripture that says God gives gifts, above all the gift of faith. I pointed out that a gift cannot be forced on someone, that a gift requires voluntary reception.

Now listen very, very carefully, dear Silvanicustos. My illustration of a burning torch claimed that if someone forces a burning torch into my hands, I am not receiving it (as a gift--because the question was whether a non-refusable offer is a gift). You point out that by holding on to it I "received" it. True but I received it not as a gift but as an imposition.

Here's what your crowingly wrote: "For someone who places such import on the meaning of words, I am surprised that you have completely blown it yet again. In your torch example, the answer is that of course you HAVE received it. You may not have received it willingly, but you nonetheless did, in fact, receive it."

You left out one little word, Custos of the Woods: "received it as a gift.

When you play the gotcha game you'd better be sure you have a strong hand before you smirkingly put your cards down face up.

1,333 posted on 01/13/2006 7:20:35 AM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1311 | View Replies ]


To: Dionysiusdecordealcis; HarleyD
Here's what your crowingly wrote: "For someone who places such import on the meaning of words, I am surprised that you have completely blown it yet again. In your torch example, the answer is that of course you HAVE received it. You may not have received it willingly, but you nonetheless did, in fact, receive it."

You left out one little word, Custos of the Woods: "received it as a gift. When you play the gotcha game you'd better be sure you have a strong hand before you smirkingly put your cards down face up.

I am very comfortable with my hand. I did not leave out the word "gift", you did. If you go back to your post in 1134 to Harley, you begin with insults, then you use the torch example. The immediately preceding paragraph speaks nothing about "gift" or gifting. You were explaining what you think "receive" means. You were illustrating your immediately preceding thought. The remainder of your post was, of course, simply more insults.

"Receiving" a thing has nothing to do with whether it was meant as a gift (Sam received injuries in the accident.). And, as I have elsewhere illustrated, the meaning of "gift" is not dependent on whether it was willingly accepted.

1,503 posted on 01/14/2006 4:03:42 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1333 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson