lol, unfortunately what seems succinct in my head does not always come out that way on "paper", and can just make the matter more confusing.

A lot of good responses here that I want to address, but have to crash. will post responses tomorrow.

np, I didn't take it negatively. I'll try to lay out my view better tomorrow and hopefully that will clear some stuff up.

Yes - I think it isnt a requirement that one seek forgiveness in order to get into heaven, I think everyone is forgiven regardless of what they've done.
I also think light is a condition of you seeing - this isnt where the semantic difference arises it's at the distinguishing between conditions and consequences.

Do you think 'being wet' is a condition of you 'going swimming'? (I think it's a consequence).
It's a requirement or condition the way you word it here - you seem to be saying that admission to heaven can only be unconditional if it's possible to get into heaven without adopting that state of mind. (?)

I think 'getting into heaven' means having a certain state of mind, it's not that you'll get in if you fulfill a certain moral dress code it's that getting in is a description of that code.

My original argument on conditions is that belief is a condition in order to ask for forgiveness. I think that still stands against the argument everyone has a chance to believe.


Yes thats what im saying. I need something i dont have.

Do you think 'being wet' is a condition of you 'going swimming'?

I think me needing a mental state i dont have and need to get is a condition or a requirement.

Yes I know.

Your question doesn't change that that i see.

I need something i dont have. I require a new mental state.

If you want to tell me why im wrong ill listen. But your question doesn't help.

It probably doesnt help you because you know the answer. Me? I'm in the dark.

Alright. But i dont know the answer and i could be wrong i just dont see it and was asking you to explain it without the question.

Yeah, I don't really get it either tbh

Scholars for dollars...

I'm not sure what we're talking about now. I'm not asking the question because I'm trying to explain something to you, I'm asking it because I don't know what your position is. I was referring back to my earlier post:

"Do you think "being wet" is a condition of "going swimming"? If so, I have no argument with you..."



I understand you think having light is a condition of seeing and I understand you think lacking a psychological state which you must obtain before getting into heaven is a condition - both of those involve a prior state of affairs which must obtain before the subsequent event can be said to occur. FWIW, I think both of them count as conditions (if 'getting into heaven' is taken to refer to some place you can either be inside or outside of).

I dont know if you would use the same terminology (ie 'condition' to label a state of affairs which occurs after the event (or simultaneously with it)) and so I tried to come up with an uncomplicated example of such a thing.

I maintain that this is the distinction between 'getting into heaven' as I understand it and the way you are using it. I don't think there is any necessary state of affairs (beyond being sentient) which must obtain in order for you to get into heaven. There is a consequence of being in heaven and there are a whole host of properties which anything in heaven has - the reason I think it's all basically semantic is that I dont think they count as 'conditions' because they were not prior requirements. I also dont think of heaven as a place you can either be in or out of. Consequently "God's love is unconditional" doesnt seem contradictory to me nor incompatible with annihilationism, but I am suspicious that we are meaning different things by 'unconditional' and 'getting into heaven'.

My swimming question was an attempt to clarify exactly where we disagree - it's not a very important disagreement if you think causal direction is irrelevant in speaking of conditionality - on that understanding of 'conditional' I agree with you.

I wish you would have read my last post first, where I explain why this is a fallacy, before repeating it. Fortunately Batair has done a pretty good job of reiterating my point with extra detail. I see no point in responding again, as I explained it all already, and this post, which simply rewords the fallacy, really doesn't refute what I said in any way.

We don't always get what we wish for. For example, I wish people would refute points instead of just claiming they already have.

bunny,

so you're saying, "you're free to swim, but you're going to get wet if you want to swim."

is the same as "you can come to heaven, but you're going to....what, exactly? believe in god? act in a way that gets you to heaven. want to go to heaven?

sorry if you've already made this clear...blame it on the booze imo.

You didn't introduce any new points to refute. All you did was reword and reiterate what Jib said. My post did refute the fallacy that Jib has been presenting. You were just too lazy to read it, and you even admitted as much, so I don't know what ****ing drugs you're on here in saying you did read it and that my post is refuted by yours somehow. Especially considering Batair has refuted you using my points.

Next time, if you have any decency, read the damn thread fully before you go bumbling about, reiterating already addressed points the responses of which you don't even realize were there. Thanks.

Getting into heaven afaik means moving form this existence to another and instead of being annihilated or tormented for eternity you get to exist with God. What i need to do be apart of that existence weather its a mental state i dont have but need, or belief i dont have but need, or asking for forgiveness, or rules i need to follow, are all requirements or conditions. The only way God could be unconditional to me is if he let all in as is with no butts. Even you saying being sentient is necessary i would call a requirement as some humans, like a newborn who is in coma and dies or is stillborn would not qualify.

As far as your question. Yes i would say getting wet is a condition of swimming. Thats why i said even if its logical i need a new mental state its still a condition.


I dont know we just dont communicate well together. I like ya but but your post confuse the hell out of me.

I haven't made this clear at all (although I could possibly flesh it out if necessary) - I didnt put that question forward as an anology for heaven as such. I'm trying to understand what batair means by conditional.

Broadly, I agree with batair and soontobepro - if God stands at the gates of heaven saying "Do you believe? Do you repent? Do you accept me? Do you want to come in?" and admitting only those who answer correctly then admittance to heaven is clearly conditional.

I don't think 'getting into heaven' is like this at all, so that's one source of disagreement (and one I think is basically semantics). However another possible point of difference which I'm trying to understand is what batair means by conditional. I think there is a causal relationship - I think conditions are always (causally if not temporally) prior to the events they qualify. I'm not 100% sure if that's what batair thinks - if he's using the word in a broader sense than that (where conditions can be subsequent or concurrent to the event in question) then the only point of difference stems from what getting into heaven actually means.

Yours too - but I find it valuable even so.

FWIW, taking conditional in the sense you're using it, I pretty much agree with what you've said here.

The remaining semantic difference I see is that I don't think heaven is a place or "another existence". I don't have many allies in that conception though.

I'm not going to put words in Jibs mouth but I think It's even worse than that. I don't think God even gives you that chance. He simply judges you based on if you believed, or repented, or had works or whatever when you were still alive, and then when you die, he either sends you to Heaven or annihilates you, right away. So It's even more conditional. I don't think you even get the chance to beg for forgiveness and have God laugh at you in Heaven before he sends you to Hell. He just immediately obliterates you when you die. Do you think that's compatible with unconditional love, Bunny?

I'll try to respond to the post you claimed refuted this:
Yes - he forgives any sins and will let you in. Some people choose not to take him up on the offer and he doesnt force them to.
On the free-choice-to-enter conception, he's giving people what they chose. You think it would be better to force them to go to heaven when they don't want to?
He does back it up with mercy - he gives you what you choose, no matter whether you deserve it or not. The value is that he could refuse people admission even if they wanted to enter - he doesnt do that.
If God changes his forgiveness or lack thereof based on repentance, belief or works it is clearly conditional. Your argument rests on the claim that he wouldnt annihilate people if he'd forgiven them. Seems odd since the premise is that that's what the people in question have asked him to do.
I presume you don't consider the original sin discussion to be refuting my post?

No - I think if heaven exists as some kind of afterlife, everyone gets in.

Well like i have said before its my fault. I be dumb. Pretend your talking to someone who slept through school and got passed and maybe it will help.

Nonsense on two counts:

1. There's no way you are dumb.
2. There's no way it's your fault. Not only am I overly wordy, I frequently write half a post, then return to it later using a slightly different perspective. It doesnt help that I sometimes 'postulate' what someone else meant then continue the thread defending my own (slightly different) account. This discussion being a good example - Jibninjas may endorse my first couple of posts, there's no way he's going to be nodding by the time he gets to my last few.