Unsurprisingly, no one here knows the answer to either of those questions.

Yes, whether or not you accept the significance of what you are doing.

So you have no concept of 'rejecting God' that differs from 'rejecting Christianity'? (I already noted that I understand the concept of rejecting Christianity...)

That depends. If you are asking for an answer that is without special revelation then it becomes slightly more difficult. One could say that one was rejecting God when one goes against their moral essence. There can be other answers but of course it gets more speculative.

But I don't see what the purpose is going down this road when the conversation was about the God of the bible (which of course I assume to be the one true God).

If one is to ask what it means to reject God one must have a context. So without a context your question really becomes meaningless. Since the question is meaningless, any subsequent answer to said question is meaningless.

If that is the case, why are we even having this conversation?

Ps. Also, I reject your use of Christianity. If we are going to even have a conversation in which we discuss the God of the bible, we really should just refer to "him" as "The God of the Bible". The term Christianity carries to much baggage and leaves to much open to interpretation. Although I doubt we will get that far anyway.

As best I can tell, it becomes impossible...e.g.:

This idea of 'going against one's moral essence' is just as empty as 'rejecting God.' How can we cash it out, how can we use it?

Yes, I'd be happy with an answer to the question: How you I tell if a particular person 'rejects the God of the Bible'?

You cut out half of what I said. I have given you a structure to know how to tell if one 'rejects the God of the bible', what is it that you don't understand?

If you don't want to talk about the God of the bible than then conversation becomes meaningless as we have no context.

But that's a different issue from "what does in mean to reject God" as a general proposition. I've said many times I can't judge whether a particular individual has rejected God. I didn't even claim that Sartre had committed a final rejection, just that it had that appearance. But the reality depends on the individual's motives and intents, which only that individual and God really know.

Again, I know how to tell if K. 'rejects Christianity.' If she lives in a society with no Christian presence, of course she doesn't reject it. If Christianity is present in her society, either she organizes her identity to mirror other Christians; or she rejects that identity.

Are you saying that this test also determines if K. 'rejects the God of the Bible'?

Why? Didn't you just say that 'God' = 'God of the Bible'? Why do we need the extra words?

So is this fair: "Unless K. says that she simultaneously (1) believes a more-or-less anthropomorphic God exists and (2) rejects the authority of this deity; then NotReady has no idea if K. rejects God"?

Is that because there is no rational answer? Or just that people here don't know it. What is your opinion of this?

What does "christian presence" have to do with anything? Forget "other Christians", that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. How someone else acts has no bearing on whether or not Person A rejects anything (other than that person of course).

I have said repeatedly now what it means to reject the God of the bible. The bible says to do X, and Person A does -X. What is it that you don't get? Why on earth are you talking about other people? No one here is talking about other people, which means it is inconsequential whether or not "christianity" is present in person A's society.



Because apparently it was too confusing for you.

Ah, my bad. You do agree with me that the phrase 'reject God' has no inherent meaning. (This differs from NotReady and---apologies!---I think I conflated your posts.)

Ok. Let's get down to brass tacks, substituting Matthew 5:48 for 'do X' in your test: "The Bible says to be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect; and Person A is imperfect."

Person A rejects God, yes?

I am reasonably certain there is no way aside from God's revelation to answer your questions. This does not necessarily mean they don't have answers in theory, just no practical way to address them with a realistic expectation of arriving at (verifiably) correct answers. Also, I still don't get why anyone would be expected to have answers to these questions.

Because the answer may be that it plain doesn't make sense for a being so lofty to care about being worshipped to such an extreme. And THAT should put in question whether in fact, such a being would actually care that much, or maybe there are other reasons such rules are put in there. As I believe Martin Luther said to the German Princes (paraphrasing) if you control people's souls, you control them (according to my university prof, don't have a quote handy).

I already tried explaining the subjective explanation. Giving glory and praise to God is good for people. It has a very beneficial affect on people to experience gratitude in whatever form it takes.

The objective reasons for why God expects glory: I don't really know but I suspect its for our own good because many things work in a cycle (circle) with God.

Let's accept the above as true. Let's accept that giving glory to God could result in optimal benefit for humanity. That still does not answer why God would so terribly punish humans who behaved less than optimally. That is the focus of my discussion here, not on whether it is good to worship God (which is a whole other discussion).

Well I'm divided on that. I'm sure God is good. That's why the ancient Greeks traded in their old Greek gods because they were convinced of the superior nature of the God of the Bible.

I used to think hell was eternal from a literal reading but I personally don't worry about it since that's a form of negative thinking.

But recently it occurred to me that God's will is unthwartable. If he's determined to save you it is within the bounds of possibility that he might.

But what benefit does it do the world for a lot of people to cop out and not do their best while in this world?

Thinking you're not being held accountable in this world would probably be more negligent on a greater scale than the small percent of people who are angry over hell.

I'm currently like the theologian/genius Barth: on hell I can neither confirm nor deny.

Hmmm, I would be surprised if that is what NR is saying. Assuming that we are agreeing that without context/reference that the phrase 'reject God' is meaningless.

No.

Where did I go wrong?

You know full well where you "went wrong". You know that the bible does not teach that perfection is attainable on earth, nor is one expected to be perfect. Strive for perfection, yes. Actually attain perfection, no.

I am sure that you read that verse in context, and I am sure that you understand what the writer was trying to get across. But you "play dumb" instead.

Please explain in more words, then, how I am to use your criteria here:

Give an example of what I'm allowed to substitute for X without you accusing me of being willfully stupid.

How about:

"Rejecting God = Forming a view as to what the bible advocates in a given situation and not following that course of action."

In terms of how you, the third person, judge whether the view the rejector has taken is correct - it will depend on your own interpretation of what the bible advocates. (On this account you think someone who isnt perfect has rejected God and Jibninjas disagrees with you. The two of you may also disagree about whether someone is behaving in a just fashion, rationally, sensibly, etcetera. "Has he rejected God?" is as difficult to answer as "Did he do the right thing in that difficult situation?" can be - being difficult doesnt mean it's meaningless though).

That seems very usable. For example, I can deduce that I don't reject God, because I have no view on what is actually being advocated in Iron Age contemplative literature like the NT. (Except in cases that are not at all unique to Iron Age contemplative literature. E.g. that aiding orphans is deeply honorable.)

I don't know if either Jibninjas or NotReady will accept it. NotReady seems to feel that one may reject God without knowing any Scripture---or even the concept 'God', for that matter. So clearly he won't be pleased.

Jibninjas, on the other hand, wants to use a correct(!) Biblical interpretation as his point of departure. So I don't know if he can handle that much subjectivity.

If I object to this, it's only because we perhaps disagree on the meaning of the word 'meaningless'; so w/e.

According to the Bible, knowledge of the Bible isn't necessary in order to reject God:

Romans 1:

But you already knew that, didn't you?

No, I've gone my whole life without reading Romans 1.

Didn't you usta be a Christian?