Gyroscopic Investing

Maddy wrote:Can anyone pinpoint the origins of the concept of eternal damnation?

I can tell you where it didn't come from and that's the Hebrew Bible which is very interesting. God told Adam in the day he ate the fruit of the tree he would surely die but he never said he would surely go to a place of eternal torment. Some fundamentalist Christians like to think that it was implied but it's really not justified by the text. You have to read a lot into it which I guess you can do if you are so inclined.

In the meantime between the end of the Hebrew Bible and the beginning of Jesus' ministry it seems to have become such a well known concept that he doesn't even have to explain what he is talking about.

So where it came from between the two testaments is an interesting question. I have read that it was borrowed from Zoroastrianism but I'm not sure that this has been nailed down. I looked for a book on the subject a while ago and couldn't find anything at the time but if I decide to look again and find something I'll let you know.

Well, just suppose that when Jesus talked about salvation, he wasn't referring to being saved from eternal damnation, but rather to being saved from the bondage of spiritual ignorance.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:16-21 ESV)

"22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ " (Luke 16:22-24 ESV)

Focus on the first pericope (comfort and hope) and you will not have to worry about the second (torment). God is a God of mercy (first pericope) for those who believe and justice (second pericope) who gives unbelievers exactly what they want and deserve. I think I'll go with the first since it was written by one who saw Jesus crucified and then saw him again after he rose from the dead. But, if anyone sees it differently and can prove there was no resurrection, I'll listen to the case. If the resurrection is ever proven to be untrue there is little reason for Christianity. My opinion (and several billion others).

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Taking your statement literally that you were addressing Jesus: Jesus will always be pursuing you and wants you to come out of the darkness which is repleat with pain, suffering, and sadness and the second death.

Well that's funny because I just had a talk with ARAWOTYA and he said the same thing about you.

Mountaineer wrote: But, if anyone sees it differently and can prove there was no resurrection, I'll listen to the case. If the resurrection is ever proven to be untrue there is little reason for Christianity. My opinion (and several billion others).

... Mountaineer

Well that's a case you'll never have to listen to. It would be no more possible to prove that the resurrection didn't happen than that ARAWOTYA didn't let one of his hairs down to earth for the WAPIYA girls to climb. I'm surprised you would even suggest that anyone try to make that case.

And as for the several billion believers, I can't think of anything right off the bat but I'm sure there are quite a few things that several billion people believe that aren't true so that proves nothing.

This episode discusses the topics of truth, stubbornness, ears to hear, false gods that are a burden to carry, and true God that carrys and comforts us. A good use of 30 minutes.

... Mountaineer

The Gospel According to St. Isaiah Chapter 46 Part 1): http://redeemertheologicalacademy.org/2 ... 46-part-1/

In this lecture we begin our discussion on chapter 46. We talk about the True God who carries His people and the false gods that will be carried away by the Persians.

Mountaineer wrote:This episode discusses the topics of truth, stubbornness, ears to hear, false gods that are a burden to carry, and true God that carrys and comforts us. A good use of 30 minutes.

... Mountaineer

The Gospel According to St. Isaiah Chapter 46 Part 1): http://redeemertheologicalacademy.org/2 ... 46-part-1/

In this lecture we begin our discussion on chapter 46. We talk about the True God who carries His people and the false gods that will be carried away by the Persians.

That's really interesting because I once took some classes at The Redeemer Theological Academy. I don't think it was the same one however.

I'm still sticking with ARAWOTYA. Except for letting a strand of his hair down to collect the WAPIYA girls, he went away and left us alone never to be heard from again. Which makes him a much better candidate for the one true god than Jehovah/Yahweh who sticks around to kill and torment people who don't worship him properly.

curlew,

I'm going to stop replying to you directly for a while so anything I post is not meant for you. You seem so very angry and bitter toward God, and toward me. I don't want to make it worse for you than it already is. You are tormented way beyond what most people go through, according to the tone of your posts. I'm sorry for whatever the raw deal was you perceive was the result of God abandoning you.

My very best wishes and peace for you. I hope you can find some comfort in whatever it is you believe.

... Mountaineer

Maddy wrote:Can anyone pinpoint the origins of the concept of eternal damnation?

Catholic Church. Early 1000's. At least for Purgatory. I don't know anything about the meme popping up between the Old and New. The Messianic stories were all over the Roman Empire from many, many different doomsday cults, but I don't recall that eternal damnation was a huge part of it. Probably since it would be the fanatical carrot on the hook to get people to believe.

Was there anything similar under the previous Greek gods?

Mountaineer wrote:Focus on the first pericope (comfort and hope) and you will not have to worry about the second (torment). God is a God of mercy (first pericope) for those who believe and justice (second pericope) who gives unbelievers exactly what they want and deserve. I think I'll go with the first since it was written by one who saw Jesus crucified and then saw him again after he rose from the dead. But, if anyone sees it differently and can prove there was no resurrection, I'll listen to the case. If the resurrection is ever proven to be untrue there is little reason for Christianity. My opinion (and several billion others).

Stupidity is infinite and knows no limit so the number of believers in a meme isn't proof of anything factual, so if one use that as belief justification then they're just a victim of yet another cognitive bias. But seriously, you're asking the equivalent of proving a negative. You have no proof the Resurrection literally happened other than scribbles written down tens of decades after the alleged event. How do you rule out historical revisionism? Embellishment? Fabrication? As I said before, the alleged miracles don't meet even the basic standards of critical thinking and what we've come to view as evidence nowadays. If you have a belief in Christianity, then you decided the lack of evidence was irrelevant or what you perceived as evidence was not in fact so (correlation or coincidence is not causation), but choose to believe otherwise anyway. I've noticed you've recently downplayed the alleged testimonies as proof whereas you used to claim they were.

Don't feel singled out. I would use the exact same arguments against any other True Believer in anything. Just being a True Believer as a noun implies reason has flown out the window.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:Focus on the first pericope (comfort and hope) and you will not have to worry about the second (torment). God is a God of mercy (first pericope) for those who believe and justice (second pericope) who gives unbelievers exactly what they want and deserve. I think I'll go with the first since it was written by one who saw Jesus crucified and then saw him again after he rose from the dead. But, if anyone sees it differently and can prove there was no resurrection, I'll listen to the case. If the resurrection is ever proven to be untrue there is little reason for Christianity. My opinion (and several billion others).

Stupidity is infinite and knows no limit so the number of believers in a meme isn't proof of anything factual, so if one use that as belief justification then they're just a victim of yet another cognitive bias. But seriously, you're asking the equivalent of proving a negative. You have no proof the Resurrection literally happened other than scribbles written down tens of decades after the alleged event. How do you rule out historical revisionism? Embellishment? Fabrication? As I said before, the alleged miracles don't meet even the basic standards of critical thinking and what we've come to view as evidence nowadays. If you have a belief in Christianity, then you decided the lack of evidence was irrelevant or what you perceived as evidence was not in fact so (correlation or coincidence is not causation), but choose to believe otherwise anyway. I've noticed you've recently downplayed the alleged testimonies as proof whereas you used to claim they were.

Don't feel singled out. I would use the exact same arguments against any other True Believer in anything. Just being a True Believer as a noun implies reason has flown out the window.

MG, I may be wrong (I did not go back through hundreds of posts of mine) but I do not believe I ever said anything about proof (assuming I understand what you mean by the word testimonies). I believe I used the word evidence (think court use of the word). I also have commented quite a few times (again, if I remember correctly) that I very much support the use of reason as a means to gain knowledge and turn that knowledge into understanding. Reason is a wonderful gift from God. Where we may differ is that I believe there are at least three means by which we humans gain knowledge: experience, reason/cognitive, and revelation. You apparently discount revelation as a means. That is fine, I know many people who believe as you; I just happen to think it is limiting what is possible in the realm of understanding the visible and invisible. Actually, I would say that you do believe in revelation, even if you don't think so; it takes far more faith (belief in some type of revealed knowledge) to have faith one's self as the source of truth than it does to have faith in the promises of God - obviously my opinion only. YMMV. Your post was a good diversion though from the Scriptures I referenced. My compliments.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:MG, I may be wrong (I did not go back through hundreds of posts of mine) but I do not believe I ever said anything about proof (assuming I understand what you mean by the word testimonies). I believe I used the word evidence (think court use of the word). I also have commented quite a few times (again, if I remember correctly) that I very much support the use of reason as a means to gain knowledge and turn that knowledge into understanding. Reason is a wonderful gift from God. Where we may differ is that I believe there are at least three means by which we humans gain knowledge: experience, reason/cognitive, and revelation. You apparently discount revelation as a means. That is fine, I know many people who believe as you; I just happen to think it is limiting what is possible in the realm of understanding the visible and invisible. Actually, I would say that you do believe in revelation, even if you don't think so; it takes far more faith (belief in some type of revealed knowledge) to have faith one's self as the source of truth than it does to have faith in the promises of God - obviously my opinion only. YMMV. Your post was a good diversion though from the Scriptures I referenced. My compliments.

I don't remember exactly what you said either but it was definitely a notable downgrade in terms of quality of evidence.

Anyway, revelation? Do you mean divine revelation or merely revelation of non-lamestream or occult knowledge? How would one determine revelation apart from reason? Any revelating would have to be taken in and processed before it could be determined to be a revelation or not, which implies the use of reason.

The Bible is not revelatory to me and I perceive no "promises of God" (which is an oxymoron, but that's another subject). Why is it to you? Why did it used to be but isn't any longer for curlew?

I really don't feel that having an intense emotional moment over "Jesus's" allegededly gruesome crucifixion is a revelation. That's shock and awe emotionalism at best. Same for the alleged resurrection. This isn't denial, it's critical thinking. Why should this particular story matter any more than the thousands of other religious stories? There's nothing that stands out to indicate it is a revelation to me.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:MG, I may be wrong (I did not go back through hundreds of posts of mine) but I do not believe I ever said anything about proof (assuming I understand what you mean by the word testimonies). I believe I used the word evidence (think court use of the word). I also have commented quite a few times (again, if I remember correctly) that I very much support the use of reason as a means to gain knowledge and turn that knowledge into understanding. Reason is a wonderful gift from God. Where we may differ is that I believe there are at least three means by which we humans gain knowledge: experience, reason/cognitive, and revelation. You apparently discount revelation as a means. That is fine, I know many people who believe as you; I just happen to think it is limiting what is possible in the realm of understanding the visible and invisible. Actually, I would say that you do believe in revelation, even if you don't think so; it takes far more faith (belief in some type of revealed knowledge) to have faith one's self as the source of truth than it does to have faith in the promises of God - obviously my opinion only. YMMV. Your post was a good diversion though from the Scriptures I referenced. My compliments.

I don't remember exactly what you said either but it was definitely a notable downgrade in terms of quality of evidence.

Anyway, revelation? Do you mean divine revelation or merely revelation of non-lamestream or occult knowledge? How would one determine revelation apart from reason? Any revelating would have to be taken in and processed before it could be determined to be a revelation or not, which implies the use of reason.

The Bible is not revelatory to me and I perceive no "promises of God" (which is an oxymoron, but that's another subject). Why is it to you? Why did it used to be but isn't any longer for curlew?

I really don't feel that having an intense emotional moment over "Jesus's" allegededly gruesome crucifixion is a revelation. That's shock and awe emotionalism at best. Same for the alleged resurrection. This isn't denial, it's critical thinking. Why should this particular story matter any more than the thousands of other religious stories? There's nothing that stands out to indicate it is a revelation to me.

Why is it for me? I have several answers to that question, some science based and some faith based. Also, none are emotion based - no magical moment of "conversion", no enthusiastic happy clappy Joel Osteen grinning prosperity Gospel moments. My answers: 1. When I look at the world around me, when I read history, when I see how people behave, I come to the conclusion (via reason, gulp ) that the Christian worldview fits the observations better than any of the other religions I've studied, including the religions of agnosticism and atheism. 2. Because God gave me the gift of faith. 3. Because I have extensively studied Christianity trying to determine if there are flaws - there are not. Everytime I think I have found an error, upon futher study I have found I was wrong. 4. Because I routinely go to hear the Word is proclaimed and receive the ongoing gifts of Jesus himself. 5. Because I am Baptized. 6. Because I believe the resurrection really happened. The majority of the Gospels and Epistles were written between 50 and 60 AD and widely circulated; as you know, Christ was crucified about 33 AD. There would have been far too many opportunities for people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection, especially the Romans and the Jewish leaders, to have disputed the writings if they were untrue. 7. Because Jesus can be identified in time and place - he is real. 8. Because events and places in both the OT and NT have been identified - archeology is still finding them, even those once thought to be fiction. 9. Because it would be really, really unusual for so many people to have been martyred for a myth. 10. Because I understand I'm a creature and not the Creator of everything, and the thought of living eternally in the Creator's presence with a perfect body, mind and spirit with no worries, pain, or troubles is just slightly appealing.

Why did it used to be for curlew but isn't any longer? I have asked him that a couple of times and do not remember him ever answering; thus, I have no idea, that is a question for him to answer. For a generic answer, I'd say it is important to routinely go to where the Word is proclaimed faithfully and the Sacraments delivered rightly (the means of Grace) in order to maintain Spiritual health. Just like it is important to eat foods and drink fluids if one wishes to maintain physical health. I also would say for a generic answer, there are many flavors of so called Christianity out there (mostly centered on highly judgemental behaviors) that frequently cause one to give up in despair when you realize you can't do all that stuff, or become disillusioned with pride (thinking you know it all and all the other stupid people don't). The concept of Grace is counter to almost everything we are taught - we are ingrained from birth to believe we have to do something to be rewarded. It is humbling to believe there is absolutely nothing we can do to "get" Grace, it is freely given with no strings attached. Why do some people refuse gifts? A puzzling question indeed.

... Mountaineer

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:... none are emotion based - no magical moment of "conversion", no enthusiastic happy clappy Joel Osteen grinning prosperity Gospel moments.

Why do you mock Joel Osteen's method of celebrating his faith? I'm sure he thinks that he is doing God's work.

I'm not at all convinced of that. "happy clappy" can be a method of celebrating faith, maybe. But when you preach the prosperity gospel, never mention Christ, and trick people into giving you all their money, then I'm pretty skeptical.

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:... none are emotion based - no magical moment of "conversion", no enthusiastic happy clappy Joel Osteen grinning prosperity Gospel moments.

Why do you mock Joel Osteen's method of celebrating his faith? I'm sure he thinks that he is doing God's work.

Please forgive me if my comments came across as mockery. Quite the opposite - I think Osteen is a false prophet who is leading many to unbelief and I think there is an obligation to confront teaching that twists God's Word. That is what I believe, and what many theologians (well trained and not self-proclaimed pastors as in the case of Osteen) in my tradition also publicly state. My view of Osteen's twisted truth is based upon what is stated in the Holy Scriptures. I suspect Osteen does think his method of celebrating (his faith?) is quite the lucrative cash cow. However, ultimately it matters little what Osteen, or I, or the well trained theologians think; it is only the Word of God that is important. Of course, that is a very unpopular viewpoint in our post modern world where anything goes if it is right for you and there are no absolutes.

You might have interest in listening to some episodes by Pastor Chris Roseborough where he dissects false teachings and twisting the Word. Some advice, listen to the content, not the style of delivery.

http://www.piratechristian.com/search?q ... 6f2d24335c

Mountaineer wrote:Quite the opposite - I think Osteen is a false prophet who is leading many to unbelief and I think there is an obligation to confront teaching that twists God's Word.

Wow, televangelists are still around? Time to pull another song out of the treasure chest:

MAKE ME LAUGH

Spread the word
Through me God is heard
You're making me laugh
Tell me your killin' joke
Evangelist
You're making me laugh
Jesus saves
But only after I've been paid
You're making me laugh
Tell me your killin' joke
Evangelist
End your hoax

God says have a T.V. show
God says baby do some blow
God says taxes are a sin
God says pour the money in

Rape the poor, faith no more
Faith for cash, make me laugh
Faith no more, face the whore
Rape your past, make me laugh

Never, never, ever sin
Unless God says to stick it in
You're making me laugh
Tell me your killin' joke
Evangelist
The truth can choke
Defrocked from your seat
Don't shit where you eat
You're making me laugh
Tell me your killin' joke
That God talks to you
There's no hope

God says have a T.V. show
God says baby do some blow
God says taxes are a sin
God says pour the money in

Rape the poor, faith no more
Faith for cash, make me laugh
Faith no more, face the whore
Rape your past, make me laugh

God says have a swimming pool
God say keep the doghouse cool
God says planes and boats and cars
God says have an amusement park
God says go and masturbate
God says file taxes late
God says paint your face all sick
God says be a real prick
God says have a T.V. show
God says baby do some blow
God says taxes are a sin
God says pour the money in

Mountaineer wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: The Bible is not revelatory to me and I perceive no "promises of God" (which is an oxymoron, but that's another subject). Why is it to you? Why did it used to be but isn't any longer for curlew?

Why did it used to be for curlew but isn't any longer? I have asked him that a couple of times and do not remember him ever answering; thus, I have no idea, that is a question for him to answer.
... Mountaineer

Despite Mountaineer's ad-hominen attacks (he doesn't see them that way but I take them as personal insults) I can provide mountains of evidence for why the Bible is NOT a divine revelation. I didn't just reject Christianity because I was mad and bitter at God as he likes to accuse me. I actually think about these things.

On a rainy day here in Florida I was actually working on a blog post about the resurrection and why the Bible does NOT contain evidence that demands a verdict, as one famous apologist likes to say. If the weather doesn't clear so I can go fishing and enjoy my recent retirement despite the darkness and torment that Mountaineer thinks I live in, I will share it when I get done.

"Apeirophobia: The Fear of Eternity ... Which is scarier, death or everlasting life?".

From The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch ... d5b8485289

This is a seriously witten article, another phobia of serious concern to many, one that affects faith.

Edit to add:

The psychologist Soren Kierkegaard identified that disorder in the 19th Century.

"One can similarly prove the eternal in a man from the fact that despair cannot consume his self, that this is precisely the torment of contradiction in despair. If there were nothing eternal in a man, he would simply be unable to despair. But if despair were able to consume his self, then it couldn’t really have been despair in the first place."

interactive processing wrote:"The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide.”

it all seems to be so fear based.. you fear death and non existence so you believe in eternity, then you can't wrap your mind around that, and that gives you phobic anxiety .... and all of it is firmly in the unknown.. nobody knows what happens when you die (you only know what you believe happens) nobody knows you are eternal (except for the dead and they aren't telling) and none of it matters.. we will all find out when we get there.. and not until then...

it seems suggestive to me that the examples of the phobia used are children, fears caused by a young and undeveloped minds inability to separate out, the known, the unknown, and the unknowable.. more than a little similarity to religion...

When I was young and found myself forced to deal with my own immortality on a series of occasions I reasoned that there were three general possibilities. 1.) There is a continuance of your life in some non-punitive form, either heaven, re-incarnation, whatever. 2.) You simply cease to exist. or 3.) You go to a place of eternal punishment.

Number 2 and 3 caused me considerable fear but eventually you reason it out and number 2 ceases to cause any fear. You go to sleep every night and essentially cease to exist for a while. What is the point in fearing that?

So that left number 3 which leads to the subject of religion where the idea came from in the first place (aka church). Is there really an angry deity awaiting to send you to a place of eternal torment because of what an ancient ancestor did and because you did not choose the right religion to escape from this destiny? If you spend enough time thinking about it and all the logical absurdities you finally realize it isn't even worth considering and then religion loses all its power over you.

curlew wrote:So that left number 3 which leads to the subject of religion where the idea came from in the first place (aka church). Is there really an angry deity awaiting to send you to a place of eternal torment because of what an ancient ancestor did and because you did not choose the right religion to escape from this destiny? If you spend enough time thinking about it and all the logical absurdities you finally realize it isn't even worth considering and then religion loses all its power over you.

+1

Fear of death isn't merely psychological. All of the conscious sub-organisms that compose the body appear to fear it and will literally fight to the death to forstall it. It's part of the evolutionary imperative.

There shouldn’t be too many atheists who fear of eternity, since they reject the idea of an afterlife, Wiener says.

This is wrong, of course.

The recent comments, including those in the original article, are interesting. It seems people in general are somewhat more motivated to escape something (fear of whatever) than moving toward something that is appealing (like or love of whatever). Humans are indeed fascinating. Perhaps that is why I've had a difficult time relating to some of the comments about burning in everlasting flames, a wrathful God, etc. I fully agree that God is a God of justice and will give unbelievers exactly what they want, but for me at least, the reason I'm a Christian has far more to do with it being a better way, a more appealing way, in this life and beyond, than anything else I can imagine. God is primarily a God of mercy for those who believe His promises. The examples are plentiful from my perspective:
Don't want STDs? Choose wisely, marry for life and stay faithful. Try traditional, confessional Christianity *.
Don't want to worry about death? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Don't want to worry about suffering? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Wonder about where we came from? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Wonder about where we are going? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Don't want to go to jail? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Want good relationships with your neighbors? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Want to be satisfied with what you have? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Tired of feeling like you are on a treadmill? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Is work boring, unfullfilling? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Etc.
(* Traditional, confessional, Christianity = believing the promises of Jesus as spoken by and recorded in the inspired, inerrant Word of God)
And, if if it turns out I'm wrong about traditional, confessional, Christianity, it is a heck of a good ride to lights out time.

You ever watch The Rapture, Mountaineer? I think you'll enjoy it and it'll make you think. It's one of my defining "wide awake" movies.

Desert wrote:Have any of you guys seen "Thief in the Night?" I bet Curlew has. That was the original. It's terrible.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070795/

Terrible enough to span a trilogy via Part II (A Distant Thunder) and Part III (Image of the Beast)! I've gotta check this crack out. "It's so bad, its good!"

EDIT: Had no luck finding it streamed and library only had Part II (I even checked VHS!). Here's a 4-movie Prophecy Pack: https://www.amazon.com/Includinh-Distan ... 00H8YH7FW/
However, it sounds like the VHS to DVD transfer was bad. I still have a VHS player ready just for ocassions such as this! (The last VCR player ever made was manufactured and sold this year. That's it folks, officially vintage material now: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/07/ ... tion-ends/ )

MachineGhost wrote:You ever watch The Rapture, Mountaineer? I think you'll enjoy it and it'll make you think. It's one of my defining "wide awake" movies.

Wow, with David Duchovny no less, prior to his X-Files work (I really liked the X-Files). Don't think I've ever seen The Rapture - I'll have to see if it's on YouTube. I did see a couple of the Left Behind movies which had the rapture thing going full force ... shall we say that rapture version of theology isn't exactly my cup of tea. The Left Behind movies were kind of funny excitement porn but very cheesy in the same way Friday the 13th was funny/scary/cheesy with Kevin Bacon before his 7 degrees.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:The recent comments, including those in the original article, are interesting. It seems people in general are somewhat more motivated to escape something (fear of whatever) than moving toward something that is appealing (like or love of whatever). Humans are indeed fascinating. Perhaps that is why I've had a difficult time relating to some of the comments about burning in everlasting flames, a wrathful God, etc. I fully agree that God is a God of justice and will give unbelievers exactly what they want, but for me at least, the reason I'm a Christian has far more to do with it being a better way, a more appealing way, in this life and beyond, than anything else I can imagine. God is primarily a God of mercy for those who believe His promises. The examples are plentiful from my perspective:
Don't want STDs? Choose wisely, marry for life and stay faithful. Try traditional, confessional Christianity *.
Don't want to worry about death? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Don't want to worry about suffering? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Wonder about where we came from? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Wonder about where we are going? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Don't want to go to jail? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Want good relationships with your neighbors? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Want to be satisfied with what you have? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Tired of feeling like you are on a treadmill? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Is work boring, unfullfilling? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Etc.
(* Traditional, confessional, Christianity = believing the promises of Jesus as spoken by and recorded in the inspired, inerrant Word of God)
And, if if it turns out I'm wrong about traditional, confessional, Christianity, it is a heck of a good ride to lights out time.

Not so sure this is a "Biblical" way to present the gospel, but whatever floats your boat. Sounds a bit Joel Osteen-ish to me.

The way I read the message is that the reason to accept the gospel is because God has commanded all men to repent, not for the great benefit plan.

I'm sure Paul would have liked to have known about the staying out of jail provision. He also said that if only in this life we have hope in Christ then we are of all men most miserable. But what did he know about confessional Christianity?