Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"non-Judeo-Christian"? What???
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
It's "God is Love". Not "God is Fairness" or "God is Justice". If you think prioritising love over fairness is unChristian then I don't know whatquote:Do the omnipotence or grace or love of God mean anything if mere human beings can force God to abandon them to death and hell, after he has already chosen not to?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Does free will mean anything if you cannot chose not to be saved?
quote:**
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am what I call a "legal universalist". I believe that all people are legally saved, because Jesus bore the punishment for all people (and yes, I accept a form of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement). But being legally saved does not mean that the experience of salvation is wonderful for every person. Evil is a spiritual reality manifested through the will, and no amount of legal acceptance will force an unrepentant person to willingly and happily embrace the love and mercy of God. So the reality of the love of God becomes 'hell' for that person.
Quite a number of people have objected to this view, by saying that no one - no matter now evil - could be tormented by the love of God, because love could never torment anyone. I find that argument bizarre in the extreme. What is evil, if it is not a deep-seated contempt for the love of God? A truly evil person hates mercy, and feeds on the suffering of others. The proud person will find it hideous to bow down in worship to any being, God or otherwise. Why would an arrogant and conceited person feel comfortable in a place where all people are equally special, and he is no more special than anyone else? How could such a person feel peace in a place where the very people he spent his life despising and persecuting are now utterly loved and valued by God?
Hell is nothing to do with God being sadistic or over-judgmental. Hell is simply the experience of the reality of God (the God of love) in the life of the evil, unrepentant person. In one sense, you could say that such a person is "damned to salvation". I am sure many people would prefer oblivion to that!
quote:/hosting
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:Thus we hit the nub. Can one believe something that is false and still be a christian?
Originally posted by anteater:
whether one can be a christian in a meaningful sense (which we could debate) and believe that all are saved.
If the answer to that is yes then orthodoxy becomes a necessary criterion for salvation.
I am an annihilationist and so would view universalism as being untrue, just as much as I would the idea of purgatory. That doesn't mean that someone who believes in those things is, by default, not a christian.
Some here would disagree with me, as I am sceptical about the historicity of the virgin birth. I don't actively disbelieve it, but I don't affirm it as a core part of my faith.
In support of my view I could cite several passages, but probably the most obvious are Romans 9 and Revelation 20.
So what passages might the universalist cite in their favour as well as providing a consistent exegesis of those cited above to show why an annihilationist viewpoint is an incorrect interpretation?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
and ALL are chosen.quote:The Romans passage tells us what St.Pul thought and Revelations is the vision of someone who had probably ingested some ergot, so I don't particularly feel the need to be consistent with either.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So what passages might the universalist cite in their favour as well as providing a consistent exegesis of those cited above to show why an annihilationist viewpoint is an incorrect interpretation?
quote:No.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
All were saved Tommy Cooper style from the beginning. The outworking has taken 14 Ga since and has a way to go.
quote:Where's the justice in God saving the wilful perpetrator of the holocaust, alongside his victim?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
All were saved Tommy Cooper style from the beginning. The outworking has taken 14 Ga since and has a way to go.
quote:I've never really understood this, Muddy. I'm not even sure what "winking at sin" even means, in this context. God doesn't "wink" at sin, he deals with it. Completely. Absolutely. By forgiveness. By restoration. At no-one's volition but His own. How is that "winking?" Just because we fallible humans are obsessed with a blame culture that demands punishment doesn't mean that God is so obsessed.
originally posted by Mudfrog
...that does indeed suggest that the love of God simply demands its own way and it also suggests that God winks at our sin and act justly.
quote:But all Christians believe (in essence) that God 'winks' at their sin. All they need to do is say sorry, and bam! the sin is gone. No personal consequences; all dumped onto Jesus instead.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The other side to forgiveness is justice. There must be consequences of sin - and there must be personal consequences for our personal sin.
Winking at sin is where God says 'I know you've sinned, I know you're not repentant but hey, I am full of love, so I'll just forget it ever happened - just come on in and we'll say no more about it. No, no, walk this way - you'll get used to it, I'm quite nice really...'
quote:Some thoughts:
Originally posted by anteater:
And I would say that from the recorded words of Jesus, we are forced to believe that he believe that judgement, which includes the reality of possible damnation, are vividly held beliefs which are frequently preached in very plain terms.
quote:I think the problem is that according to classical evangelical theology, the former can "pray the prayer" and get in, and the latter's for the flames because he was not a Christian.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Where's the justice in God saving the wilful perpetrator of the holocaust, alongside his victim?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
All were saved Tommy Cooper style from the beginning. The outworking has taken 14 Ga since and has a way to go.
quote:I agree. I just don't believe that a single human soul which is so utterly without love that it will remain adamantly, eternally opposed to God throughout eternity exists.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I just don't think God will overrule human free will if it remains adamantly, eternally opposed to him throughout eternity. And if that isn't possible, it isn't free will, is it?
quote:There's a little thing called repentance...
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where's the justice in God saving the wilful perpetrator of the holocaust, alongside his victim?
quote:God as they think He is? Yes, lots of them.
Originally posted by Squirrel:
Maybe there are people who don't WANT to be in the eternal presence of God.
quote:That depends pretty much on your definition of justice. If the end of justice is, as it were, two hurting people rather than one hurting person, then that seems to me to be a pretty negative outcome. Fortunately, the overwhelming picture of justice as we read it in the bible is one of restoration, of putting the wrong right, rather than of punishing the wrong.
originally posted by Mudfrog
The other side to forgiveness is justice. There must be consequences of sin - and there must be personal consequences for our personal sin.
quote:Nowhere. Its a vile anti-Christian idea that makes out God to be the most foul and evil thing imaginable. No-one should tolerate that heresy for a second. It makes out the unchosen and unsaved to be nothing at all, less than nothing, not even a smudge on our comfortable eternities.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Where is the justice in annihilation?
quote:Its not justice. Its grace. Unmerited favour.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where's the justice in God saving the wilful perpetrator of the holocaust, alongside his victim?
quote:You assume that the afterlife is like this life, and that you will be like you are now. If that were so, then indeed a merciful God would allow you to change your ways. But since scripture is unambiguous about eternal damnation, you can conclude that the afterlife is not like this life, and that you will not be like you are now. That is fairly clear from scripture anyhow, but additional evidence - even if indirect - is always welcome.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I agree. I just don't believe that a single human soul which is so utterly without love that it will remain adamantly, eternally opposed to God throughout eternity exists.
quote:Likely true, if only due to human limitation. It probably requires an angelic mind to become entirely Satanic. However, Christianity has never claimed that one has to be evil through and through to go to hell. Being guilty of a single mortal sin will do at the time of death - and you are entirely capable of committing a mortal sin and not repenting of it, while at the same time maintaining all sorts of loving relationships and doing plenty of good deeds. Quite possibly the latter will reduce the severity of your eternal punishment in hell, but they will not get you out of it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We are all corrupted and sinful. Some a lot more than others. But none of us is completely and totally devoid of love.
quote:I'll settle for it getting me out of the problem of having to contemplate myself in Hell.
Originally posted by ken:
Inexplicably some Christians seem to think that it gets them out of the moral problems of contemplating their own friends and relations in hell.
quote:Similar enough that we will be recognisable as ourselves, yes.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You assume that the afterlife is like this life, and that you will be like you are now.
quote:Precisely.
If that were so, then indeed a merciful God would allow you to change your ways.
quote:Absolutely, but that doesn't exclude it being justice as well. And what Martin said.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Its not justice. Its grace. Unmerited favour.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where's the justice in God saving the wilful perpetrator of the holocaust, alongside his victim?
quote:Think that's Stuart Townend, rather than Paul.
The wrath of God is satisfied, as it says in Romans 5.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:If you are saved it will not be just by grace, it will be by grace through faith. That is a very important response by you to grace. Without your faith the grace is not applied.
Originally posted by agingjb:
If I am saved, it will be through unmerited grace, and so I would do well to have no attitude or opinion except hope for anyone and everyone.
quote:I find lots of comments on this thread helpful, especially this one. Yes, there are plenty of Bible verses which challenge universalism ... and yet I come back to two things.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... if even half of the things Christians say about how Great and Wonderful He is are true then why would anyone want to be elsewhere?
quote:That is true, but given that you are recognisably the same being as the baby Marvin, who had less cognitive ability than a dog, this is saying less than you think it does.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Similar enough that we will be recognisable as ourselves, yes.
quote:Well, I do like your intellectual honesty. You did articulate your non-Judeo-Christian starting point most clearly in your first sentence there. Christians however are obliged to believe in fair love, and loving fairness, just mercy, and merciful justice - no matter how painful and incomprehensible the tension of human terms may become when describing God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not about fairness, it's about love. Love doesn't set deadlines, it is always ready to forgive. Always. Eternally.
quote:Get thee to the quotes file...
originally posted by deano
When we die we will all go to Heaven. The capacity to love we all have as humans will draw us into Heaven like iron fillings to a magnet. We will have no choice, we will want to go in there. No one will refuse because it not in our nature, our nature is to love. We can bodily and wilfully (as in free will) supress it or divert it in this life, but after death, the body goes away with the brain and we are just that pure love which is drawn to the ultimate love... God.
quote:Reference? Justice is a biblical concept, but fairness?
originally posted by IngoB
Christians however are obliged to believe in fair love, and loving fairness, just mercy, and merciful justice - no matter how painful and incomprehensible the tension of human terms may become when describing God. (my bold)
quote:You may not be surprised to read that I disagree with your methodology there. Off-handed dismissal of the pertinent points is not an engagement with the issue.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:The Romans passage tells us what St.Pul thought and Revelations is the vision of someone who had probably ingested some ergot, so I don't particularly feel the need to be consistent with either.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So what passages might the universalist cite in their favour as well as providing a consistent exegesis of those cited above to show why an annihilationist viewpoint is an incorrect interpretation?
quote:So I would like you to tell me whether you believe that this is an accurate representation of the teaching of Jesus (in which case I would strongly disagree) or is this a belief arrived at from your conception of God, with no obligation to square it with the teaching of Jesus?
When we die we will all go to Heaven.
quote:"non-Judeo-Christian"? What???
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, I do like your intellectual honesty. You did articulate your non-Judeo-Christian starting point most clearly in your first sentence there.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not about fairness, it's about love. Love doesn't set deadlines, it is always ready to forgive. Always. Eternally.
quote:That quote was in response to a post of yours that said, and I quote "Your opinion on how "fair" this deal is is truly irrelevant". So when I said it's not about fairness, I was agreeing with you.
Christians however are obliged to believe in fair love, and loving fairness, just mercy, and merciful justice - no matter how painful and incomprehensible the tension of human terms may become when describing God.
quote:"But the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness." (Is 5:16) Indeed, prioritising love over fairness is un-Judeo-Christian as far as God is concerned. As is prioritising fairness over love, etc. It is all one and the same thing in God. Obviously, in its effect on humanity this Oneness shatters into different cognizable pieces. The problem here is that pick up one shard, project it on God as if it were the whole, and then proceed to use that to argue against all the other shards that can be found - even if they are numerous in tradition, and clear in scripture, as here. The loving God fairly sends unrepentant sinners to eternal hell. If you can't deal with that, then in my book you do not stand in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I'm sorry if that makes you mad. I don't usually call this particular spade a spade since people around here tend to believe that "Christian" is a label defined by self-identification.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"non-Judeo-Christian"? What???
quote:Fortunately, it's not your book that matters.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you can't deal with that, then in my book you do not stand in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
quote:No, not really.
Originally posted by anteater:
Deano:quote:So I would like you to tell me whether you believe that this is an accurate representation of the teaching of Jesus (in which case I would strongly disagree) or is this a belief arrived at from your conception of God, with no obligation to square it with the teaching of Jesus?
When we die we will all go to Heaven.
quote:My book doesn't matter for your salvation, but it does matter for the discussion you are having with me. Or not, as it were.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fortunately, it's not your book that matters.
quote:My understanding is that Judaism does not teach that particular doctrine, so you may want to revisit the 'Judeo' bit of that assertion. Personally, I would hesitate to unchurch Karl Barth and Hans Von Balthazar on that basis but that's your business. But dragging in the Jews to uphold a doctrine they do not actually subscribe to is a bit much, really.
The loving God fairly sends unrepentant sinners to eternal hell. If you can't deal with that, then in my book you do not stand in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
quote:agree
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Get thee to the quotes file...
originally posted by deano
When we die we will all go to Heaven. The capacity to love we all have as humans will draw us into Heaven like iron fillings to a magnet. We will have no choice, we will want to go in there. No one will refuse because it not in our nature, our nature is to love. We can bodily and wilfully (as in free will) supress it or divert it in this life, but after death, the body goes away with the brain and we are just that pure love which is drawn to the ultimate love... God.
deano, I disagree with you on almost everything, but this pays for all!
quote:Discussion? You jumped into the thread with a "here's the Truth, take it or leave it" statement - there's not much room for discussion there beyond a confirmation that I have chosen the "leave it" option.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:My book doesn't matter for your salvation, but it does matter for the discussion you are having with me. Or not, as it were.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fortunately, it's not your book that matters.
quote:Me. John Wesley. Samuel Johnson. Origen. Athanasius.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And as far as any of my friends or relations go, I do consider the utter cessation of existence to be a better fate than eternal torment without hope of escape. Who wouldn't?
quote:I would take from this, that you do not believe Hell to be a fixed state with no possibility of redemption. Though you may object to labels, this is usually classed as a form of universalism, conditional or potential universalism, whereby the experience of hell is seen as reformatory, with the possibility of repentance from hell never being closed.
And I can't imagine that hell is beyond the reach of God's love.
quote:The parable of the workers in the vineyard - where the ones who start late get paid the same - is that fair? Is the treatment of the prodigal son fair to the younger brother?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Christians however are obliged to believe in fair love, and loving fairness,.
quote:Well, up to a point, yes. But at least Paul is always worth listening to, if only because he knew he was struggling to see through a glass, darkly – we can hear him trying to make sense of it all and fit into his best understanding of the world. He's clearly honest, intelligent and sane. I wouldn't base anything on Revelations. And, yes, the same can be said of the author of John I. But although I think scholarship suggests that he is not the same person as the beloved apostle, curiously, those words also occur in a traditional anecdote about the apostle John in his old age. For my money, John I's words fit more closely with my best understanding of what Jesus taught. Of course there are inconsistencies and contradictions across and between texts. We just have to make the best sense of them we can -and I don't see why anybody should be obliged to make anything fit with some random crap from Revelations. Why not make things fit with Mother Julian instead?
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:You may not be surprised to read that I disagree with your methodology there. Off-handed dismissal of the pertinent points is not an engagement with the issue.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:The Romans passage tells us what St.Paul thought and Revelations is the vision of someone who had probably ingested some ergot, so I don't particularly feel the need to be consistent with either.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So what passages might the universalist cite in their favour as well as providing a consistent exegesis of those cited above to show why an annihilationist viewpoint is an incorrect interpretation?
If one applies the same logic to the rest of your post then one could say the 1 John passage merely tells us what the author of 1 John thought (whoever that may have been) and that Matthew was writing with an agenda so cannot be trusted as reliable source.
quote:This is quite a Wrightian view. His hypothesis is that we become more and more like what we worship. So those who would choose to reject God have their wishes respected and are left alone by God to become (decay?) some sort of depravity.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Perhaps the kindest thing God can do for some people is to let them slip quietly into oblivion.
quote:This is where the idea of God as "creator and sustainer" leads towards an annihilationist viewpoint. If God does not actively choose to ensure the continued existence of creation, does it not (in some way beyond what we really understand) cease to exist?
The question is, is the soul intrinsically immortal or is it not? If it is not, and the fate of the blessed is to be resurrected, as it were, it seems a bit much for God to keep a soul going
quote:No, it isn't. At all. First, I was not talking about the Jewish tradition, which presumably these days would include everything up to modern Rabbinic Judaism. I was talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition, which starts to diverge from the Jewish tradition in the 1stC AD. Second, it is simply historically false to say that the Jews never believed in a Christian-style hell. You can read about it in 1 Enoch, Pseudo-Philo, 2 Baruch, 2 Esdras and other Jewish sources from the Palestine at this time. Christianity - as far as hell is concerned - simply reflects one particular strand of Jewish belief. If this strand has died out among modern Jews, then that makes it no less part of the Judeo-Christian tradition that Christians stand in.
Originally posted by Gildas:
My understanding is that Judaism does not teach that particular doctrine, so you may want to revisit the 'Judeo' bit of that assertion. Personally, I would hesitate to unchurch Karl Barth and Hans Von Balthazar on that basis but that's your business. But dragging in the Jews to uphold a doctrine they do not actually subscribe to is a bit much, really.
quote:Curious. I told you why I think your position is non-Christian, namely because it separates in God love from fairness, mercy from justice, etc. Since you apparently consider yourself to be a Christian but also believe that in God love trumps fairness, mercy trumps justice, etc. it seems to me that there is ample room for you making your case for this from Christian tradition. If you can.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Discussion? You jumped into the thread with a "here's the Truth, take it or leave it" statement - there's not much room for discussion there beyond a confirmation that I have chosen the "leave it" option.
quote:This pretends that hell is something external to God, which somehow defeats God's purposes and wishes. Of course it isn't. The Creator and Sustainer of hell is none other than God Himself, and in the ultimate sense the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell is His will. (God wishes all to be saved, but He also wishes all unrepentant evildoers to be punished eternally. There is no contradiction in this on the part of God, rather, He simply makes room in His will for our temporal choice in this matter. After re-stacking the odds in our favour by sending His Son, that is.)
Originally posted by ken:
And I can't imagine that hell is beyond the reach of God's love. (Though it seems ingob does).
quote:'Soul' is a Greek notion.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The question is, is the soul intrinsically immortal or is it not? If it is not, and the fate of the blessed is to be resurrected, as it were, it seems a bit much for God to keep a soul going just to inflict various forms of unpleasantness on it. Perhaps the kindest thing God can do for some people is to let them slip quietly into oblivion.
quote:So how does that word for Jesus's thieving co-crucified, the saints under the throne in Revelation, the crowd of witnesses we are currently surrounded by, what Jesus said to the Sadducees about the dead always being alive to God? Not really sure what you're getting at here me ol' son.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:'Soul' is a Greek notion.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The question is, is the soul intrinsically immortal or is it not? If it is not, and the fate of the blessed is to be resurrected, as it were, it seems a bit much for God to keep a soul going just to inflict various forms of unpleasantness on it. Perhaps the kindest thing God can do for some people is to let them slip quietly into oblivion.
Life after death in biblical terms is recreation - 1 Corinthians 15 - so God might choose not to recreate those who are not 'in Christ'.
quote:
That is true, but given that you are recognisably the same being as the baby Marvin, who had less cognitive ability than a dog...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Trying to play the Hebrew against the Greek contribution to Christianity never makes much sense. The latter elucidates the former. Without some form of "spiritual continuity", God cannot resurrect anyone. Resurrection is not re-creation. If ken truly ends with his death, then God creating ken again creates a copy, a clone, but not ken. The most perfect of copies does not establish identity. In saying that God resurrects ken, we are hence implying that ken persisted in some spiritual form past his bodily death, or God would have been incapable to do anything but clone ken. And while such "philosophical" thought is not reflected in scripture, there is evidence for "personal" continuation to eternal life past death, possibly with an intervening period of waiting, even in the OT:
Originally posted by ken:
Leo's right there. The Bible has no notion of an immortal soul. Its about resurrection, which is in the gift of God.
quote:So do I! How would the Ship cope with multiple Martin PCs?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What God COULD do is resurrect me in series and in parallel. Each of me would be me up to the point of resurrection from different mes in time. All would be authentic. I trust that He won't!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:It's Divine revelation, absolute truth we have access to as humans in conceptual form. It can be misunderstood, by us, but it can never fail. It is ground truth. Data (Latin for "something given"). The only other data that we can access is God's creation via sensory observation. The difference in the form of the data means that we use textual and historical analysis for one, and empirical and metaphysical analysis for the other. But if we abandon these data, then our hypotheses are founded on nothing. If you abandon Divine revelation, you are hence not only no Christian, but de facto not religious at all. One can claim that a different data stream about esoteric matters represents absolute truth, e.g., the enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama. But to claim that we have none is just like closing one's eyes and declaring the world of observational data to have vanished. From then on, all one says is strictly null and void simply by lack of any foundation, and all truth one still speaks is accidental.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all speculation. That's ALL. Upon speculation.
quote:I wonder if there is a specific term for such dismissive arrogance about our ancestors? It is quite common, there should be one. At any rate, it is of course false and hilariously so. It's like a tiny dwarf standing on the shoulders of the topmost giant in a tremendous pyramid of giants and proclaiming loudly "Look how tall I am, taller than any of those 'giants' beneath me!" The historically accumulated stock of concepts and knowledge was smaller back then. And frankly, the economical situation allowed a lot fewer people time to participate in intellectual speculations. But of course people back then were just as capable or incapable of "analytical thinking" as they are now. A Plato or Aristotle would hold their own with the greatest analytic minds of modernity. And that we are left only with a few great names form back then does not mean that everybody else was an imbecile, but simply that of the very same bell curve we see now history has only preserved the names of the most extreme positive samples through the millennia.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
By pre-modern people. Who knew NOTHING. Including analytical thinking. We are FULLY entitled to start again.
quote:Then it was not Christ who was resurrected, but merely a clone of Christ, and all Christian hope is in vain. For what good or bad does it do to me if some clone of mine lives, whether for a time or eternally? At most I might develop some kind of paternal feelings for such a being derived from me. But it is not me, and frankly, I much prefer having paternal feelings for actual children of mine. There is something incestuous about considering one's clones. If we are dead dead, when we die, then materialism wins. Fiddle-farting around spiritually with supposed copies is just pointless. Even if God reconstructs me down to my very quantum state, He will just have made an entity that appears perfectly to be me (and of course thinks to be me). But it is not me. I'm still dead then, there is no resurrection and no eternal life. For me.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And it's obvious that when you're dead, you're dead.
quote:Embracing a "reductio ad absurdum" as true is not a sign of wisdom. Again, this is just materialism mixed with deficient scientific understanding (your brain certainly does not operate on a 5 Hz step change).
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I couldn't care less whether I come back after a gap of a billion years in material time. It's no different in continuation of personality than the cumulative 1/5th of a second pulses, frames, copies, clones that make up the real, authentic, only me now.
quote:No, God cannot do that. Just as He cannot construct an (Euclidean) square circle.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What God COULD do is resurrect me in series and in parallel. Each of me would be me up to the point of resurrection from different mes in time. All would be authentic. I trust that He won't!
quote:We may have access to it in that the path is open, but our understanding can't be equal to it. In this life, and perhaps even in the next one, our understanding of it can only ever be partial. Where we fail is when we think we absolutely understand the absolute, which is surely why humility is such an important virtue.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:It's Divine revelation, absolute truth we have access to as humans in conceptual form. It can be misunderstood, by us, but it can never fail.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all speculation. That's ALL. Upon speculation.
quote:John Hick deals with the clone idea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Trying to play the Hebrew against the Greek contribution to Christianity never makes much sense. The latter elucidates the former. Without some form of "spiritual continuity", God cannot resurrect anyone. Resurrection is not re-creation.
Originally posted by ken:
Leo's right there. The Bible has no notion of an immortal soul. Its about resurrection, which is in the gift of God.
quote:Where in the bible did Jesus say that to the Sadducees?
Originally posted by Truman White:
what Jesus said to the Sadducees about the dead always being alive to God?
quote:Doesn't sound like an Anglo-Catholic position to me. We don't ignore parts of scripture we don't like. We sure don't discount 2,000 years of interpretation of scripture. Scripture and tradition clearly teach the possibility of eternal separation from God either through death or damnation. Willingness to discount all of that because it doesn't fit with the God you want to exist is a purely liberal protestant position. I'm not saying you are wrong about universalism. We should hope for the salvation of all.
originally posted by deano:
In fact the Bible is not inerrant either. If a Bible passage shows a cruel or intolerant God then I put it down to the people who wrote it originally either having poor hearing or just being wrong.
quote:What do modern people know about God that pre-modern people didn't? Modern people know absolutely nothing about God pre-modern people did not. The question of analytical thinking is irrelevant. Once you accept the existence of God, pure analytical thinking goes out the window. What can you analyze about a God you can't prove exists apart from revelation? You are just giving us more warmed over liberal protestantism.
originally posted by Martin PC:
It's all speculation. That's ALL. Upon speculation. By pre-modern people. Who knew NOTHING. Including analytical thinking.
quote:Do you believe in God or not? The existence of God has nothing to do with the nature of God. If you believe in God, then say whatever makes you feel comfortable about God. Proclaim the Dubio-Thomistic deity to the entire world. You wouldn't be the first person to invent a theology out of whole cloth. The fact no existent religion worships the Dubio-Thomistic God might give you some pause. After all, if such a God exists, why do you alone believe in said G? Don't worry about such a problem. Ignorant pre-moderns incapable of analytical thinking founded all those religions. No, let "reason" be your guide. When you can't justify what you believe about God with pure reason, just play the old "the Holy Spirit revealed it to me" trump card.
originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
So, either there is no god at all, or, I haven't yet found the religion that reveals the True One, who both wishes to "save" everyone and actually can accomplish this wish.
quote:What's your take on the third side where there are Christians who assert that God wants to give everyone eternal life, but doesn't want to impose himself on anyone against their will?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
On the other side, there are Christians who assert that God wants to give every human being eternal life, but can't, because finite decisions made by finite creatures thwart his infinite will.
quote:Neither sounds like a true God to me either, but as a parent, I want my children to be happy and I have some idea how that works, but the last thing I want to do is impose my idea of happiness on them - the very nature of happiness is that it must be freely chosen. How about a God who wants to save everyone, can save everyone, and will save anyone who has the smallest desire to be saved? And does as much as possible to help those who don't as far as they will allow?
Frankly, I can't decide which god I find least attractive: the one who won't save everyone or the one who can't save everyone. Neither god seems worthy of being identified as the Supreme Being in the universe.
quote:All very true, but as with most vague generalities, pretty useless for the practical discussion at hand.
Originally posted by QLib:
We may have access to it in that the path is open, but our understanding can't be equal to it. In this life, and perhaps even in the next one, our understanding of it can only ever be partial. Where we fail is when we think we absolutely understand the absolute, which is surely why humility is such an important virtue.
quote:No, he doesn't. (Unsupported and unreferenced assertion can be fairly dealt with by unsupported and unreferenced counter-assertion...)
Originally posted by leo:
John Hick deals with the clone idea.
quote:Obviously God can create from nothing whenever and whatever He wants. But I am me precisely through my continued existence, that just is what makes it right to call the baby and the man - and if I am lucky the geezer in future - all the same IngoB. If God ever ceases entirely to sustain my being, then I shall be no more, and I will never be again. Not even God can reattach personal identity, since continuity of being is essential to it.
Originally posted by leo:
I think the Greek notions corrupt rather than elucidate scripture, especially 1 Cor 15. If God could create ex nihilo, he can do so again.
quote:It is relevant if it stops you triumphantly tossing Divine Revelation down on the table as if it were the ace of trumps.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:All very true, but as with most vague generalities, pretty useless for the practical discussion at hand.
Originally posted by QLib:
We may have access to it in that the path is open, but our understanding can't be equal to it. In this life, and perhaps even in the next one, our understanding of it can only ever be partial. Where we fail is when we think we absolutely understand the absolute, which is surely why humility is such an important virtue.
quote:It is the ace of trumps. In fact its the only card in the pack. We're trying to talk about the eternal creator God. Any argument not based on revelation is worthless.
Originally posted by QLib:
It is relevant if it stops you triumphantly tossing Divine Revelation down on the table as if it were the ace of trumps.
quote:Yes - this is the God I continue to worship.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
How about a God who wants to save everyone, can save everyone, and will save anyone who has the smallest desire to be saved? And does as much as possible to help those who don't as far as they will allow?
quote:There is. It's called chronological snobbery.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I wonder if there is a specific term for such dismissive arrogance about our ancestors? It is quite common, there should be one.
quote:Yes. I suspect God refuses to tell us anything that might make us feel more comfortable (e.g. "all will be saved, relax") because he knows we'd only use it as an excuse to sit on our butts and do nothing for anybody.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Also that when we do contemplate the possibility of losing one's soul we ought to think primarily of the state of our soul rather than abstract questions about the fate of heathen tribes in Papua New Guinea or people we really disapprove of.
quote:Beeswax Altar, first, I want to thank you for taking such a hardline on my theological musings, such as they are. This has helped me to make a decision. In answer to your question (assuming that you intend the traditional Christian "God"), no, I don't believe in that "God." So, I'm no longer a Christian, and will need to terminate my membership in the Episcopal Church--one more number to add to the statistics of decline!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Do you believe in God or not? The existence of God has nothing to do with the nature of God. If you believe in God, then say whatever makes you feel comfortable about God. Proclaim the Dubio-Thomistic deity to the entire world. You wouldn't be the first person to invent a theology out of whole cloth. The fact no existent religion worships the Dubio-Thomistic God might give you some pause. After all, if such a God exists, why do you alone believe in said G? Don't worry about such a problem. Ignorant pre-moderns incapable of analytical thinking founded all those religions. No, let "reason" be your guide. When you can't justify what you believe about God with pure reason, just play the old "the Holy Spirit revealed it to me" trump card.
originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
So, either there is no god at all, or, I haven't yet found the religion that reveals the True One, who both wishes to "save" everyone and actually can accomplish this wish.
quote:I see this position as a subtle variant of the wants-to-but-can't position: This is a God whose ability to save people is limited by the need to respect human free will. It boils down, again, to God's will being thwarted by finite and fallible human wills.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:What's your take on the third side where there are Christians who assert that God wants to give everyone eternal life, but doesn't want to impose himself on anyone against their will?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
On the other side, there are Christians who assert that God wants to give every human being eternal life, but can't, because finite decisions made by finite creatures thwart his infinite will.
quote:Martin, this is amazing! This is how I feel things would be, also. In fact, I've dreamed about dying and "waking up" to Somebody there with me. A Someone who I have been longing for my entire life. What you wrote is profoundly comforting and true to my experiences of a loving God who wipes away all tears and makes everything new--including me.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
ken
It's Life Of Pi: What story do you prefer?
It's a walk in the park.
As I walked across the park a couple of months ago I thought, 'What would happen if I didn't notice that I'd died'. My walk would continue. And Someone would join me. And we would continue to walk and talk until all things were resolved. I would be healed in and by the process.
It's the end of Tree Of Life.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Sorry ... not understanding what you're getting at here.
Originally posted by ken:
Well, Dubious Thomas, if you really want to get there the long way round, and see the elephant,
quote:I can understand your point of view, but I think we disagree on the fundamental nature of free will. To me, it's not merely important, it's the very essence of our humanity and our individual identity. I believe that without free will, we literally would not have an identity and would not be human.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:I see this position as a subtle variant of the wants-to-but-can't position: This is a God whose ability to save people is limited by the need to respect human free will. It boils down, again, to God's will being thwarted by finite and fallible human wills.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:What's your take on the third side where there are Christians who assert that God wants to give everyone eternal life, but doesn't want to impose himself on anyone against their will?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
On the other side, there are Christians who assert that God wants to give every human being eternal life, but can't, because finite decisions made by finite creatures thwart his infinite will.
quote:Hmmm, so are you espousing the traditional Christian claim, or have you assessed the human condition and found that you came to a conclusion in that regard that happens to coincide with the traditional Christian claim? Yes, God must find a way to thwart our natural tendencies to things like selfishness, arrogance, and pride, but I think he's come up with a system in which he actually uses our selfish interests to help us eventually discover for ourselves that there are better ways to approach life. But he does so without every going over the line between "helping" and "forcing."
It's also not a position that is especially compatible with the traditional Christian claim that the human will is (to some extent, at least) in "bondage" to sin. I guess I'm persuaded by the arguments of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (among others). For anyone to be saved, God has to "impose himself [on people] against their will."
quote:MartinPC's comment struck me second time around. I've borrowed it to start a new thread about the stories we prefer.
Originally posted by The5thMary:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
ken
It's Life Of Pi: What story do you prefer?
It's a walk in the park.
quote:Oh yes, so any argument can easily be settled by quoting from the relevant bit of scripture. Silly me, I should have realised. I wonder why these boards are here then.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:It is the ace of trumps. In fact its the only card in the pack. We're trying to talk about the eternal creator God. Any argument not based on revelation is worthless.
Originally posted by QLib:
It is relevant if it stops you triumphantly tossing Divine Revelation down on the table as if it were the ace of trumps.
And the only revelation we have access to is that recorded in Holy Scripture, which claims to both reveal and be validated by the life of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.
quote:Please, I've met many ageing hippy priests who believe what you now believe. They embrace every theological fad that comes down the pike pretending it's based on reason and scholarship. It's like they are charismatic only without the belief in a God who works miracles. The Episcopal Church is run by such priests. As Dubious Thomas points out, we are in rapid decline. Orthodox Christian churches will likely survive much longer than the fad embracers.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Beeswax Altar.
Did you see IngoB quote 'absolute truth' from words of Jesus? Or any New Testament reference?
You sound JUST like a YECist: I don't believe that Samuel actually relayed Love's instructions to commit genocide therefore I can't believe in Love incarnate.
Yeah, my fad will be as pass'e as yours is now in 1700 years I'm sure. What will yours be by then?
If you want to talk like an adult about examination and judgement in the culturally mediated figures of Jesus' speech, rather than a parent/child, any time mate.
quote:That's the one mate - Luke 20:38
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Where in the bible did Jesus say that to the Sadducees?
Originally posted by Truman White:
what Jesus said to the Sadducees about the dead always being alive to God?
Do you mean the bit about there being no marriage?
quote:That's quite a judgment to pass on a position held by scholars such as Gregory of Nyssa and William Barclay.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It isn't based on real scholarship but a preconceived ideology looking for some shred of evidence to suggest it wasn't invented out of thin air.
quote:
I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.
quote:So when will you been switching your affiliation to ACNA?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Episcopal Church is run by such priests. As Dubious Thomas points out, we are in rapid decline. Orthodox Christian churches will likely survive much longer than the fad embracers.
quote:That doesn't cancel out notion that the dead can be recreated at some future time.
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:That's the one mate - Luke 20:38
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Where in the bible did Jesus say that to the Sadducees?
Originally posted by Truman White:
what Jesus said to the Sadducees about the dead always being alive to God?
Do you mean the bit about there being no marriage?
quote:Barclay's commentaries are dated. Gregory of Nyssa believed in the evil torturer God Martin !''+::/!/!//-. Gregory just believed hell didn't last forever. His theology took all of scripture into account. I imagine the Dubio-Thomistic God wouldn't even subject anybody to even a temporary Hell. No?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:That's quite a judgment to pass on a position held by scholars such as Gregory of Nyssa and William Barclay.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It isn't based on real scholarship but a preconceived ideology looking for some shred of evidence to suggest it wasn't invented out of thin air.
Here's the conclusion of Barclay's statement (which is heavily indebted to Gregory's exposition of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28):
quote:
I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.
quote:You've just been denouncing followers of "fads," and now you dismiss Barclay's ideas because his commentaries are "dated," as if only the latest thing has any value? In any case, you're missing the point of my reference to Barclay: he was hardly a theological amateur (which Rob Bell could fairly be labelled, even if his arguments for universalism are valid), so your claim that belief in universalism lacks support in scholarship and reason is clearly incorrect.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Barclay's commentaries are dated.
quote:To clarify, Martin and I are distinct individuals, not interchangeable ciphers for your theological animosity. In any case, I doubt that, when you cite a "classic" church figure's support for an idea, you agree with every other idea that person expressed.
Gregory of Nyssa believed in the evil torturer God Martin !''+::/!/!//-. Gregory just believed hell didn't last forever. His theology took all of scripture into account. I imagine the Dubio-Thomistic God wouldn't even subject anybody to even a temporary Hell. No?
quote:Whose aren't?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Barclay's commentaries are dated because they are based in part on the fads of the time.
quote:No. The argument starts when we read the relevant scriptures.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:Oh yes, so any argument can easily be settled by quoting from the relevant bit of scripture. Silly me, I should have realised. I wonder why these boards are here then.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:It is the ace of trumps. In fact its the only card in the pack. We're trying to talk about the eternal creator God. Any argument not based on revelation is worthless.
Originally posted by QLib:
It is relevant if it stops you triumphantly tossing Divine Revelation down on the table as if it were the ace of trumps.
And the only revelation we have access to is that recorded in Holy Scripture, which claims to both reveal and be validated by the life of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.
quote:Disagree with Beeswax Altar?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What does one have to DO to get a final, irrevocable, unbearable judgment?
quote:I only need a single case of somebody being physically dead but still operating as a person to make my point. This is indeed evident from the verses I quoted. Whereas that the Psalmist will be saved is good for him, but does not tell us whether everybody will be saved. There's no support in these verses for universalism at all.
Originally posted by deano:
IngoB, I found your list of Old Testament quotes quite wonderful. The vast majority of them can be used to support my own universalist theories!
quote:Well, I agree with that. I only use scripture as a rhetorical means around here these days. I think people who believe that the Christian faith - as far as propositional doctrine is concerned - can be established and maintained by and from scripture are naive, or if they participate in these boards or similar varied gatherings, manifestly delusional. For it is simply undeniable from experience here that many different and contradictory things can be read into scripture, and that arguing about that almost never gets anywhere.
Originally posted by deano:
Which merely proves that proof by proof-texting is no proof at all. I think?
quote:Ah, if aging hippie priests believe it, it MUST be wrong.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Please, I've met many ageing hippy priests who believe what you now believe.
quote:Yea and amen! Thank you.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The Bible tells us that God wants everyone to be saved.
But it's not obvious. Jesus warns us about hell because it's real. If we think all people might be saved it's not because we think Jesus is wrong about hell but because we have faith that the love of God might overcome human sinfulness. At the end of the day, I think universalist hope is, just that, hope. Yea, though he slay me yet will I put my trust in Him. I might be wrong. But I think God loves everyone, even me. And that might be enough.
quote:I'll buy that.
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you want an account of universalism that is compatible with Our Lord's teachings it looks like this.
Jesus warned us about Hell and Damnation.
If you put a sign on a cliff, saying "do not stand on the edge of this cliff, you will fall off" and people refrain from doing so, you are a public benefactor.
If it is pointed out that many people do stand on the edge of the proverbial cliff it is, or ought to be the case, that the Church prays for them.
The Bible tells us that God wants everyone to be saved.
But it's not obvious. Jesus warns us about hell because it's real. If we think all people might be saved its not because we think Jesus is wrong about hell but because we have faith that the love of God might overcome human sinfulness. At the end of the day, I think universalist hope is, just that, hope. Yea, though he slay me yet will I put my trust in Him. I might be wrong. But I think God loves everyone, even me. And that might be enough.
quote:Yes, me too. Is universalist hope significantly different from traditional Christian hope? In the end, it is all "just" hope. One of the great virtues.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I'll buy that.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The Bible tells us that God wants everyone to be saved.
But it's not obvious. Jesus warns us about hell because it's real. If we think all people might be saved its not because we think Jesus is wrong about hell but because we have faith that the love of God might overcome human sinfulness. At the end of the day, I think universalist hope is, just that, hope. Yea, though he slay me yet will I put my trust in Him. I might be wrong. But I think God loves everyone, even me. And that might be enough.
quote:Say, rather, Jesus had free will because he was perfect. We are not perfect, so our will is not free, as Paul argues persuasively, in Romans 7
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Would it not have been better if God had either not created human beings at all - or had made us all perfect, like Jesus? After all Jesus, they say, was perfect and had free will.
quote:I think your problem is here. God didn't make Jesus; God is Jesus.
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
if God made Jesus
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No one gets eternally tormented.
quote:Yes I see this. But I don't see it happening after death, when God will be seen with no veils - no glass darkly. THEN repentance, however small, in small steps to full life with God.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No spiritual apparatus needs to be created. All that is necessary for hell to exist is for a person to turn his back on God, willingly, knowingly, and of free choice, and stay that way forever. To do so is to cut oneself off from the source of all joy, comfort, peace, and life, and willingly choose the opposites. Anything rather than humiliate oneself by repenting.
quote:This is, for me, quite a thought provoking thought, since it seems to breathe the essence of the Christian belief that God is Love, but at the same time leaves me with doubts, which I am more than happy to have removed. A similar thought is that God is Father to all human beings.
But I think God loves everyone
quote:I don't know if this counts or not, but I can think of at least one person, actually someone I first talked to on the Ship, who told me he wasn't going to pursue whether or not God existed because if God did, then God wasn't someone he wanted to know. So he definitely wasn't sure about God, but it seemed he was an anti-seeker because he didn't fancy God much.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've known many people - indeed, most people I know are in this category - who reject God because they don't think he's real, or have little confidence that he is. I've known none who reject God because they do think he's real but don't really fancy it much.
quote:There's always going to be one, isn't there? But given the God some people seem to believe in, I wouldn't blame him - if you've been convinced that there's either no God, or the genocidal, eternal tormenting in Hell God, then I can understand seeing that as a bit of Hobson's choice. If I became convinced that God really was the genocidal one then I'd probably try to get onto his good side by whatever means possible, but that's because I'm a tremendous moral coward; I'd have a great deal of respect for the person who'd rather curse him to his face and burn.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:I don't know if this counts or not, but I can think of at least one person, actually someone I first talked to on the Ship, who told me he wasn't going to pursue whether or not God existed because if God did, then God wasn't someone he wanted to know. So he definitely wasn't sure about God, but it seemed he was an anti-seeker because he didn't fancy God much.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've known many people - indeed, most people I know are in this category - who reject God because they don't think he's real, or have little confidence that he is. I've known none who reject God because they do think he's real but don't really fancy it much.
quote:For me I don't think the issue is that God would force people to change (I don't think he does) but rather that there would be a limit to the time during which we can change (ie, our mortal lives). Traditional Christianity has taught that in Hell people are cut off from God's grace forever (by their own choosing), so they are incapable of repenting (since that would require God's grace). I am ok with negative consequences in this life and the afterlife for people who reject God's love, but I just can't wrap my mind around a belief that God would ever say, "Time's up, I won't offer you the grace you would need to repent anymore because you obviously don't want it."
Originally posted by anteater:
Gildas:
quote:This is, for me, quite a thought provoking thought, since it seems to breathe the essence of the Christian belief that God is Love, but at the same time leaves me with doubts, which I am more than happy to have removed. A similar thought is that God is Father to all human beings.
But I think God loves everyone
Does the Bible and Church actually say this? It sounds like it should be a rhetorical question, but is it? And if it does, what concept of Love does this bring? Traditionally there is the love of benevolence and the love of complacency, or fellowship. I can accept, obviously, that God wishes the good of all. He always did, and yet in many cases this has no effect on the individual and there is, and can be, no relationship.
So what is going to happen to that person after death? God's love haven't apparently failed up to now, what can he do? Turn it up higher? That makes no sense.
To me, all these views of post-death repentance, are predicated on the idea that God will reveal to the person after death, something previously unrevealed and which leads the person to repentance and the (previously dismissed) love of and belief in God and Jesus. What else could change the person? Punishment? I doubt anybody would say that would work.
Just to recount an incident with a very earnest christian friend. I made the comment that today, very few christians believe that you have to repent and believe in this life to be saved. "I do" she confidently said, "100%". OK, what about those who haven't heard? "Ah, well . . . ".
Turns out she believes God will somehow reveal Christ to them at the moment of death, or something like that. Well I wouldn't mind that. It actually beats a lot of rather stuffy sermons!
And if you don't have something like that, I don't know what is going to make people change.
quote:This was the point I was trying to get at when I described what Beeswax Altar has so affectionately described as the "Dubio-Thomistic" God (who happens to be the major rival to the "Beeswax God" worshiped by Father Altar).
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But given the God some people seem to believe in, I wouldn't blame him - if you've been convinced that there's either no God, or the genocidal, eternal tormenting in Hell God, then I can understand seeing that as a bit of Hobson's choice. If I became convinced that God really was the genocidal one then I'd probably try to get onto his good side by whatever means possible, but that's because I'm a tremendous moral coward; I'd have a great deal of respect for the person who'd rather curse him to his face and burn.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Well, if that God exists and is the God of the Bible, then every knee will bow and every tongue confess and give praise to God. In other words, those who judge God now will worship God on judgment day. At the same time, if eventually every knee bows and every tongue confesses, then perhaps hell will eventually be empty.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:There's always going to be one, isn't there? But given the God some people seem to believe in, I wouldn't blame him - if you've been convinced that there's either no God, or the genocidal, eternal tormenting in Hell God, then I can understand seeing that as a bit of Hobson's choice. If I became convinced that God really was the genocidal one then I'd probably try to get onto his good side by whatever means possible, but that's because I'm a tremendous moral coward; I'd have a great deal of respect for the person who'd rather curse him to his face and burn.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:I don't know if this counts or not, but I can think of at least one person, actually someone I first talked to on the Ship, who told me he wasn't going to pursue whether or not God existed because if God did, then God wasn't someone he wanted to know. So he definitely wasn't sure about God, but it seemed he was an anti-seeker because he didn't fancy God much.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've known many people - indeed, most people I know are in this category - who reject God because they don't think he's real, or have little confidence that he is. I've known none who reject God because they do think he's real but don't really fancy it much.
quote:When I read things like this written by people I know to be "Protestants" (who adhere to Sola Scripture), I always want to ask, "What's you Scriptural evidence for this? Where does Scripture teach these things?"
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No spiritual apparatus needs to be created. All that is necessary for hell to exist is for a person to turn his back on God, willingly, knowingly, and of free choice, and stay that way forever. To do so is to cut oneself off from the source of all joy, comfort, peace, and life, and willingly choose the opposites. Anything rather than humiliate oneself by repenting.
quote:Or, if this "God" exists (the "Beeswax God") maybe his supposed "revelation" of what he's capable of actually involves blowing a lot of sulfurous smoke up our you-know-whats.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, if that God exists and is the God of the Bible, then every knee will bow and every tongue confess and give praise to God. In other words, those who judge God now will worship God on judgment day.
quote:Please see Mousethief's to-the-point post about guilt by association. (I might also suggest that you take my posts no more seriously than I am taking yours--that is, not very!)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Anything is possible even Santa Claus. So, if the Dubio-Thomistic God is the real God and the Beeswax God just a demiurge, I think we've answered the question of what religion worships the Dubio-Thomistic God. It's not Christianity. Of course, Gnosticism is no longer much of a religion. You may also look into Zoroastrianism.
quote:Say, rather, Jesus had free will because he was perfect. We are not perfect, so our will is not free, as Paul argues persuasively, in Romans 7
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Would it not have been better if God had either not created human beings at all - or had made us all perfect, like Jesus? After all Jesus, they say, was perfect and had free will.
quote:Right -- which is precisely why it would be unjust (contrary to God's nature as Just) to condemn people for failing to accept the Gospel, since they cannot actually exercise their wills in that direction. It's like telling someone who is blind that you will punish them if they fail to read the newspaper you've set in front of them.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Say, rather, Jesus had free will because he was perfect. We are not perfect, so our will is not free, as Paul argues persuasively, in Romans 7
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Would it not have been better if God had either not created human beings at all - or had made us all perfect, like Jesus? After all Jesus, they say, was perfect and had free will.
quote:Okay, so how do you define "just"?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Possibly
Or...
You could be wrong in how you define just.
quote:I tried, in the OP to keep the cruel-sadist God out of sensible discussion where he belongs. SFAIK, and I can only answer for Conservative Evangelical Calvinists (which I no longer hold to but know and respect) that God's actions to all are based on his nature as both just and merciful, and that the unsaved will freely acknowledge the justice of there fate, which is nothing at all to do with sadism. OK I fully accept there has been some bone-headed rhetoric that can give rise to the idea, but there's no reason to return like for like.
But, faced with this cruel monster, I'd probably shrivel up and cry.
quote:I'm not aware of any christian denomination that teaches this. Condemnation is based on voluntary sin against God and our neighbour. The Gospel is not the test that decides whether we are saved or damned but the cure for those who are damned, which is a lot different. And can we avoid the Straw Women of the little old lady who never did anything wrong in her life except once she found a £ note and kept it instead of giving it in. If such a person exists, I'll cheerfully admit that she would not be damned for that.
which is precisely why it would be unjust (contrary to God's nature as Just) to condemn people for failing to accept the Gospel
quote:As with so many of these objections, I know of no christian denomination that teaches this. What they do teach is that post-mortem repentance is impossible. The idea that Hell is full of people who would repent and believe if only God would enable that, is nonsense.
I just can't wrap my mind around a belief that God would ever say, "Time's up, I won't offer you the grace you would need to repent anymore because you obviously don't want it."
quote:Why?
Originally posted by anteater:
As with so many of these objections, I know of no christian denomination that teaches this. What they do teach is that post-mortem repentance is impossible.
quote:Well that depends on details. I am in a minority, since I tend to believe in annihilation, in which case it is obvious why.
Why?
quote:But the reason the people in Hell don't want to repent is that they are cut off (by their own choice) from the grace that would allow them to repent. This is "just" - at least the RCC teaches - because people were taught before death that eternal separation from God's love and grace would be the consequence of not believing the Gospel, not being baptized, and not repenting of and confessing mortal sin after baptism. If someone has not been taught this in their lifetime or does not have access to baptism or confession before death, then God judges them based on what they would have done if they had had the chance (and in the case of confession, people can try to make a perfect act of contrition before death if no one is around to confess to), the RCC teaches.
Originally posted by anteater:
Boogie:quote:Well that depends on details. I am in a minority, since I tend to believe in annihilation, in which case it is obvious why.
Why?
But most don't, and those will often state that they believe this but are not able to explicate it.
The point of my post was that nobody takes the view that hell is full of people who want to repent but are somehow prevented from doing so by God.
quote:Nothing in what Jesus taught - or any of the other apostles for that matter - to suggest that you might get another shot at repentance post-mortem. Stuff like Jesus's parable about Lazarus and the rich man is one of the strongest indicators that you get enough time in this life to make your choices for eternity. Also the idea that God knows how we will respond -he puts us in situations in this life where we can make free choices that will count for eternity. For some people, he knows that no matter how many times you give them a choice, they will always reject him.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by anteater:
As with so many of these objections, I know of no christian denomination that teaches this. What they do teach is that post-mortem repentance is impossible.
quote:No, it is a problem with Christian universalism, which is simply wrong and which, as you have noted, cannot be defended from scripture. The idea that Christianity somehow didn't manage to come to terms with people doing evil is laughable. The traditional (pre-Protestant) explanation is of course entirely viable: you can do good only with and through God's grace, but you can do evil yourself precisely by resisting grace. There you go, the mystery of human evil solved: it is matter of refusing collaboration with God, of setting one's free will against His will. That wasn't so hard, was it now? And it explains how we can come to deserve reward or punishment, namely simply by the vigour or lack of our collaboration.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Only Christian Universalism deals adequately with the problem and posits a God who is both Just and Merciful. Christian Universalism's God will break the bondage of every human will when and how he sees fit. But, I'm quite willing to admit that Christian Universalism's correct theological conclusion is hard to support from Scripture (at least if it is understood the way it has commonly been understood by most Christians). But, maybe, the problem is not with Scripture, but with the way "most Christians" have been interpreting it?
quote:He also knows why - and it often has far more to do with upbringing/trauma/lack of love in babyhood than choice.
Originally posted by Truman White:
For some people, he knows that no matter how many times you give them a choice, they will always reject him.
quote:Some people live much shorter lives than others. How is what you describe fair or just to someone who dies before they can understand language - can they make the "choice" that you mentioned? Are they condemned to "torture living without Him"?
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Our lives come to an end, and God in His justice and righteousness will judge them fairly at that point. ... God in His wisdom has put a clear dead-line before us: we will get as many new chances as we want as long as we live, and then none any longer ... the choice simply is binary: beatitude living with God, or torture living without Him ...
quote:Really?! Now, I'm cautious about describing the precise cognitive state of the damned, or indeed of anybody in the afterlife. I do not really know what this will be like. However, the usual strategy of describing the doomed as this single-minded bunch of utter God-haters is in my opinion simply a copout. It tries to claim that God is not actually making a judgement, but is rather simply sorting people, with those that regrettably cannot be reached by even Divine means ending up in the hell bin. But no, God is being described as actually judging our lives. And anyhow, no human being can maintain such a pure state of mind, at least not without Divine help (and God would not help people to be single-mindedly opposed to Him). Indeed, this turns the doomed in some sort of anti-heroes. One would have to have some kind of admiration for their unbendable determination to face down an eternity of torture for their God-hating convictions. It would be a tragically misdirected but incredibly impressive stance. And of course this is just the sort of bullshit we get to hear over and over again on these boards: "If God is like this and that, then I would rather burn in hell for eternity than obey Him." That's a heroic attitude right there, a bold declaration full of guts and glory.
Originally posted by anteater:
The point of my post was that nobody takes the view that hell is full of people who want to repent but are somehow prevented from doing so by God.
quote:I'd say it's the other way round. I don't think we can get a lot of theology out of Lazarus and the rich man parable anyhow. It's not there to make a point about the afterlife, but about how we treat each other in this life.
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:Nothing in what Jesus taught - or any of the other apostles for that matter - to suggest that you might get another shot at repentance post-mortem. Stuff like Jesus's parable about Lazarus and the rich man is one of the strongest indicators that you get enough time in this life to make your choices for eternity.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by anteater:
As with so many of these objections, I know of no christian denomination that teaches this. What they do teach is that post-mortem repentance is impossible.
quote:If they are baptised, we know that they will go straight to heaven. If they are not, then we can hope that they do. (Traditionally, they would rather go to the "limbo of infants", which after some back and forth came to be seen as a place of eternal natural, but not super-natural, happiness.) If we now ask how it is fair that some people make it to heaven so easily, while we have to labour so hard to get there, then the parable of the workers in the vineyard applies.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Some people live much shorter lives than others. How is what you describe fair or just to someone who dies before they can understand language - can they make the "choice" that you mentioned? Are they condemned to "torture living without Him"?
quote:So their situation depends (or may depend) on someone else's choice - whether their carer(s)/parent(s) chose to baptise them? That sounds arbitrary, not just, to me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If they are baptised, we know that they will go straight to heaven. If they are not, then we can hope that they do. (Traditionally, they would rather go to the "limbo of infants", which after some back and forth came to be seen as a place of eternal natural, but not super-natural, happiness.) ...
quote:One more example of belief in a "God" who could disappoint people's best, most positive hopes. To imagine such a "God" is to imagine a being who can't possibly be God.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If they are baptised, we know that they will go straight to heaven. If they are not, then we can hope that they do.[/QB]
quote:I find Christianity unconvincing precisely because you find that convincing (because 'it sounds just about right' to you). Your continued use of terms like, "If they are baptised, we know that they will go straight to heaven" only adds to the unconvincingness of it all. You don't know*, and yet you're convinced.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I find Christianity convincing precisely because of the stark picture it (traditionally) paints of the afterlife.
quote:I did not say it "cannot" be defended from Scripture; I said that it is difficult (or words to that effect). That something is difficult to accomplish does not make it impossible to accomplish (nor does the difficulty render it not worthy trying).
Originally posted by IngoB:
No, it is a problem with Christian universalism, which is simply wrong and which, as you have noted, cannot be defended from scripture.
]
quote:Ah, I get it now. The Dubio-Thomistic God comes with His/Her own ontological argument. One I don't find persuasive.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:One more example of belief in a "God" who could disappoint people's best, most positive hopes. To imagine such a "God" is to imagine a being who can't possibly be God.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If they are baptised, we know that they will go straight to heaven. If they are not, then we can hope that they do.
Imagine a mother saying this to her child: "Timmy, if you fall into a raging river, you may hope that I'll jump in to save you ... but there's no guarantee that I will. I might just decide to let you drown." [/QB]
quote:If an elephant wants into a room, it's hard to keep him out.
Originally posted by anteater:
I tried, in the OP to keep the cruel-sadist God out of sensible discussion where he belongs.
quote:I'm fully aware of what Conservative Evangelical Calvinists believe and claim--used to be one for a while. I just simply don't accept what they claim about God and how the unsaved will respond to him. I won't go to the trouble at the moment, but if I were to really "unpack" the scenario you just presented, the only reasonable term that could be applied to its "God" would be "sadist" (well, or maybe "psychopath").
SFAIK, and I can only answer for Conservative Evangelical Calvinists (which I no longer hold to but know and respect) that God's actions to all are based on his nature as both just and merciful, and that the unsaved will freely acknowledge the justice of there fate, which is nothing at all to do with sadism.
quote:This seems like sophistry to me. As you note in the part of your comment I didn't copy, acceptance of the Gospel is necessary for a person not to be condemned for "voluntary sin against God or neighbour." So, it's a fact that the traditional scenario has people condemned as a consequence of their not having accepted the Gospel--which is what I meant by "condemned for not accepting the Gospel."
I'm not aware of any christian denomination that teaches this. Condemnation is based on voluntary sin against God and our neighbour.
quote:I'm not sure whom you're arguing with here. I certainly didn't raise this "straw man." I don't make arguments like that. I know how spurious they are. But, for the record, according to the traditional Protestant doctrine, that little old lady is going straight to Hell if she hasn't believed in Jesus as her savior. As soon as you affirm that God couldn't possibly condemn a nice little old lady for her tiny little sins, you've actually abandoned the whole doctrine of the necessity of faith-in-Christ-in-this-life for salvation.
And can we avoid the Straw Women of the little old lady who never did anything wrong in her life except once she found a £ note and kept it instead of giving it in. If such a person exists, I'll cheerfully admit that she would not be damned for that.
quote:There you have it! Salvation is only for those who have "personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."
"Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer.... There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."
quote:So would the safest option be to make a full and frank confession of one's sins and then die immediately after in a nasty accident?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Really?! Now, I'm cautious about describing the precise cognitive state of the damned, or indeed of anybody in the afterlife. I do not really know what this will be like. However, the usual strategy of describing the doomed as this single-minded bunch of utter God-haters is in my opinion simply a copout. It tries to claim that God is not actually making a judgement, but is rather simply sorting people, with those that regrettably cannot be reached by even Divine means ending up in the hell bin. But no, God is being described as actually judging our lives. And anyhow, no human being can maintain such a pure state of mind, at least not without Divine help (and God would not help people to be single-mindedly opposed to Him). Indeed, this turns the doomed in some sort of anti-heroes. One would have to have some kind of admiration for their unbendable determination to face down an eternity of torture for their God-hating convictions. It would be a tragically misdirected but incredibly impressive stance. And of course this is just the sort of bullshit we get to hear over and over again on these boards: "If God is like this and that, then I would rather burn in hell for eternity than obey Him." That's a heroic attitude right there, a bold declaration full of guts and glory.
Originally posted by anteater:
The point of my post was that nobody takes the view that hell is full of people who want to repent but are somehow prevented from doing so by God.
But this finds no support in scripture. In the outer darkness, there are no stern anti-heroes eating up the punishment of hell with grim determination. In the outer darkness, there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The doomed are really doomed, they have no delusions of hateful grandeur to support them through an eternity of pain.
It may indeed be the case that the doomed do not want to repent. But if so, then only because they also see clearly now and know that they cannot. Not because they are locked into some self-supporting strength of hatred and evil. There is no strength to hatred and evil in the afterlife, it has all fallen apart to misery and pain. The main punishment for the doomed, tradition has always claimed, is precisely their thwarted desire for God (poena damni), not the "physical" torture (poena sensus). They are weeping and gnashing their teeth for a reason, and in the main so because they cannot repent any longer and hence cannot be with God. And while it may be the case that some feature of the afterlife makes repentance there impossible even for God to grant, nevertheless of course it is God who has created life and afterlife this way. So in an ultimate sense at least, God is in fact denying the doomed any further chance for repentance.
In my opinion, these explanations are all evasive manoeuvres to maintain a huggy-bear version of God. But God simply is not harmless. There is no indication in scripture or from Jesus that He is. Indeed, there is no indication from life that He is. It is a complete mystery to me how people who have been around in this world can come to the conclusion that God is this nice dude who will make everybody happy, eventually. Precisely what are they smoking? I find Christianity convincing precisely because of the stark picture it (traditionally) paints of the afterlife. That sounds just about right to me. The good news is that I can be saved, and indeed that everybody can be saved (not will be saved). Looking at this world with open eyes, that really is astonishingly good news.
quote:Abraham believed differently....
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I'm not sure it's my place to lecture God on morality...
quote:The Psalmist tells us that the fool has said in his heart there is no God. St. Anselm and St. Augustine tells us that we should believe so that me might understand and not seek understanding so that we might believe. IngoB tells us (and I paraphrase) dems da breaks.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
quote:Sorry, I know that was addressed to Karl....
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you spend too much time reading online arguments between atheists and Christians you do come across a lot of people who 'reject' God. But they probably aren't representative of most atheists.
quote:Mark 9:40 comes to mind:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
quote:
38 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 "For he who is not against us is for us. 41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.
quote:So - you reckon either that atheists are too stupid to realise God exists, or have decided to pretend he doesn't?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:The Psalmist tells us that the fool has said in his heart there is no God. St. Anselm and St. Augustine tells us that we should believe so that me might understand and not seek understanding so that we might believe. IngoB tells us (and I paraphrase) dems da breaks.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
quote:I do get that. But that's what I meant when I wrote about God revealing Himself in Jesus - that God has wandered down the street, literally and metaphorically, in Jesus. And, in a sense, I do think he regularly asks us to reject or accept him - continually, keeping coming back at us to try and persuade us to do so.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
quote:I didn't mean specifically you with that comment (and I nearly didn't put that last line in - still not sure that I should've...
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Abraham believed differently....
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I'm not sure it's my place to lecture God on morality...
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Genesis 18:25)
Of course, I'm not Abraham!
Be that as it may, I don't believe I'm lecturing God about morality. I'm arguing that the "God" who would need such a lecture doesn't exist--cannot exist. It's a crude misrepresentation of Christian universalism to present its argument against the damning-torturing "God" as an argument with that "God". I can well-imagine the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel telling Elijah not to lecture Baal about morality.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
). I don't believe in the "damning torturing God" in the sense of one who willingly and happily consigns people to eternal damnation for doing one tiny little thing wrong. quote:And yet I know plenty of people who find the idea of there being a God utterly preposterous. How do we know that Jesus was indeed God wandering down the street? We don't. If God has revealed himself, that revelation is extremely unclear. How do we know that Jesus is God's primary revelation of himself, and not the Koran? Or the teachings of the Buddha? We don't.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:I do get that. But that's what I meant when I wrote about God revealing Himself in Jesus - that God has wandered down the street, literally and metaphorically, in Jesus. And, in a sense, I do think he regularly asks us to reject or accept him - continually, keeping coming back at us to try and persuade us to do so.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
quote:I don't find faith is something I can manufacture as an act of will. And I don't think you can realistically make a decision about a being that you don't see any reason to suppose exists. If God really is going to make our response to him such a deal breaker, he really needs to make it clear to humanity that he's really there and really is waiting on that decision.
I also think this is where faith comes into play: that faith in God is about something other than "knowing" God exists. I don't know God exists, I don't believe I can prove to anyone's satisfaction that He does. I believe and have faith that He does and that He's willing to put up with a crappy servant of His like me. I don't think we'll ever get proof that He does exist - I think He calls us to take a risk and have faith that He does.
quote:I'm not calling you or anybody else a fool. I can't see the heart of a person. Foolishness is not a lack of intelligence so much as a lack of wisdom. Proverbs tells us that the fool trusts in his own mind but he that walks in wisdom will be delivered. Often the most intelligent among us are also the most foolish. Who else trusts that much in their own intellect?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:So - you reckon either that atheists are too stupid to realise God exists, or have decided to pretend he doesn't?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:The Psalmist tells us that the fool has said in his heart there is no God. St. Anselm and St. Augustine tells us that we should believe so that me might understand and not seek understanding so that we might believe. IngoB tells us (and I paraphrase) dems da breaks.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
Given that I also find it hard quite often to believe God exists, do you think I'm too stupid to see the truth or merely self-deceptive? I'd love to know.
quote:I've met a few who have actively (and often angrily) rejected the concept of God. Often for reasons like the idea of eternal punishment or because of the problem of suffering. More often perhaps because of their own experiences with religion. Often they do hold to some sort of primitive deism.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
But, is it really the case that those atheists know that God exists (that is, they're really theists) and they have, nevertheless, rejected him/her?
quote:Do you really believe that it is possible for mere dust to effectively resist God?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
If we decide to ignore God or shut him out of our lives ... and resist whatever God does to win us back....
quote:Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that I was taking your statement personally. It's simply a "charge" I encounter a lot, and since your post was the latest to suggest it, I "pounced." My argument was not directed against you, but against the often-expressed idea that universalists are lecturing God on morality.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I didn't mean specifically you with that comment (and I nearly didn't put that last line in - still not sure that I should've...
quote:Dunno... according to Romans 1 (if we're going to get into this), people "knew God" yet "did not honour him as God or give thanks to him". The OT prophets, speaking the very words of God to his people, were rejected. Jesus came showing God's power in an unprecedented way and fulfilling Scriptures left, right and centre and people rejected him. I know there's times in my life (oh so many) when I have a good idea of what God wants and fail to do it.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Do you really believe that it is possible for mere dust to effectively resist God?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
If we decide to ignore God or shut him out of our lives ... and resist whatever God does to win us back....
As I engage with this thread, I realize what a "Calvinist" I really am, at least as far as "effectual calling" and "irresistible grace" are concerned.
If God really did "respect" our choices, we'd all be lost, because not one of us could freely choose God. Romans 9:16: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy." Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not your own doing; it is the gift of God...."
I really think "damnationists" and "annihilationists" who try to justify their position based on God's respect for "free will" are going to have to come to terms with the strong biblical witness for God's absolute sovereignty and irresistible grace. It's not just us universalists who have a hard row to hoe when it comes to defending our beliefs in relation to Scripture.
But, in the end, a TUUIP is a much more beautiful flower than a TULIP!
quote:No probs (and don't blame you for pouncing - sorry if my post provoked it!)
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that I was taking your statement personally. It's simply a "charge" I encounter a lot, and since your post was the latest to suggest it, I "pounced." My argument was not directed against you, but against the often-expressed idea that universalists are lecturing God on morality.
quote:In that, you have my full agreement!!
I can't and won't speak for other universalists, but my beef isn't with God, it's with God's PR firm!
quote:Of course, who gets born in what circumstances may seem arbitrary to you, but is not so for God. For all we know, the fate of eternal natural happiness may not only be just but a mercy extended by God to that person. God's omniscience does not only see this world, but all possible worlds.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
So their situation depends (or may depend) on someone else's choice - whether their carer(s)/parent(s) chose to baptise them? That sounds arbitrary, not just, to me.
quote:I have never said anything like "all agnostics / atheists go to hell", hence this argument is partly based on false premises. There is scope for everybody to go to heaven, though admittedly for atheists there is only very limited scope. Let's be clear that it is actually a significant advantage to be a Christian, it maximises one's salvation chances. Whereas being an atheist is very disadvantageous for that. But if an atheist, or a Hindu, or whatever follows the promptings of God's grace sufficiently within their situation, then they will go to heaven. (And if Christians don't, then they will go to hell.)
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Similarly, some people are agnostic or atheist as children and become Christians as teenagers or adults. But they cannot do so if they are in a fatal accident or die of a disease before they would have become a Christian. On your view, they haven't made the right choice during their lifetime, so they get torture. The distribution of fatal accidents and terminal diseases seems largely arbitrary to me. So, for these people too, the allocation of torture seems arbitrary, not just.
quote:If it was deeply immoral to kill all those people, as you clearly believe and as I mostly concede, then the following is the case: According to you, all these killers who murdered people in horrible ways now enjoy an eternity of bliss in heaven with God. According to me, those brutal killers are now most likely suffering for eternity in hell. Getting God terribly wrong and mistreating people atrociously has in the end absolutely no consequence in your scheme, whereas it typically has devastating consequences in mine. So this apparently makes my God a moral monster. Oh well, I think I can live with that.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Your "God" is a moral monster, and to understand what comes from belief in such a creature, we only need to listen to the screams of burning "heretics," "witches," and Jews.
quote:Well, if that's the company you wish for, then God will probably grant your wish. You are right as far as that goes.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm arguing that God will save Caligula, Nero, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, Radovan Karadzic, Osama bin Laden, the commandants of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno ... and me, the foremost sinner (move over, Pseudo-Paul! -- 1 Timothy 1:15).
quote:I'm not sure how God beating Himself up makes Him any less a basket case than God beating us up? The cross really is a terrible embarrassment for universalists, if God only had sent a heartfelt greeting card instead. But anyway, it is really good to know that not a drop of justice is left in God. Thus if I can manage to avoid human justice, I'm all in the clear to do whatever I want. Great stuff. I think I will start with some adultery, just as a warm-up, and then slowly work myself up to a murder or two. Who knows, if I am getting really good at this, I might try my hand at some genocide. Just because I can.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
But -- and this is the wonderful thing -- this God isn't going to pour out his Wrath on us, because he poured it out on himself. He took his own justice in full measure, so that there is not a drop left for us.
quote:Well, after getting the absolution and doing the penance. Yes. To optimise, I would suggest getting a plenary indulgence as well though. You don't want to have time in purgatory dealing with temporal punishments, if you can avoid it. Or simply die directly after baptism, that's the comprehensive package. (Just to be clear, in any way arranging a nasty accident that will kill you is basically suicide, a mortal sin. So you will have to hope for a timely death. Or indeed pray for it.)
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So would the safest option be to make a full and frank confession of one's sins and then die immediately after in a nasty accident?
quote:I'm not really arguing against your ideas here and I don't want to argue about free will - but I think it's worth reiterating that it is possible to doubt that God would subject anyone to inescapable eternal damnation without a Calvinist belief in the operation of grace and free will.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Do you really believe that it is possible for mere dust to effectively resist God?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
If we decide to ignore God or shut him out of our lives ... and resist whatever God does to win us back....
As I engage with this thread, I realize what a "Calvinist" I really am, at least as far as "effectual calling" and "irresistible grace" are concerned.
If God really did "respect" our choices, we'd all be lost, because not one of us could freely choose God. Romans 9:16: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy." Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not your own doing; it is the gift of God...."
I really think "damnationists" and "annihilationists" who try to justify their position based on God's respect for "free will" are going to have to come to terms with the strong biblical witness for God's absolute sovereignty and irresistible grace. It's not just us universalists who have a hard row to hoe when it comes to defending our beliefs in relation to Scripture.
But, in the end, a TUUIP is a much more beautiful flower than a TULIP!
quote:"Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, 'This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.' So he told them this parable...." (Luke 15:1-3)
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, if that's the company you wish for, then God will probably grant your wish. You are right as far as that goes.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm arguing that God will save Caligula, Nero, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, Radovan Karadzic, Osama bin Laden, the commandants of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno ... and me, the foremost sinner (move over, Pseudo-Paul! -- 1 Timothy 1:15).
quote:This may be a little lexicographical, but one can be both "arbitrary" and "steadfast". In fact, having nothing constrain the flow of one's will is the definition of arbitrary. But just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it's not consistent. The rules for various sports are "arbitrary", insofar as there's no underlying reason they couldn't be different, but they are also consistent ("steadfast" in your terminology) in that everyone plays by the same rules.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But on the whole arbitrariness thing: Let's remember that God is Lord, not Landlord. He's not simply the owner of this place, who nevertheless has duties to the tenants imposed by some external lawmaker. He makes the rules as much as the things they apply to. He isn't arbitrary because He is perfectly steadfast, but there is exactly nothing that constrains the flow of His will.
quote:Wait - so there are no limitations on what God can and cannot do - but if He says He is good or just or something, does that mean we can safely expect to always comply with the definition of goodness or justice, etc., that God has given us? What are those definitions? Heretic that I am I'll probably disagree on the definitions or even on whether God said that He had a certain quality - although I do believe God is good and just. I don't have an airtight explanation for anything I believe, though, and I don't expect to ever have one at this point in my life. But I am interested in whether God's descriptions of Himself to us can be used to predict what He would and would not do.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This may be a little lexicographical, but one can be both "arbitrary" and "steadfast". In fact, having nothing constrain the flow of one's will is the definition of arbitrary. But just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it's not consistent. The rules for various sports are "arbitrary", insofar as there's no underlying reason they couldn't be different, but they are also consistent ("steadfast" in your terminology) in that everyone plays by the same rules.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But on the whole arbitrariness thing: Let's remember that God is Lord, not Landlord. He's not simply the owner of this place, who nevertheless has duties to the tenants imposed by some external lawmaker. He makes the rules as much as the things they apply to. He isn't arbitrary because He is perfectly steadfast, but there is exactly nothing that constrains the flow of His will.
quote:It's nice of you to "mostly concede" that it was "deeply immoral" for sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church (urged on by Mom Herself) to kill heretics, witches, and Jews.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If it was deeply immoral to kill all those people, as you clearly believe and as I mostly concede, then the following is the case: According to you, all these killers who murdered people in horrible ways now enjoy an eternity of bliss in heaven with God. According to me, those brutal killers are now most likely suffering for eternity in hell. Getting God terribly wrong and mistreating people atrociously has in the end absolutely no consequence in your scheme, whereas it typically has devastating consequences in mine. So this apparently makes my God a moral monster. Oh well, I think I can live with that.
quote:I ended up responding separately to this one, but must add: If you don't wish to spend eternity with saved sinners, you're going to have to forgo the traditional Christian afterlife, because classic, orthodox doctrine says that heaven will be full of all kinds of people who did really horrible things--like that guy who stood by while the mob stoned Stephen. Never mind universalism at all! Your problem's with the claims of your own tradition!
Well, if that's the company you wish for, then God will probably grant your wish. You are right as far as that goes.
quote:Seriously? You're going to belittle and mock the teachings of your own tradition just to try to score a point against universalism?
I'm not sure how God beating Himself up makes Him any less a basket case than God beating us up?
quote:I'm a universalist, and the cross doesn't embarrass me in the least.
The cross really is a terrible embarrassment for universalists, if God only had sent a heartfelt greeting card instead.
quote:Go ahead! Knock yourself out! You'll be in good company with the adulterers, murderers, and those who've committed genocide who do believe in Hell and judgment and still go ahead and commit such acts.
But anyway, it is really good to know that not a drop of justice is left in God. Thus if I can manage to avoid human justice, I'm all in the clear to do whatever I want. Great stuff. I think I will start with some adultery, just as a warm-up, and then slowly work myself up to a murder or two. Who knows, if I am getting really good at this, I might try my hand at some genocide. Just because I can.
quote:There's hope for you yet!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Cranmer kind of brought it on himself. No way he could have predicted Mary Tudor becoming queen. He took a risk and got literally burned. Still, as I see it, Crammed and company are likely in heaven with Bloody Mary and Thomas More.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:So were Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, and the commandants of all of the Nazi death camps.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
They were all baptized.
quote:Good thing, too, or all of us Purgatory dogs would go straight to Hell.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
There's also room in heaven for people who try to win arguments by polemically misrepresenting others' arguments and attributing ideas to them that they've never actually expressed.
quote:Yes, who gets born in what circumstances does seem arbitrary to me! For what it's worth, I like the idea that 'no-one is an island'. My problem is how that idea makes it just for one person's choice to affect whether someone else is left out of Heaven.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, who gets born in what circumstances may seem arbitrary to you, but is not so for God ... Adam, who squandered sanctifying grace from the heirloom of mankind, should have tipped you off that God does not believe that man is an island. You may of course consider that just more old-fashioned nonsense. ... How do you explain that in a framework where every individual gets exactly the same fair and square deal from God, no matter what the circumstances or what anybody else does? ...
quote:I made a wrong assumption. I was wrong to assume that, when you wrote that we must choose during our lifetime, this meant 'choose to become a Christian'. In fact, you meant 'choose to follow the promptings of God's grace'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... I have never said anything like "all agnostics / atheists go to hell", hence this argument is partly based on false premises. ... if an atheist, or a Hindu, or whatever follows the promptings of God's grace sufficiently within their situation, then they will go to heaven. (And if Christians don't, then they will go to hell.)
quote:Actually, there are only few people who don't believe that He exists. Where "He" is not necessarily the Christian God, of course. It could be some other religion, or merely some undifferentiated sentiments about "something higher". But atheism is for the most part an educated affectation of the rich, and in the West, a cultural disease (or as one of the prominent disease vectors would say, a "meme"). There is a big difference between saying "the Christian God does not exist" and "there is nothing higher / supernatural". The latter opinion is truly limited to fools, just as the bible says. The former is simply a different, quite reasonable discussion.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
quote:There is no such thing as faith without sources. It is frankly rather boring to read through these lists of what people do not accept as sources for their faith. This little more than pride in having rejected somebody else's source, just because those sources are "standard" and hence one can feel like a "rebel". Whatever. Knock yourself out. The real question is rather what people actually accept as their sources. And the real problem there is that "me, myself and I" is not a particularly trustworthy source...
Originally posted by stonespring:
But that does not mean that I believe the verses of Scripture, the writings of Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians, and the decrees of Councils and Popes that appear to say that God does indeed punish those not living in a state of grace at the time of death with eternal suffering.
quote:Matt 13:14-17: With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Therefore I find comfort in knowing that even though God could very well a God who damns people to suffer forever, that there is nothing that requires me to believe that unless I really can get my conscience to accept it. And no matter how much I learn about Christianity and Catholicism, my conscience just cannot accept it.
quote:As mentioned above, I would make a difference between not believing in (the Christian) God, and not believing in (some supernatural principle which we may conveniently call) god. If you find it hard to believe in the latter, rather than the former, then I would say as a Westerner it is most likely due to a combination of cultural corruption and hiding various personal immoralities, plus a helping of acedia induced by a (relatively speaking) luxurious life. So it's probably more a kind of self-deception than simply stupidity.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So - you reckon either that atheists are too stupid to realise God exists, or have decided to pretend he doesn't? Given that I also find it hard quite often to believe God exists, do you think I'm too stupid to see the truth or merely self-deceptive? I'd love to know.
quote:Yet that is precisely what it is, an act of will making a decision on a matter that the intellect cannot properly decide. So perhaps your problem is simply that you have an overly exalted opinion of what faith must be like, and then fail to meet the unrealistic standards that you have set for yourself? This is highly likely if you come from a Protestant background, with its heroic take on conversion and romantic views on communion with God.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't find faith is something I can manufacture as an act of will.
quote:I do. Every day.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So you will have to hope for a timely death. Or indeed pray for it.
quote:Actually, they are. "Fool" is not a statement about cognitive ability. I was an atheist for most of my life, and I consider myself to be rather intelligent and reasonably well educated.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't. So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
quote:Yes, I'm not sure what 'fool' means here, but it makes me scratch my head. I grew up in a working class area, where nearly everybody was an atheist. And my whole family were, including grandparents, maiden aunts, and so on. Well, I suppose some of them were fools in one sense, but mostly they were just ordinary people, who were not interested in God or religion. So I don't get the idea of atheism being a product of affluence. Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't.
So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
quote:I didn't stop reading, but you didn't sing to my soul. Not your fault.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Actually, they are. "Fool" is not a statement about cognitive ability. I was an atheist for most of my life, and I consider myself to be rather intelligent and reasonably well educated.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't. So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
But I would be sad if you stopped reading my post at that first part. For the last part was quite independent of that, and contained what I wanted to say to you, personally.
quote:I've taken it to mean a person who does know that God is real, but nevertheless pretends to themselves that "there's no God so I can do what I like". It's like a cosmic version of "the teacher's not looking so I'll scoff these sweets now and he'll never know." It doesn't, to my mind, mean that atheists are inherently fools.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Yes, I'm not sure what 'fool' means here, but it makes me scratch my head. I grew up in a working class area, where nearly everybody was an atheist. And my whole family were, including grandparents, maiden aunts, and so on. Well, I suppose some of them were fools in one sense, but mostly they were just ordinary people, who were not interested in God or religion. So I don't get the idea of atheism being a product of affluence. Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't.
So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
quote:Foolish as in "unwise", not as in "stupid".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I'm not sure what 'fool' means here, but it makes me scratch my head.
quote:I note two things: First, once more, not believing in Christianity does not necessarily indicate atheism, even in a predominantly Christian culture. Actually, precisely in a culture heavily dominated by one religion there is scope for "fake atheism", i.e., an actual denial of the dominant religion expressed as a denial of all religion precisely because society equates the two. Second, lack of engagement in religion does not equate to atheism either. Being apathetic about higher things is functionally like atheism (one doesn't do "religious stuff"), but psychologically quite different. Again, there is scope for "fake atheism" there, i.e., explaining one's lack of interest not as the apathy that it really is, but as a (in some sense more respectable) choice of conscience. I think "real atheism" requires strong conviction and an actual emotional investment. One must really mean it when one says "there are no gods, or anything like that".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I grew up in a working class area, where nearly everybody was an atheist. And my whole family were, including grandparents, maiden aunts, and so on. Well, I suppose some of them were fools in one sense, but mostly they were just ordinary people, who were not interested in God or religion. So I don't get the idea of atheism being a product of affluence.
quote:If true, then that's rather interesting.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
quote:So you were a fool, but now you're not? And if Pope Francis slips and says something you disapprove of, are you going back to being a fool?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Actually, they are. "Fool" is not a statement about cognitive ability. I was an atheist for most of my life, and I consider myself to be rather intelligent and reasonably well educated.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't. So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
quote:Well yes. The other way round if anything. The Cross, the scandalous cross, is God's response to a truly serious situation. We are all sinners and incapable of helping ourselves.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:I'm a universalist, and the cross doesn't embarrass me in the least.
The cross really is a terrible embarrassment for universalists, if God only had sent a heartfelt greeting card instead.
quote:Well, I'm not as foolish as I was about this sort of thing.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So you were a fool, but now you're not?
quote:I'm not totally sure what this is in reference to. I cannot become an atheist again, since I accept at least one (probably several) of the philosophical arguments for the existence of (the metaphysical) God as true. I can however certainly abandon the RCC, if Pope Francis manages to prove her doctrinally unreliable.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And if Pope Francis slips and says something you disapprove of, are you going back to being a fool?
quote:The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation). At most an universalist can make some hay out of some kind of purgatory setting, though I don't hear that stressed so often. But frankly, as compared to a guarantee of infinite bliss, what does any finite difficulty matter? The drama of the cross is completely pointless for universalism. It's like someone making a big deal out of having found a booger in their nose. Everybody does get that eventually, and it has no significant consequences, so why the ado?
Originally posted by ken:
Well yes. The other way round if anything. The Cross, the scandalous cross, is God's response to a truly serious situation. We are all sinners and incapable of helping ourselves.
quote:No cross, no salvation, no sacraments. No faith, no sacramental confession. No sacramental confession, little chance of perseverance. The only thing contrived here is your critique.
Originally posted by ken:
If the rather retro Romanism that IngoB describes here were true, where its not faith or a Christian profession that God uses to save you, but rather contriving not to have committed an unconfessed mortal sin just before your death, then the Cross would hardly be needed.
quote:Uhhh... Did you mean 1 Cor 13? Let me assume that you did. Well, there's that. But then there's also 1 Cor 5. St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If his love is as defined in that famous bit in 2 Corinthians, then what basis for fear would there be? That love that always forgives, keeps no record of wrongs...
quote:That doesn't mean he wasn't.
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
quote:I did mean that. I've always thought knowing what's in there is more important than knowing where it is.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Uhhh... Did you mean 1 Cor 13? Let me assume that you did. Well, there's that. But then there's also 1 Cor 5. St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If his love is as defined in that famous bit in 2 Corinthians, then what basis for fear would there be? That love that always forgives, keeps no record of wrongs...
quote:Not per se, of course. But this was no ordinary man, but an apostle. And this is not an ordinary letter, but part of inspired scripture. Of course, the instrument Saul of Tarsus colours what the Holy Spirit wishes to teach us. But if you are going to take out entire chapters of the bible like this, then we part company. No can do. And indeed, even accepting this sort of approach for the sake of argument: who says that it is 1 Cor 5 that has to go, rather than 1 Cor 13?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That doesn't mean he wasn't.
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
quote:Well, as it was I spent time hunting for some particularly striking definition of "love" in 2 Cor. I would not exactly call that time wasted, given that I was reading through scripture... Still, I would consider correct and specific quoting/referencing a basic courtesy around here.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I did mean that. I've always thought knowing what's in there is more important than knowing where it is.
quote:It's been done. I guess you missed my last lengthy reply to IngoB's lengthy post.
Originally posted by anteater:
Someone will doubtless quote "perfect love casts out fear" to which I would steal an idea of CSL and suggest setting up a separate board for the perfect where it can be debated.
quote:Since the Bible wasn't written in English, it can't possible just be "fear as in fear." The English word has lots of connotations that must be absent from the biblical usage
Originally posted by anteater:
... and there is a theme running throughout the NT, of the fear of God (and that is fear as in fear)....
quote:This is the giantist straw man that gets wheeled out every time we have this kind of discussion.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation). At most an universalist can make some hay out of some kind of purgatory setting, though I don't hear that stressed so often. But frankly, as compared to a guarantee of infinite bliss, what does any finite difficulty matter? The drama of the cross is completely pointless for universalism. It's like someone making a big deal out of having found a booger in their nose. Everybody does get that eventually, and it has no significant consequences, so why the ado?
quote:I think I have to refer you to my earlier post with answers yourt poijnt.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation).
quote:How can you tell when it seems you either haven't read or haven't thought about what I wrote?
Originally posted by IngoB:
]No cross, no salvation, no sacraments. No faith, no sacramental confession. No sacramental confession, little chance of perseverance. The only thing contrived here is your critique.
quote:I don't get this (Ingo's argument here, not gopherrevs') either. I can't think of anything more terrifying than meeting God and not pleasing him. Any hell you can imagine won't be itself divine*, so it won't be as scary. So no fear of hell would motivate me if awe of my god wouldn't.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:This is the giantist straw man that gets wheeled out every time we have this kind of discussion.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation). At most an universalist can make some hay out of some kind of purgatory setting, though I don't hear that stressed so often. But frankly, as compared to a guarantee of infinite bliss, what does any finite difficulty matter? The drama of the cross is completely pointless for universalism. It's like someone making a big deal out of having found a booger in their nose. Everybody does get that eventually, and it has no significant consequences, so why the ado?
quote:I duno about you but I both knew that my mother loved me and was in fear of my life of her. I don't think it was fear that she would kill me other than metaphorically but it was fear all the same. I think this is closer to what fear of God is than some fear of punishment.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think that's because it doesn't make sense Anteater. I am not afraid of people who love me, because they love me, and I have confidence that that means they will neither reject me nor do something unspeakable to me. Is God's love less than theirs? If his love is as defined in that famous bit in 2 Corinthians, then what basis for fear would there be? That love that always forgives, keeps no record of wrongs...
quote:For a very simple reason: it is no straw man but a devastating critique of the universalist claim.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This is the giantist straw man that gets wheeled out every time we have this kind of discussion.
quote:If the eternal outcome is not connected to whatever happens in a finite span of time, and this includes any potential "finite time" in purgatory, then any suffering or joy there just is inconsequential. Both in the literal sense (one is not the consequence of the other), and in a "bookkeeping" sense: the most horrible but finite suffering simply does pale into insignificance against eternal bliss. In note that this is (1) a traditional Christian argument for coping with the suffering in this life, and more importantly, (2) simply the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin". Never mind why that universalist argument is false, but by the same logic "infinite bliss" simply overrides any "finite pain".
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I mean, the argument that nothing matters unless it is eternal is ludicrous. You're sweeping away the suffering of countless people, labelling any justice that is meted out in our lifetimes as inconsequential.
quote:Actually, I said: needs no help other than that universal salvation. And that is plainly true. The sinner for example does not need any particular grace to overcome sin in this life. What for? He will go to heaven anyway. Perhaps a bit slower, but that you will wake up with a hangover does not stop everybody from drinking too much.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And secondly, where do you get to the idea that no sinner is in need of any kind of help? Of course we are. We all are. Universal Reconciliation states that clearly, and that God does something about that for everyone, not just a select few. And we can be part of that for one another.
quote:Well, the purgatory angle is better than nothing. Every little bit of hell helps, so to speak. But ultimately it is precisely not a big deal. It's more like getting a root canal. Sure, it's going to be horrid while it lasts, but you are certain that in the end you will be done with that, and then feel a lot better. And the possibility of getting a root canal does surprisingly little to stop people from eating sweets. Also a key aspect of human psychology is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". What horrors await in purgatory is speculation, what pleasures await the sinner in this world is not.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of a kind of purgatory setting, I for one stress it every time we discuss this issue. Once and for all: Hell does not have to be eternal to be a very, very big deal.
quote:Who has claimed that it was possible for us not to sin (by our own powers)? Why do you address this question to me?
Originally posted by ken:
Why would Jesus have to die for us if it was possible for us not to sin?
quote:I read and thought about what you wrote. I answered to the little sense that I could make of it.
Originally posted by ken:
How can you tell when it seems you either haven't read or haven't thought about what I wrote?
quote:I think lots of people have seen relationships founder because they were certain that their loved one would always stay by them no matter what.
I am not afraid of people who love me, because they love me, and I have confidence that that means they will neither reject me
quote:"...not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below — indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8: 38-39)
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may have been sold a pup Anteater - I was assured God's love was unconditional.
quote:What this teaches to me is that love in and of itself casts out fear, and The one who still has fear has not been made perfect in love.
Have a look at 1 John.
quote:Depends what you mean by "well within the reach".
It's clear that the author sees "perfect love" as something well within the reach of imperfect people.
quote:I'm sorry, but despite your explanations, I just don't see it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For a very simple reason: it is no straw man but a devastating critique of the universalist claim.
quote:That's not how I understand it. The argument isn't about temporal and infinity, it's about the ending of suffering, and ultimate hope of rightness. In that, your root canal illustration fits. The comfort is in the hope that the suffering will end, not in that in the end our infinite bliss will mean that our current suffering is inconsequential simply because it is finite. In "One day this will be over, and things will be well", the focus has very little to do with whether "well" will be finite or infinite, so far as I see it, and much more about the simple fact that "it is over", and there will be wellness in general.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In note that this is (1) a traditional Christian argument for coping with the suffering in this life, and more importantly, (2) simply the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin". Never mind why that universalist argument is false, but by the same logic "infinite bliss" simply overrides any "finite pain".
quote:Would it help to point out that (as far as I understand it) "perfect" in the Bible is perhaps better rendered "complete"? Not perfect and unchangeable in a Platonic sense, but right, proper, whole, good: complete.
Originally posted by anteater:
a degree of holiness such that the word "perfect" is appropriate.
quote:I agree with you. I don't have faith in the conventional sense, and in terms of my inability to accept orthodox Christian/Catholic teachings on eternal inescapable (once you're in it) damnation I think I won't win in any argument based on the premises of Christianity as commonly understood. I am certainly guilty of moral narcissism and I also have a decadent morality that is the consequence of being much more spoiled than even most people in developed countries. Those are parts of myself that I need to work to improve (and pray for help in doing so). That said, I have come to believe that my brazenly heretical, schismatic and/or apostate, Purgatorially universalist, religiously-pluralistic, pseudo-agnostic form of Cafeteria Catholicism/Christianity is a good thing. I'm not interested in proving that I am right or that you are wrong - but I would like to understand your ideas/beliefs better.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Actually, there are only few people who don't believe that He exists. Where "He" is not necessarily the Christian God, of course. It could be some other religion, or merely some undifferentiated sentiments about "something higher". But atheism is for the most part an educated affectation of the rich, and in the West, a cultural disease (or as one of the prominent disease vectors would say, a "meme"). There is a big difference between saying "the Christian God does not exist" and "there is nothing higher / supernatural". The latter opinion is truly limited to fools, just as the bible says. The former is simply a different, quite reasonable discussion.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
quote:There is no such thing as faith without sources. It is frankly rather boring to read through these lists of what people do not accept as sources for their faith. This little more than pride in having rejected somebody else's source, just because those sources are "standard" and hence one can feel like a "rebel". Whatever. Knock yourself out. The real question is rather what people actually accept as their sources. And the real problem there is that "me, myself and I" is not a particularly trustworthy source...
Originally posted by stonespring:
But that does not mean that I believe the verses of Scripture, the writings of Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians, and the decrees of Councils and Popes that appear to say that God does indeed punish those not living in a state of grace at the time of death with eternal suffering.
quote:Matt 13:14-17: With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Therefore I find comfort in knowing that even though God could very well a God who damns people to suffer forever, that there is nothing that requires me to believe that unless I really can get my conscience to accept it. And no matter how much I learn about Christianity and Catholicism, my conscience just cannot accept it.
...
FWIW, my faith is for the most part calculated and workman-like, with all the personal passion of brushing one's teeth regularly. I also have not "encountered Jesus", though I have had some mystic experiences (which I found more scary than comforting, frankly). I consider Christian life mostly a hard slog, and the only thing the Christian community tends to inspire me to is rage-quitting. Yet I have a kind of faith, and it is a pretty resilient one. By Protestant standards, I'm probably nowhere near to "being saved" with that kind of faith, but I couldn't care less about that. By Catholic standards, my soul is also in danger. But for "practical" reasons, that can be fixed with available sacramental tools by priestly mechanics. I like that aspect of the traditional ways. There's room for gushing kitsch sentimentality, as well as for me, because it is in the end about moving your will in a particular direction. I can do that, in my way. Other people have their ways. Good for them, good for me.
quote:Martin, I detect your irony here, so I'm posting to agree with you, not to dispute....
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What do you call a God who provides a more bearable judgement for the foul denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah than the still bearable one for Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum?
He's got to be some kind of liberal wimp, a huggy bear, surely?
quote:When it comes to grace, respecting free will, reward, and punishment, I think that the analogy of a marriage of equals for the human-God relationship is perhaps not the best one. Remember that marriage (unfortunately) was traditionally seen with one partner in the God, dominant role, and another in the human, submissive role. Since this framework for marriage (rightly) is no longer the most popular one in Western society, I think that the parent-child or ruler-"one ruled over" analogies are better. With the parent-child example, a parent might indeed cut off all contact indefinitely with a child if the child poses a threat of harm to the parent, or if the parent has harmed the child so much that the child is justified in asking the parent to never contact him/her again. However, these conditions do not exist with God, who cannot possibly be harmed by us and who is not abusive to His children (despite how some atheists might read Scripture). So absent these conditions, it makes perfect sense for a parent to keep reaching out (albeit tactfully) to restore contact and relationship even with a child who has stated a desire to never see that parent again. Just because we have free will doesn't mean that God would ever stop trying to change our minds when we want to reject Him. I don't see how a God who continues to try to change our minds, no matter how hardened our hearts may have become, is disrespectful of our free will. Rather, giving up on trying to change our minds, when God knows we will be much happier if we do change our minds (try and argue that we wouldn't be), seems to me to be disrespecting our free will, since it seems to be based in the belief that some people are utterly incapable of accepting God's call to Communion with Him.
Originally posted by anteater:
Karl:quote:I think lots of people have seen relationships founder because they were certain that their loved one would always stay by them no matter what.
I am not afraid of people who love me, because they love me, and I have confidence that that means they will neither reject me
I have a good relationship with my Dearly Beloved, but that is compatible with me also knowing that she also has her life, her agenda, and for that matter, her standards about what she will put up with.
I would even fear rejection by her if I were to behave in certain ways and certainly a distinct change in the relationship. Of course I don't intend to, but it's not impossible. I'm not talking about having to do something unspeakable. Just being a lazy arsehole and or a misery-guts would seriously affect our relationship. As would restarting smoking.
How far I would have to go to trigger a cooling off I do not know, and don't intend to find out.
Same with God, in my view. I know you only half believe in God, so maybe your half-way house is to believe in a God who is bound to you as much as you to she/him or it.
Still, I'm sure you would not dispute that Jesus taught that we should fear God.
quote:I've got to admit to the Ship's Roundhead that this exchange confirms for me that -- despite my affection for incense and chasubles, and my belief in the intercession of saints
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No cross, no salvation, no sacraments. No faith, no sacramental confession. No sacramental confession, little chance of perseverance. The only thing contrived here is your critique.
Originally posted by ken:
If the rather retro Romanism that IngoB describes here were true, where its not faith or a Christian profession that God uses to save you, but rather contriving not to have committed an unconfessed mortal sin just before your death, then the Cross would hardly be needed.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
-- I am fundamentally and quite happily a PROTESTANT!
quote:Makes no sense at all to me. Seems to be assigning human feelings of revenge (which not even all humans feel) to God. But God is without body, parts , or passions. God doesn't need to hurt people who do bad things. God doesn't need anything.
Originally posted by stonespring:
That said, I'd like to look at your idea that belief in a supernatural entity that doles out eternal punishment or something like it is pretty inherent to the human condition unless our moral and spiritual development is corrupted by the comforts/distractions/perversions/etc. of modern, relatively affluent society.
quote:You may think it is the "usual universalist argument" I don't really think it matters at all.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin".
quote:You aren't thinking this through clearly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actually, I said: needs no help other than that universal salvation. And that is plainly true. The sinner for example does not need any particular grace to overcome sin in this life. What for? He will go to heaven anyway.
quote:It's clear that there are things that we must do.
The choice is stark: Either God did it all for us, which means we owe him everything and he owes us zilch, or we have things to do, in which case God will owe us in return for what we do.
quote:Sorry, anteater, but there's nothing in my statement that isn't classic "reformed" theology (apart from my universalist extension of it). Your reply attributes ideas and beliefs to me that are simply not there, with the result that you're arguing right past me.
Originally posted by anteater:
DubiousThomas:
quote:It's clear that there are things that we must do.
The choice is stark: Either God did it all for us, which means we owe him everything and he owes us zilch, or we have things to do, in which case God will owe us in return for what we do.
Some people think it sounds holy to say they can do nothing. Not Paul: who "fought the fine fight" and "kept the faith" which is why "God the righteous Judge" (not the merciful worm-lover - though he is no doubt that as well) will give him the crown of life.
It is not reformed to eliminate humanity as a genuine agent in God's plan. We are saved unto good works, and I understand work as something I do, and frequently don't want to.
Trying to argue from that, that God's owes us is fatuous. No doubt he is pleased, just as a doctor would be on seeing a patient doing the exercses he (not the Doctor) needs to do if he is to get well.
quote:We are saved unto good works, not because of good works. The salvation part comes first.
Originally posted by anteater:
We are saved unto good works, and I understand work as something I do, and frequently don't want to.
quote:The finite matter in my system, indeed, by virtue of determining the eternal. The finite doesn't matter in the slightest in your system, by virtue of being decoupled from the eternal. The eternal simply matters infinitely more than the temporal as such, since the temporal is infinitesimal in comparison. (In fact, it is not even infinitesimal, since eternity is more than an infinite length of time. But there are no other words available in the language to describe just how nothing this something is in comparison, as such.)
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The finite matters. Things happening now matter, and things happening then (in the future) will too. Consequences don't have to be eternal to count.
quote:The finite in my system indeed determines everything, just as it determines nothing in your system. And why do I think this is reasonable? Because in our own power we can only act finitely and temporally. As far as we can participate in infinity and eternity at all, it is only with and through God. And a free choice for or against God must occur where we can exercise our powers fully. The beatific vision is a reward, not a means. It is where we have decided to go, it is not that by which we go.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I mean, if all that ultimately counts is what happens in eternity, then why should (according to your belief system) acts in this life determine peoples' eternal fate? In that system, the finite is the thing that defines everything else - like there are four fingers pointing back at you when you make this criticism.
quote:The infinity is in the "duration", not in the intensity. Anyway, this is all perfectly fine, as discussion of purgatory. It seems somewhat tedious to weigh infinities, when the question can be rephrased like this: why do we need hell, why is purgatory plus heaven not enough?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The comfort is in the hope that the suffering will end, not in that in the end our infinite bliss will mean that our current suffering is inconsequential simply because it is finite. In "One day this will be over, and things will be well", the focus has very little to do with whether "well" will be finite or infinite, so far as I see it, and much more about the simple fact that "it is over", and there will be wellness in general.
quote:It's better because it's true. Of course, there is no compelling evidence for that. There's no compelling evidence for any particular opinion about what happens after death, that's why faith is required. But I do not believe that "heaven and hell" is true because that somehow is psychologically most attractive to me. I believe that Christianity is true, for reasons largely unrelated to this question, and Christianity proposes "heaven and hell". Therefore I believe it.
Originally posted by stonespring:
That said, though, could you explain why the traditional belief in supernatural forces that mete out punishment of neverending suffering is better than modern approaches to spirituality, some claiming to be religious (even Christian), others claiming to be secular, that do not have such forms of supernatural eternal punishment?
quote:Catholicism states most clearly that we owe God all, and God owes us nothing. This does not stop God from providing opportunity for us to merit. If I tell my son that he will get five pounds if he mows the law, how does that establish that I was indebted to my son? I could have mowed the lawn myself, I could have simply ordered him to mow the lawn, and my son certainly has no case to demand this job and/or the payment from me. My lawn, my money. But if I tell my son that he will get five pounds if he mows the lawn, then I have provided him with the opportunity to get richer over something that I could have obliged him to do. It is basically an indulgence on my part. And if I am honest in my dealings with my son, then having offered this job I have put an obligation on myself to pay him if he does mow the lawn.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Either God did it all for us, which means we owe him everything and he owes us zilch, or we have things to do, in which case God will owe us in return for what we do. But who wants to worship a God who is indebted to his creations?
quote:Sure. But if universalism is true, then there is no particular reason why sinners would have to overcome sin in this life. At worst, they get to pay off their debts in purgatory. But that's all finite and temporal stuff, hence fundamentally irrelevant as compared to one's eternal fate.
Originally posted by ken:
You aren't thinking this through clearly. If universalism is false, sinners need particular grace from God to overcome sin in this life. If universalism is true, sinners need particular grace from God to overcome sin in this life.
quote:There is no seriousness to sin in universalism. It has no significant consequence at all. And I'm not sure in what way you think I'm underestimating the omnipotence of God.
Originally posted by ken:
What you say there is just as true whether universalism is true or not. So it cannot be used as an argument for or against universalism. It very much seems to me as if you are underestimating both the seriousness of sin and the omnipotence of God.
quote:And what Ken just said!
Originally posted by ken:
What Dubious Thomas just said.
God does it all.
quote:IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no seriousness to sin in universalism. It has no significant consequence at all. And I'm not sure in what way you think I'm underestimating the omnipotence of God.
quote:
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people [some manuscripts = all things] to myself." He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die. (John 12:32-33)
quote:Sin should be serious for what it is, not just because of its consequences for one's personal salvation. If someone were to sell you a 'get of of Hell (or even Purgatory) free' card, would it then be OK for you to hurt and abuse others? No. Universalism does not imply that there will be no judgement process. Clearly, there has to be a reckoning of some kind. But how ugly does a sin have to be before eternal torment is a just punishment?
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no seriousness to sin in universalism. It has no significant consequence at all. And I'm not sure in what way you think I'm underestimating the omnipotence of God.
quote:Say, rather, Jesus had free will because he was perfect. We are not perfect, so our will is not free, as Paul argues persuasively, in Romans 7
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Would it not have been better if God had either not created human beings at all - or had made us all perfect, like Jesus? After all Jesus, they say, was perfect and had free will.
quote:I've always thought that human free will is overrated in discussions on how God governs His cosmos. In Matt 19, when the exasperated disciples ask Jesus, "Who then can be saved" he replies that for man it's impossible, but with God all things are possible. He is clearly saying that salvation is God's business, not ours. But if we add in the hard teachings of Matt 25, in which a separation between the just and the unjust will be made, the logical outcome of that is Calvinist double predestination. The problem I have with that is that I have no wish to worship a God who creates sentient beings only for the purpose of torturing them eternally.
Originally posted by Ken:
Do the omnipotence or grace or love of God mean anything if mere human beings can force God to abandon them to death and hell, after he has already chosen not to?
quote:Ken's strong condemnation of anihilationism doesn't seem to take into account that a God who causes, or permits eternal suffering is far more foul and evil than One who simply lets us die! The way to see anihilationism, IMO, is to acknowledge that we're simply mortal creatures, and that God MAY resurrect us as a reward for a life of righteousness, or faith counted as righteousness. That way, He isn't setting us up to fail, as when He lets us suffer eternally.
Originally posted by Ken:
Its a vile anti-Christian idea that makes out God to be the most foul and evil thing imaginable.
quote:Since I think that human choice/will has something to do with salvation (that God isn't doing all the work without our choice to accept/work with God's grace), I am open to accusations of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Especially because, with my universalistic tendencies (even with Purgatory), my ideas must mean that even Adam and Eve's sin did not bring eternal damnation (interpreted to mean an afterlife of unending inescapable suffering) upon them prior to Christ's redemption of them. Granted, the just of the Old Testament are often believed to have existed in some kind of gloomy but not hellish Underworld prior to Christ's Harrowing of Sheol/Hades - but if Christ had not Incarnated, suffered, died, and risen again for us, the traditional belief (I think) is that Adam, Eve, and all humanity would have eventually (after the final judgment) spent an eternal afterlife in Hell. This is perhaps an impossible counterfactual because you can't really separate the Creation and Fall from the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ - it's all one act by God. That said, though, I think that IngoB raises a valid point in asking those universalist-esque people like me who believe that works/free will matter(s) vis-a-vis salvation have to then answer the question "What was Christ saving us from? What was His Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection for?"
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Sorry, anteater, but there's nothing in my statement that isn't classic "reformed" theology (apart from my universalist extension of it). Your reply attributes ideas and beliefs to me that are simply not there, with the result that you're arguing right past me.
I'm talking about salvation, pure and simple. There is nothing we can do ("work") in order to gain salvation. Nothing. And when we have a relationship with God through Christ, nothing comes from us: "for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
I'm not saying this to sound holy. I could think of better ways to be fake-holy! I'm asserting it because it's true.
If what I wrote had anything "fatuous" in it, then so did the arguments of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster divines, at al. This is "meat and potatoes" "reformed" doctrine.
Westminster Confession, Article XVI: Of Good Works
The Thirty-Nine Articles, Articles XI through XIV
The Augsburg Confession, Article XX, Of Good Works
Again, we seem to have a case of a damnationist/annihilationist prepared to reject standard Christian doctrines (in this case, "reformed" doctrines) in an effort to refute universalism.
quote:God created humankind to love and serve Him. I know that you already know that. As for the rest of Creation - I would imagine that God created it to have Himself something else to love and care for, to give humankind something to love and care for, and as an outpouring of the creative love that is already eternally present in the Trinity. Granted, God didn't need anything that Creation could provide, as He was already perfect. So that's an explanation of why the world and humankind were made that makes no mention of a test or trial.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me answer with a question: Why earthly life? Is God incapable of creating us fit for heaven? And even if so, why doesn't he simply drop is into purgatory directly? Clearly God can at least create a process by which we are made fit for heaven. So what's the point of this earthly life? Why are we here? Is your God getting a kick out of seeing us squirm in this life, like some child torturing a fly?
In my scheme this life has a clear and simple purpose. It sorts people that will ultimately be with God from those that won't. It does so in a setting appropriate to their powers: finite and temporal. In doing so, it provides an opportunity to exercise human freedom on the one and only question that ultimately matters. It is pretty much like an exam: you have a certain time allotted to work on the problems, then your work will be marked, and you pass or fail. Straightforward.
So let's hear it. Why are we living this life in your scheme? Why is this world necessary?
quote:Ken,
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You may think it is the "usual universalist argument" I don't really think it matters at all.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin".
quote:Since it was your (presumably) considered opinion that God did not exist, it seems you would have to have been a fool - and a pretty complete one, if his existence is so obviously inescapable.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, I'm not as foolish as I was about this sort of thing.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So you were a fool, but now you're not?
quote:Anyone not persuaded by these arguments is a fool?
I cannot become an atheist again, since I accept at least one (probably several) of the philosophical arguments for the existence of (the metaphysical) God as true.
quote:Well we just have our separate ways of interpreting reformed theology. I think it likely that you've read Jim Packer's books. A point he makes again and again is that saying God works in us does not contradict the fact that we work also.
What Dubious Thomas just said.
God does it all.
quote:I make an argument at two stages here. First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
quote:I'm not really doubting what you believe about the Cross. People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. My point is about the appropriateness of the sign. Let me put it like this. If there was an ad on TV trying to encourage people to brush their teeth regularly, and it was styled like that second video you linked to, what would you think? I bet you would think that this is totally over the top, and quite possibly would be enraged enough about that to write to the TV station.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
You appear to be arguing that the Cross, on its own, isn't a sufficient sign of how "serious" sin is and what "significant consequences" it has. The Cross is insufficient relative to that roasting human being. Compared to him, the Creator of the Universe dying is a mere trifle. It's pretty clear to me that THIS is what you think universalists believe about the Cross.I won't and can't speak for all universalists, but I can assure you that THIS is what I believe about the Cross.
quote:My view is that God's desire for humanity is not to sort people, or even make them fit for heaven. (as in your view), so even the discussion about hell/purgatory is a bit too mechanistic for my liking. God's desire for humanity, both individually, and corporately, is to mature. It's the story I see in Scripture from Genesis right through to Revelation. A process of growing up, from immaturity to becoming more and more Christlike. Therefore, I primarily see God as parent, raising his children.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me answer with a question: Why earthly life? Is God incapable of creating us fit for heaven? And even if so, why doesn't he simply drop is into purgatory directly? Clearly God can at least create a process by which we are made fit for heaven. So what's the point of this earthly life? Why are we here? Is your God getting a kick out of seeing us squirm in this life, like some child torturing a fly?
quote:Straightforward, yes. But, I believe, incredibly flawed.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my scheme this life has a clear and simple purpose. It sorts people that will ultimately be with God from those that won't. It does so in a setting appropriate to their powers: finite and temporal. In doing so, it provides an opportunity to exercise human freedom on the one and only question that ultimately matters. It is pretty much like an exam: you have a certain time allotted to work on the problems, then your work will be marked, and you pass or fail. Straightforward.
quote:As an aside, it is my belief that God does not punish at all. He only disciplines. But that's another story.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin".
quote:That's like saying every single crime should be punished with a life sentence, because if the criminal is ever allowed out of jail they're not really being punished, just purified/corrected.
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
quote:No, because existence itself is a good. As in St Athanasius's argument for why God created the Devil - God loves everybody, so God wants to do them good, existence is good, so God creates every being who could logically exist. Or so said Athanasius.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[QUOTE]
Ken's strong condemnation of anihilationism doesn't seem to take into account that a God who causes, or permits eternal suffering is far more foul and evil than One who simply lets us die!
quote:[I guess you were directed this all at Ken. I hope you won't object if I jump back in.]
Originally posted by anteater:
Ken:quote:Well we just have our separate ways of interpreting reformed theology. I think it likely that you've read Jim Packer's books. A point he makes again and again is that saying God works in us does not contradict the fact that we work also.
What Dubious Thomas just said.
God does it all.
quote:What is the "danger" than you see in "denying genuine human agency"? And, what is "genuine human agency"?
I have little doubt that you also believe this so maybe it's more a style of expression. I think to say "God does it all" in our lives is unhelpful. I think there is a real danger of denying genuine human agency.
quote:Clearly, I do (and Ken seems to as well).
And I don't find this emphasis in the NT.
quote:
True there are many texts about God working in us, but these are also balanced by texts which, to take just one example, has Paul recommending that it is better not to crib (I paraphrase!) the work of others so that we can take pride in our own work.
quote:You're right, I certainly don't deny human agency. I'm not claiming that human beings are "robots."
But like I said, I doubt either DubiousThomas or Ken denies human agency, it's more a question of what we major on.
quote:
This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).
quote:IngoB,
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I make an argument at two stages here. First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
quote:I don't know for sure. It sounds very persuasive.
Originally posted by anteater:
Ken: A couple of points.
Do you endorse Athanasius' arguments?
quote:I guess the idea of the omnipotence of God trumps it in my feelings. Same sort of thing that leads to Augustinism/Calvinism, and away from Pelagianism. (Though the first well-known Christian writer to teach it was perhaps Origen, who is of course a heretic...)
Second, annihilationism as opposed to a hell from where there is still a route to heaven, is hard to defend.
quote:Yes, I think so.
Originally posted by anteater:
If you can put yourself into the mind of someone who believes that, would you still believe annihilation to be worse that immutable eternal punishment?
quote:It is. With the Jacobite/Tory defeat in the War of the Three Kingdoms, the Church of England in the 18th Century went into a "deep freezer of latitudinarian moralism" that put popular religion in a coma. The Enlightenment turned off life support. From the records less than 10 people turned up in St Paul's Cathedral for the service on Christmas Day 1800.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If true, then that's rather interesting.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
quote:Why is there any value to punishment for punishment's sake? Punishment can have the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation/lesson-teaching, and restitution of damage done. The last purpose is irrelevant since no one can damage God. You are proposing punishment as an end in itself. What is the point in that? I am not asking where in Scripture punishment for punishment's sake is mentioned, but rather for an explanation of why there is any value to punishment as an end in itself.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I make an argument at two stages here. First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
Second, there is a real difference between punishment and purification, even though they both respond to a failure. I ought to have brushed my teeth regularly, but I didn't, so now I have to visit the dentist and suffer some pain. I ought to not murder people, but I did, so now the judge throws me in jail for life. In both cases it serves me right. But nevertheless, only the latter case "crossed a line", whereupon I have to face the wrath of my community, and face their retribution. (Yes, in my examples on one hand I only damage myself, on the other hand I damage others, but that's not quite it. People are willing to take some damage from each other before they insist on evening the score, its just that the limits there are fluid.) Now, I believe that it is abundantly clear from scripture that revenge is the Lord's, and that God in fact punishes certain behaviours. There are lines to cross with the Lord, and if you cross them, then you will encounter His wrath. But if so, then given the first stage of the argument God will punish eternally, for everything else would just be purification / correction.
Can I argue that God must actually punish, rather than only purify / correct? Well, there's scripture, but then everybody reads scripture as they want. However, a visit to the dentist is not really a matter of justice. It may serve me right, but it does not really follow from a judgement. The health of my teeth may have been compromised, but I have not really crossed a line. I have made bad choices about brushing my teeth, but I wasn't really evil. There is a lack there of meeting with an external standard, of being faced by demands other than my own interests. Or to put it differently, correction is me-centred, retribution is other-centred. And I do not believe that ultimate justice can be me-centred, I think it is Other-centred. And there are some real lines drawn around the holy of holies, and if you cross them impure, you will drop (spiritually) dead. The afterlife is not really about me being turned into the best I can be, it is about me being good enough to live with God in eternity. Or not.
quote:I agree fully with this. I'm not a believer in anihilationism, but unlike Ken, I find it preferable to eternal torment in which there is no hope for any amelioration of the torment . This is why I, as a universalist at least in principle, believe it right to pray for the dead, and seek the intercession of the saints on their behalf. But as anteater said, this isn't mainstream Christianity, though it's reared it's head on many occasions in the two thousand years of Christian history.
Originally posted by Ken:
Also because even hell cannot be beyond reach of the mercy of God who is omnipotent, eternal, and all-loving
quote:PaulTH*, also meaning no personal offense, especially since I am pleased you lean toward universalism, your difficulty, as IngoB would surely point out, is that "the Christianity of IngoB" is the traditional, authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, presented without any PR sugar-coating. As a Catholic, you're supposed to submit to this Magisterium. You're supposed to believe in a Hell packed full of sinners who will never, ever get out, because the Church says such a place exists. It's not up to you to decide on this for yourself.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While I mean no personal offence, the Christianity of IngoB, in which a good living, loving person can spend eternity in hell, without hope, for a single offence against God's law, is the vilest, most odious religion on this planet. Though IngoB is a Catholic and therefore sees salvation in sacramental terms, the starkness of this bleak future, reminds me of the fundamentalist Protestant Christians among whom I grew up. I had a serious problem with it as a teenager 45 years ago and it endures to this day.
quote:You are right, and my reaction to Christianity as a teenager, was that it's an odious religion. IngoB in all things, supports the time honoured traditions of the Church. But there have always been dissenters. Hans Urs von Balthasar, my favourite 20th century theologian was made a cardinal by Blessed Pope John Paul II just before his death. He advocated the hope, and we can do nothing more, as we aren't God, for the salvation of all. Pope JPII himself said, "Hell remains a possibility, but we aren't given to know, without special insight, whether anyone is there." The former Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy O'Connor said in a 2005 interview, "We aren't bound to believe that anyone is there (in hell)." So rebel or not, I'm in company with several prominent Catholics of good standing, because I would endorse those sentiments.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
PaulTH*, also meaning no personal offense, especially since I am pleased you lean toward universalism, your difficulty, as IngoB would surely point out, is that "the Christianity of IngoB" is the traditional, authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, presented without any PR sugar-coating. As a Catholic, you're supposed to submit to this Magisterium. You're supposed to believe in a Hell packed full of sinners who will never, ever get out, because the Church says such a place exists. It's not up to you to decide on this for yourself.
quote:That's a great way to put it. We're already participating in a process that will continue forever.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My view is that God's desire for humanity is not to sort people, or even make them fit for heaven. (as in your view), so even the discussion about hell/purgatory is a bit too mechanistic for my liking. God's desire for humanity, both individually, and corporately, is to mature. It's the story I see in Scripture from Genesis right through to Revelation. A process of growing up, from immaturity to becoming more and more Christlike. Therefore, I primarily see God as parent, raising his children.
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
So, I don't see salvation as a binary saved/damned, but as a more holistic, ongoing process. It helps me make sense of the different ways the word salvation is used in Scripture (in the past, present and future tenses).
... <snip> ...
For me, this entirely misses where the true battle is. The true battle isn't getting into heaven. That's easy. God can let anyone in. The true battle is being Christlike, so that we won't ruin heaven. And, for me, that's where it gets tough. It's easy to repent and ask for forgiveness. The hard part is not sinning again. The ONLY way I can get to that point is by becoming mature and Christlike. That's why, in my system, maturity/christlikeness/salvation/sanctification is the focus. Because it's the solution to the real problems that we face as humans, not the faux problem of getting in to heaven or not.
quote:I really like this, too, especially the last quoted paragraph. Thanks!
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:That's a great way to put it. We're already participating in a process that will continue forever.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My view is that God's desire for humanity is not to sort people, or even make them fit for heaven. (as in your view), so even the discussion about hell/purgatory is a bit too mechanistic for my liking. God's desire for humanity, both individually, and corporately, is to mature. It's the story I see in Scripture from Genesis right through to Revelation. A process of growing up, from immaturity to becoming more and more Christlike. Therefore, I primarily see God as parent, raising his children.
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
So, I don't see salvation as a binary saved/damned, but as a more holistic, ongoing process. It helps me make sense of the different ways the word salvation is used in Scripture (in the past, present and future tenses).
... <snip> ...
For me, this entirely misses where the true battle is. The true battle isn't getting into heaven. That's easy. God can let anyone in. The true battle is being Christlike, so that we won't ruin heaven. And, for me, that's where it gets tough. It's easy to repent and ask for forgiveness. The hard part is not sinning again. The ONLY way I can get to that point is by becoming mature and Christlike. That's why, in my system, maturity/christlikeness/salvation/sanctification is the focus. Because it's the solution to the real problems that we face as humans, not the faux problem of getting in to heaven or not.
quote:In case anyone is interested in a different perspective on this issue, let me just quickly describe one key idea from Swedenborg that we in the New Church refer to as the "as of self" concept, which is that we ought to refrain from doing what is evil and do what is good - compelling ourselves as necessary - and that we ought to do this as though we are doing so from ourself, but we should believe that it is really from the Lord Jesus Christ acting in us and through us.
Originally posted by anteater:
DubiousThomas: Like you I believe we have free-will, but in a limited sense. I reject philosophical determinism, but do not believe we can choose anything.
As much as (all) christians believe in the primacy of God's working, most think it right to emphasize that there is a genuine human co-operating, except for the prevenient grace of God who is (as all - not just Reformed believe) the initiator of salvation. Dead people do not resurrect themselves.
I also think all christians accept that human co-operation is not illusory. Some people feel we are too self-aggrandising, and the message need to hear is God does EVERYTHING, whereas others feel we like to lull ourselves into thinking we are on the escalator to heaven and need reminding that without works faith is irrelevant, as Paul and James teach. And you I suspect.
For instance a friend of mine in relation to some bad habits he knew he should break, genuinely believed that it would happen when God did it. I know this is not standard and probably you would not support this attitude. But why, if EVERYTHING is done by God?
quote:I guess I can claim "relevant expertise," in that my doctorate is in Jewish Studies, specializing in ancient Judaism. But I must confess to having less knowledge about the intricacies of ancient Jewish eschatology than I really should.
Originally posted by anteater:
As a relevant aside . .
Are there any scholarly types who know what, if anything, can be safely said about the Jewish beliefs surrounding Gehenna?
....
Has anyone got the relevant expertise on this?
quote:A "P.S." on this point. I've never heard of this fellow and his claims. They sound distinctly odd to me. The "House of Hillel" and the "House of Shammai" were legal schools of thought in early rabbinic Judaism, based on the teachings of the older contemporaries of Jesus, Hillel and Shammai. They majored in debates about things like how to recite the Shema ("Hear, O Israel") and the grounds for divorce, not in doctrinal matters. I'm hard-pressed to think of a rabbinic discussion of theological matters that refers specifically to the "houses." I suspect they "agreed" about Gehenna only insofar as any rabbis agreed about such theological issues.
Originally posted by anteater:
The 19th century Christian convert, Edersheim, claims that the schools of Hillel and Shammai both had a conception close to the traditional Christian one. But he may be out of date. Others stress a more flexible view with rabbis allowing for temporary punishment, and for repentance leading to escape.
quote:I doubt that the scholars I know who work on the times of Jesus would see this book as anything more than a curiosity, if they know of it at all. He's not a "name" I have ever encountered in the field of "historical Jesus" scholarship, even in the works of evangelical scholars like N. T. Wright.
Originally posted by anteater:
I may not have quoted Edersheim properly. He may have referred to Hillel the individual.
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
quote:That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
quote:This is false, and a somewhat strange claim to make - given that I have just defended at length on this thread against the opposite accusation, namely that my way is too corporate. Once more, traditionally the corporate dominates over the individual, from the universal "standing in" for humanity of Adam and Christ, respectively, to the ability of parents to gamble with the salvation of their children, to the necessity of missionaries for bringing salvation to the heathens. Nevertheless, the individual is the "fundamental unit" of salvation, so to speak.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Firstly, it has no concept of the corporate. It is an entirely individualistic exercise. We can learn together, but the exam is mine to pass or fail.
quote:This is an arbitrary assertion, which has nothing to do with anything I have said here, and which remains entirely unsupported by any argument. Nothing stops the poor in spirit, broken and weak from attaining heaven in my scheme, and nowhere have I confused the "Divine exam" with the evaluations of the world. There is no doubt in my mind that my life will be judged differently by God from that of somebody living in the slums of Calcutta, as far as external circumstances and their internal impact go. That does not mean that the motions of my heart relative to my framework will be judged differently to those of the slum dweller relative to his framework. Our scopes for evil and good may be very different, but how we work what we have been given can be judged the same.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Secondly, it has the opposite spirit of the Jesus paradigm, that the last shall be first, that the poor in spirit inherit the kingdom. That God is the God of the broken and the weak and the failures (even those who fail the 'exam').
quote:I've also discussed the question of what happens to babies (baptised & unbaptised) in this very thread. And I find my answer quite satisfactory. (Baptised babies go to heaven. Unbaptised babies may go to an eternal state of natural happiness called limbo, though we can hope that they go to heaven.)
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Thirdly, it gives no satisfactory answers to the "but what about?" questions (the type of questions Rob Bell asks in the "what about the flat tyre?" chapter of Love Wins). For example, to the question "what about babies that die? Will they go to Hell?", there is usually one of three answers given:
- Yes. They were born into sin, so tough.
- No. They will be saved.
- God knows how they would have lived their lives, and will judge accordingly.
quote:Nope, that's false. Rather it takes serious the corporate nature of salvation via Adam. (Remember that you were so keen on that?)
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The first answer reveals God as a total asshole and is inconsistent with Jesus teaching (stumbling children / millstones).
quote:That would indeed send those babies to heaven, assuming they were baptised, but their murderers to hell. One may not do evil to achieve good. And the act of baptising of course once more invokes the corporate nature of salvation, which you were so keen on. Yes, your parents / the Church can procure God's mercy for you, it is not exactly the individual alone that is Divinely examined. Finally, the traditional "natural happiness" limbo is a good answer to the claim that this is "universalism for babies only". No, babies do not get the saint deal, unless by corporate Church activity. (Hence I'm sceptical about modern enthusiasm for the hope that all babies go to heaven. That really needs more of a defence against claims of injustice.)
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The second answer opens itself to all the criticisms that you can give to universalism, and has the consequence that it would be a kindness to murder every single baby alive, so that they can go straight to heaven.
quote:First, that God sees all our past, present and future actions in all possible worlds does not make these actions any less ours or any less free, and does not change their evaluation as good, neutral or evil. Second, the idea is usually more something like this: If God can foresee that a particular human being in all possible worlds would rebel against him, then it would be a mercy of God to realise the particular world in which this person dies as a baby (thereby realising the least possible penalty compatible with justice). Third, I'm not convinced that "God is just" means "every human being gets the 'numerically equal' chance for salvation". This is a difficult thing to think about, involving the nature of God and justice, but the traditional shortcut is of course to say that in Adam we are deserve to be doomed.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The third answer results in this life becoming ultimately meaningless. If God knew anyhow, then why the charade of this life? The assertion that this life is important because it determines eternity turns out to be a smokescreen. And if God knew anyhow, then there would have been no need for the suffering in this life. So the four fingers of "god seeing us squirm" in this life point straight back again.
quote:The disconnect between "making the grade" and "real growth" that you posit is artificial. You are there simply parroting what tradition considers important for "making the grade" as definition of your "real growth". Of course, it is true that God is merciful, and that people get into heaven who seem not particularly fit for it. But that the passing grade is low does not mean that people should stop improving once they reach it. The ideal is of course to aim for "high grades", and indeed, at some point to see that these grades are just a proxy for a higher goal that goes far beyond measures of success. People who get there in this life we call saints (the heroic variety that tends to get canonised). But God does not put the cut at that level. Lucky us.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Fourthly, it gives no satisfactory answer to the 'how' question - how do we become fit for heaven? None of us die perfect, even if we die free of sin (because we've managed to confess them all). All that happens is that the process by which we become christlike enough for an eternity together where we don't end up all falling out, pissing each other off, sinning (and so on) gets lumped into some unknown called 'purgatory'. The goal is only passing the grade. It's not about real growth, maturity, humility, the fruits of the spirit, and so on. They don't really matter - all that stuff will get sorted for you, so long as you get in.
quote:If you believe that it is easy to repent and ask for forgiveness, then I doubt that you have ever really done so. And the idea that one can mature beyond "sinning" is basically Pelagian. However, ignoring that, it seems to me that you are simply arguing my case. If indeed some people would "ruin heaven" by not being Christlike enough, then that sounds like a rather good reason for keeping them out of heaven. And far from being "faux", the problem of getting into heaven then just is the problem of becoming Christlike enough.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me, this entirely misses where the true battle is. The true battle isn't getting into heaven. That's easy. God can let anyone in. The true battle is being Christlike, so that we won't ruin heaven. And, for me, that's where it gets tough. It's easy to repent and ask for forgiveness. The hard part is not sinning again. The ONLY way I can get to that point is by becoming mature and Christlike. That's why, in my system, maturity/christlikeness/salvation/sanctification is the focus. Because it's the solution to the real problems that we face as humans, not the faux problem of getting in to heaven or not.
quote:But those texts seem to work on the assumption that Adam and Eve originally possessed bodies that were not mortal. This simply cannot be - if they were on this earth, then they were mortal. So the only explanation for that would be God foreknowing that they were going to sin, and so giving them mortal bodies to start with.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
quote:My theory is that mortality is a sign of a process that was interrupted. The tree of knowledge was growing, our bodies were evolving into something immortal. The removal of fruit from the tree (metaphorically) aborted something in progress- and that's why things are fucked up.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:But those texts seem to work on the assumption that Adam and Eve originally possessed bodies that were not mortal. This simply cannot be - if they were on this earth, then they were mortal. So the only explanation for that would be God foreknowing that they were going to sin, and so giving them mortal bodies to start with.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
quote:I'm sure no universalist ever thought of this! Now that you've brought it to my attention, I renounce my universalism!
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If universalism is correct - you realise that all the homophobes in this life will be in heaven too?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Martin,
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Exactly guys, the long walk. In which all the dark absolute certainties we see so clearly in our reflection in a very dark, engraved, old glass indeed, will be talked away for a start.
quote:I do try! After all, Jesus Wants Me For a Sunbeam!
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You're a ray of sunshine, DeeTee.
quote:I'm not speaking from a position of authority here, but several years ago I read a book called, "Jesus the Jewish Thelogian" by Dr Brad H Young, and I was amazed at how many of Jesus' teachings had parallels in the Jewish climate of His day. But it isn't really that surprising. He didn't formulate His thoughts in a vacuum. I would stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation. But you know the old quip, two Jews, three opinions. The fact is that any doctrine of the afterlife within Judaism is optional believing, because it's much more concerned with pleasing God in the present and trusting God to take care of the unseen.
Originally posted by anteater:
The 19th century Christian convert, Edersheim, claims that the schools of Hillel and Shammai both had a conception close to the traditional Christian one.
quote:
quote:Well that is a new thought to me and worth exploring. I do not have a basic block on believing that Jesus' thought underwent development, and it would see this both in his belief about the Gentiles' place in God's plan and the immanence of the Parousia. I shall investigate further.
The 20th century Swiss mystic Adrienne von Speyr, who strongly influenced her priest and confessor, Hans Urs von Balthasar, said that Jesus' talk of separation and hell was from before He had, in space and time, conquered sin, death and the devil by His cross and resurrection. Her theology of Easter Saturday was that He spent it destroying hell.
quote:Strange use of the term "irresistible (except when it isn't) grace".
To achive that, He must unite all things with His irresistible grace, or destroy what He cannot redeem.
quote:I think that is a strong point against the traditional view, although I don't see the link to monism.
I don't believe that good and evil will be perpetuated into eternity by the dualism of heaven and hell.
quote:NOTE his emphasis on the fact that there is no definitive position on the ultimate fate of the "utterly wicked." This is typical of rabbinic Judaism, which has not tended to define "orthodoxy" in terms of precise doctrines.
Only the utterly wicked do not ascend to Gan Eden ["the Garden of Eden" = rabbinic Jewish "heaven"] at the end of this year. Sources differ on what happens to these souls at the end of their initial time of purgation. Some say that the wicked are utterly destroyed and cease to exist, while others believe in eternal damnation (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Law of Repentance, 3:5-6).
quote:Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[QUOTE] stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation.
quote:Yes - and won't feel like Hell for them, surrounded by all these LGBTIs enjoying themselves.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If universalism is correct - you realise that all the homophobes in this life will be in heaven too?
quote:Never heard of him despite 40 years involvement in Jewish/Christian dialogue.
Originally posted by anteater:
I may not have quoted Edersheim properly. He may have referred to Hillel the individual.
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
quote:Actually, I'm wrong about this! I just took another look at the text, and Maimonides' list of those who don't get a place in the World to Come, but who end up being destroyed in Gehinnom, is quite large! It includes: "Muslims and Christians who say that G-d exchanged one mitzvah [commandment/law] for another, or that the Torah has been nullified, even though it was [originally] from G-d. Each one of these three is a denier of the Torah."
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Clearly, Maimonides was an annihilationist, but in line with classic rabbinic thought, he evidently thought that the number of people who would be finally annihilated was quite small.
quote:Leo, could you provide references for these ideas? As I noted above, Hillel and Shammai are typically characterized in terms of their different legal positions (and their personalities: Hillel being open and patient, Shammai being narrow and impatient). I'd like to see a classic rabbinic text that actually sets out a distinction between them on the question of the afterlife.
Originally posted by leo:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation.
quote:A description of theosis from this wiki article on monism:
Originally posted by anteater:
I think that is a strong point against the traditional view, although I don't see the link to monism.
quote:I did a little "digging," and I think I have located a text that may be connected with the claim you make about Hillel and Shammai. It's Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:3. This is Danby's translation, pulled from this online version:
Originally posted by leo:
Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
quote:I don't see this text as attributing to the House of Hillel the idea that everyone goes "straight to heaven." Rather the House of Hillel seems to be saying that the House of Shammai's category three (those who are purged in Gehinnom) is much bigger than the House of Shammai supposes--so that category two, the wholly wicked, is considerably smaller. The argument might make category one bigger as well, but it wouldn't mean that everyone belongs to that category.
The School of Shammai say: There are three classes; one for EVERLASTING LIFE, another for SHAME AND EVERLASTING CONTEMPT [Dan 12:2]--who are accounted wholly wicked, and a third class who go down to Gehenna, where they scream and again come up and receive healing, as it is written: AND I WILL BRING THE THIRD PART THROUGH THE FIRE, AND WILL REFINE THEM AS SILVER IS REFINED, AND WILL TRY THEM AS GOLD IS TRIED; AND THEY SHALL CALL ON MY NAME AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD [Zech 13:9]. And of these last Hannah said: THE LORD KILLETH AND THE LORD MAKETH ALIVE, HE BRINGETH DOWN TO SHEOL AND BRINGETH UP [1 Sam 2:6].
The School of Hillel say: HE IS GREAT IN MERCY [Exod 34:6], that is, He leans in the direction of mercy; and of them David said: I AM WELL PLEASED THAT THE LORD HATH HEARD THE VOICE OF MY PRAYER, etc. [Psalm 116:3-5]; and of them, the whole psalm is written.
quote:It may be misapprehension to you - it's something wholly different to me. Please don't presume to state that it's "my problem," whatever that might mean in the context of grace.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:I'm sure no universalist ever thought of this! Now that you've brought it to my attention, I renounce my universalism!
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If universalism is correct - you realise that all the homophobes in this life will be in heaven too?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that universalists believe that heaven will be filled with unregenerated sinners. Your misapprehension reflects your low view of what God is capable of; this is your problem, not the problem of universalists. As a universalist, I believe in a God who turned a Pharisee named Saul, who stood by while the mob stoned Stephen, into a Christian missionary named Paul. If God could manage that, I'm quite sure he can transform homophobes -- when and how he wishes.
Yes, all the homophobes, big and small, really nasty and not so nasty, will all be in heaven. I look forward to spending eternity with them. I look forward to spending eternity with you, too, ExclamationMark!
"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, 'Then who can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:25-26)
quote:What is it, then? Do tell!
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It may be misapprehension to you - it's something wholly different to me.
quote:Jesus said something about doing unto others.... If you're going to urge others not to presume, you might follow your own urging and not presume.
Please don't presume to state that it's "my problem," whatever that might mean in the context of grace.
quote:Apparently, the original is out of copyright and available on the web. See Life and Times.
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
quote:The first line of the description of the book: "Alfred Edersheim believed that some knowledge of ancient Jewish society was necessary for the general reader of the New Testament to fully understand Jesus' life and works."
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Anteater wrote:
quote:Apparently, the original is out of copyright and available on the web. See Life and Times.
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
It also looks like there are updated editions, too.
quote:If this really was from Russel (reference?), then it is unusually stupid of him. (Quite apart from the question whether this is a historically accurate story, which is rather unlikely. Again, reference?) Every orthodox Christian can find the most simple logical reason for condemning this action. The 5th Commandment "you shall not murder" (Ex 20:13, Dt 5:17, Mt 19:18) settles the issue already. Obedience to the direct Commandment of God (as expressed in OT & NT) is not optional for Christians. Furthermore, a key concept of traditional Christian morality has always been "one may not do evil that good may come" (Rom 3:8). So there is no excuse for the murderer in the achievement of good for the victim.
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
I've never really found a convincing answer to Bertrand Russell's observation:
"The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so."
quote:He's not saying there's no logical reason not to kill anybody; he's saying that baptizing and then immediately killing infants should be unobjectionable on logical grounds to anyone who believes the infants were thus guaranteed eternal bliss in heaven. The lines immediately before the passage previously quoted:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have tracked it down to 'Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?', which is available online.
But as IngoB said, it is a remarkably stupid thing to say, as killing people is immediately contraindicated in Christianity, except in special circumstances such as war.
Unless perhaps Russell is laying emphasis on a 'logical' reason, and he might say that there is no logical reason not to kill anybody. But that is also remarkably stupid.
quote:(Page 15 from here.)
This individualism [promoted by Christianity] culminated in the doctrine of the immortality of the individual soul, which was to enjoy hereafter endless bliss or endless woe according to circumstances. The circumstances upon which this momentous difference depended were somewhat curious. For example, if you died immediately after a priest had sprinkled water upon you while pronouncing certain words, you inherited eternal bliss, whereas if after a long and virtuous life you happened to be struck by lightning at a moment when you were using bad language because you had broken a bootlace, you would inherit eternal torment. I do not say that the modern Protestant Christian believes this, nor even perhaps the modern Catholic Christian who has not been adequately instructed in theology, but I do say that this is the orthodox doctrine and was firmly believed until recent times.
quote:
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;
And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven;
And so am I revenged. That would be scann'd:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
[...]
Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent:
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;
At gaming, swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in't;
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damn'd and black
As hell, whereto it goes.
quote:I didn't base my post on any references but on memory. Looking into it, it becomes more complicated.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Leo, could you provide references for these ideas? As I noted above, Hillel and Shammai are typically characterized in terms of their different legal positions (and their personalities: Hillel being open and patient, Shammai being narrow and impatient). I'd like to see a classic rabbinic text that actually sets out a distinction between them on the question of the afterlife.
Originally posted by leo:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation.
quote:Refer above to my follow-up post. The best thing to do would be to read the original sources -- ideally, in the original Hebrew, if not, then in a reliable translation (such as Danby's).
Originally posted by leo:
It seems as if nobody really knows.
quote:Of course, you left out the perhaps most straightforward purpose of punishmente. As Wikipedia says "Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations. " Some moderns - like the philosopher Immanuel Kant - have considered retribution to be the only valid justification for punishment. It is not just some stone age system of formalised revenge. And while the punishment of eternal hell does not rehabilitate the one suffering it, it certainly serves as deterrence to others in this life, and it may be considered as an incapacitation as well. It has been suggested on this thread that the main function of this life is to teach us to not mess up heaven for others. In which case the doomed would be the ones who didn't learn and are incapacitated by separation from God to mess up heaven for the blessed (and the pain of separation from God is traditionally considered to be the main punishment of the doomed).
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why is there any value to punishment for punishment's sake? Punishment can have the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation/lesson-teaching, and restitution of damage done. The last purpose is irrelevant since no one can damage God. You are proposing punishment as an end in itself. What is the point in that? I am not asking where in Scripture punishment for punishment's sake is mentioned, but rather for an explanation of why there is any value to punishment as an end in itself.
quote:I think the Russell quote, to answer IngoB's question is from "Why I am not a Christian".
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Stupid? Of course. Horrid? Definitely. Wrong, from a Christian perspective? Certainly. But Russell's point is surely that the act of 'murder' would be one of amazing sacrificial love in that the infants' life in heaven would be secured by the same deed that condemned the perpetrator to hell.
Of course, like me, Russell did not really believe any such wicked nonsense, but the logic is disturbingly sound.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:I think the Russell quote, to answer IngoB's question is from "Why I am not a Christian".
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Stupid? Of course. Horrid? Definitely. Wrong, from a Christian perspective? Certainly. But Russell's point is surely that the act of 'murder' would be one of amazing sacrificial love in that the infants' life in heaven would be secured by the same deed that condemned the perpetrator to hell.
Of course, like me, Russell did not really believe any such wicked nonsense, but the logic is disturbingly sound.
My guess is that the story is part of the 'Black Legend' inasmuch as I have never seen it cited other than anecdotally. The Conquistadors did some fairly horrible things when they arrived in the Americas but that may well not have been one of them. The English and the Dutch, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, were not wholly averse to over-egging the pudding on the subject. Given that during the same period the Church did some fairly horrible things to dissenters on the grounds that it would save their souls, so it's not impossible to see how the story caught on but I'm not aware of a reliable reference to the story. The Spanish Dominicans who objected to the conquest did so, among other reasons, on the grounds that the Conquistadors were focussed on rape and pillage at the expense of evangelisation. I think that if the practice had occurred they would have had some fairly sharp things to say about it.
quote:There's a few themes here. Firstly, when I said 'easy', I suppose I was using it in the same way as you saying that temporal suffering is 'nothing' in comparison to eternity. I doubt you really believe that suffering is unimportant or inconsequential. I'd prefer you didn't speculate about my own experiences of repentance, by the way. Of course repentance isn't easy. But in comparison to actually changing and becoming more Christlike, it is (and of course, it's an aspect of that process). As for 'ruining heaven', yes, it does sound like a good reason for keeping them out. But a better reason would be to transform them so they won't ruin it. You believe that will happen for only the 'saved'. I believe that will happen for everyone.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you believe that it is easy to repent and ask for forgiveness, then I doubt that you have ever really done so. And the idea that one can mature beyond "sinning" is basically Pelagian. However, ignoring that, it seems to me that you are simply arguing my case. If indeed some people would "ruin heaven" by not being Christlike enough, then that sounds like a rather good reason for keeping them out of heaven. And far from being "faux", the problem of getting into heaven then just is the problem of becoming Christlike enough.
quote:My problem with that is that (as others pointed out) humans were mortal from the moment they evolved, the Eden story is obviously metaphorical, and despite Jesus defeating sin, people still die (for now). So, I don't see death as a transaction that results from sin, rather that the Eden story explores the themes of sin and death, and how they apply to people, using poetic language.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
quote:Maybe, but such retribution sounds more like a human, or animal, emotion, that it does like an attribute of God. As I said before, one of those "passions" the the theologians tell us God is without.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, you left out the perhaps most straightforward purpose of punishmente. As Wikipedia says "Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations. " Some moderns - like the philosopher Immanuel Kant - have considered retribution to be the only valid justification for punishment. It is not just some stone age system of formalised revenge.
quote:To throw your text criticism back at you, your quote of I John only tells us what St John thought. And of course the bit from St Matthew only tells us what Matthew says Jesus said.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:The Romans passage tells us what St.Pul thought and Revelations is the vision of someone who had probably ingested some ergot, so I don't particularly feel the need to be consistent with either.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So what passages might the universalist cite in their favour as well as providing a consistent exegesis of those cited above to show why an annihilationist viewpoint is an incorrect interpretation?
So, for a start, there's this:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (I John 4:7)
So that covers quite a lot of people.
Then there's the judgement of the sheep and the goats:‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40)
quote:This just shows how badly things can go wrong if some people's ideas as to what logically count as acts of love to a child are acted out.
But Gildas, history aside, had it happened as quoted, would it have been an act of generous love from which those infants would have benefited for eternity?
quote:My question was not whether retribution has beenisted as a
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Of course, you left out the perhaps most straightforward purpose of punishmente. As Wikipedia says "Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations. " Some moderns - like the philosopher Immanuel Kant - have considered retribution to be the only valid justification for punishment. It is not just some stone age system of formalised revenge. And while the punishment of eternal hell does not rehabilitate the one suffering it, it certainly serves as deterrence to others in this life, and it may be considered as an incapacitation as well. It has been suggested on this thread that the main function of this life is to teach us to not mess up heaven for others. In which case the doomed would be the ones who didn't learn and are incapacitated by separation from God to mess up heaven for the blessed (and the pain of separation from God is traditionally considered to be the main punishment of the doomed).
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why is there any value to punishment for punishment's sake? Punishment can have the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation/lesson-teaching, and restitution of damage done. The last purpose is irrelevant since no one can damage God. You are proposing punishment as an end in itself. What is the point in that? I am not asking where in Scripture punishment for punishment's sake is mentioned, but rather for an explanation of why there is any value to punishment as an end in itself.
At any rate, for me the problem is that most of this discussion is simply unrealistic. My first concern is not the justification of hell, but whether it exists or not, and how one can avoid it if it does. The very same sources (scripture, and for some, tradition) that universalist use to hypothesise a non-existence of hell based on their conceptions of God, man, and justice, are in my opinion full of clear accounts of final judgement, heaven and hell. As far as I can see, it is more things like purgatory and limbo that are less obvious.
For me it is consistent, reasonable, to dismiss all of this stuff together, as the package that it is. In the end one needs faith to consider this as information about reality. If one has that faith then it is reasonable for me to accept all that, and perhaps make an effort to understand it (in terms of God, man and justice). But to take this set of information and accept part of it ("God is love") and use it to reject other parts ("there is hell") seems to me to be unreasonable. One cannot consistently claim that one part of the information stream provides privileged access to the Divine, and the other is wrong. Such a judgement would require one to understand the Divine beyond revelation, which we do not. Hence if it were true that one part of revelation contradicts another, then the whole source would be compromised. One cannot simply pick one side of a contradiction as true just because one likes it more. There are of course things in scripture and tradition which we can "argue away" as historically conditioned, as reflection of the instrument "inspired writer" rather than the author, God. But I do not think that our eternal fate can be "argued away" like that, there just is not enough give in scripture or tradition for that. If one can get rid of this, then basically of anything, in which case we are left again with a compromised source.
Basically, if universalism is possible, then in my opinion Christian scripture and tradition is merely another human attempt at capturing the truth, and I do not care about it more than say about Stoic philosophy. That also has its good bits, but is not Divine revelation.
quote:Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Refer above to my follow-up post. The best thing to do would be to read the original sources -- ideally, in the original Hebrew, if not, then in a reliable translation (such as Danby's).
Originally posted by leo:
It seems as if nobody really knows.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Refer above to my follow-up post. The best thing to do would be to read the original sources -- ideally, in the original Hebrew, if not, then in a reliable translation (such as Danby's).
Originally posted by leo:
It seems as if nobody really knows.
I note that Mr. Danby was a Zionist - I don't normally think Christian Zionists to be trustworthy.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
I note that Mr. Danby was a Zionist - I don't normally think Christian Zionists to be trustworthy.
I've wondered before, and I wonder again, how your anti-Zionism goes over in your work with Jews. As a Christian Jewish Studies scholar, I know how my Jewish friends and colleagues would respond if I were an anti-Zionist -- not well! Most Jews are Zionists, and they expect their Christian friends to understand and respect their commitment to their national homeland and its state.quote:Indeed. I suppose the term 'Christian Zionist' i misleading.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Apologies for the aborted post above!
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
I note that Mr. Danby was a Zionist - I don't normally think Christian Zionists to be trustworthy.
quote:All I can say is that if it is morally acceptable for an Augustinian Spaniard to murder a newly baptised infant on the grounds that it would immediately inherit eternal bliss then it would be morally acceptable for a universalist to launch a thermonuclear war on the grounds that we would all inherit eternal bliss in pretty short order.
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
But Gildas, history aside, had it happened as quoted, would it have been an act of generous love from which those infants would have benefited for eternity? I don't believe it, but that's because I can make no sense, logical or moral, of the afterlife beliefs on which it is based.
quote:Thanks for the concession on this point.
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed. I suppose the term 'Christian Zionist' i misleading.
quote:I assume you meant to type "Christians," given the next paragraph....
There are Jews [Christians?] who are Zionist because they support Israel's right to exist.
quote:These are the folks to whom the label "Christian Zionist" typically applies. However, to be fair to their position, it isn't only a case of End Time beliefs. Many of these people support Israel because of their high view of the ongoing relationship between God and the Jewish people. Theologically, they are opposed to supercessionism (which they often refer to as "replacement theology"). They love and support Jews because they believe God still loves and supports Jews as his Chosen People. Romans 11 plays a major role in their theology, esp. verse 29: "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
Then there are those who support Israel because it will usher in the various prophecies and the final return of Christ - in other words, they support the state of Israel for ulterior motives.
quote:Well, of course he did! Danby was a notable figure in the development of positive relations between Jews and Christians in the UK. Given your many years of involvement in Jewish-Christian relations, I'm frankly quite surprised that you didn't seem to know much about Danby and his significance.
Originally posted by leo:
However, reading the Wiki article, I see that he worked with some respectable people like Rabbi Epstein.
quote:Nobody in my branch of CCJ ever talks of him, I have never seen a footnote if any of the relevant books to him, CCJ national and international websites don't seem, to mention him.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Well, of course he did! Danby was a notable figure in the development of positive relations between Jews and Christians in the UK. Given your many years of involvement in Jewish-Christian relations, I'm frankly quite surprised that you didn't seem to know much about Danby and his significance.
Originally posted by leo:
However, reading the Wiki article, I see that he worked with some respectable people like Rabbi Epstein.
quote:This is closest to my own position as well. The passionate universalism of my youth is now tempered by that recognition of God's sovereignty.
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that there is a tradition within Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and, I think, Catholicism which says something to the effect that we are not entitled to full on universalism because, ultimately, God is sovereign but that we are entitled to hope that all will be well, and all will be well and all manner of things will be well. That is not a million years from where I find myself but I note that implicit is the idea that to be orthodox involves the acceptance of the possibility of eternal damnation even if we hope that at the consummation of all things none shall be lost.
quote:My understanding of the Orthodox position is that it's not so much God's sovereignty as man's sovereignty that prevents us from dogmatically saying "all will be saved." Some may hold out, and God will respect their freewill (otherwise, what's freewill for?). "He cannot ravish; He can only woo." --Screwtape.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:This is closest to my own position as well. The passionate universalism of my youth is now tempered by that recognition of God's sovereignty.
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that there is a tradition within Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and, I think, Catholicism which says something to the effect that we are not entitled to full on universalism because, ultimately, God is sovereign but that we are entitled to hope that all will be well, and all will be well and all manner of things will be well. That is not a million years from where I find myself but I note that implicit is the idea that to be orthodox involves the acceptance of the possibility of eternal damnation even if we hope that at the consummation of all things none shall be lost.
quote:Answer #1 (with which I'm reasonably satisfied): Because, as God, God can do whatever He pleases. (Keeping in mind, of course, that what will "please" God is what is in accord with God's Nature.)
Originally posted by stonespring:
But central to the "hope in an empty Hell" belief is the belief that humankind, before Christ's saving incarnation, death, and resurrection, deserved eternal (inescapable) damnation. If God is so merciful that he would forgive even people who were a. originally deserving of eternal punishment and b. did not seem to accept an offer of salvation from this eternal punishment in their lifetime, then why would He have proclaimed Original Sin worthy of eternal punishment in the first place?
[If so, I look forward to bringing glory to God in my eternal damnation!]
quote:Gotta agree, again, with Martin!
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Aye mousethief, it's human sovereignty that's the theoretical problem. And nay, he'll ravish.
quote:Well, as I'm sure you also believe, it would be next to impossible to find anyone outside the most extreme, closed-minded sect, that takes this view. And I doubt that you would find them interesting.
I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that believing in eternal damnation is a requirement for a Christian.
quote:That's very eloquent, but I can't help hearing in my mind Fulke Greville's famous maxim: Created sick, and commanded to be well. Later this has been picked up by various atheists, as showing one absurdity in Christianity.
Dubious Thomas wrote:
Answer #2 (which is simply a weak and tentative attempt to explain why God was pleased to do things this particular way): We can start with Paul: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). It's all about God's mercy. If we weren't all of us, without exception, damned, then God couldn't be merciful to all of us. In which case, we'd never be able to know that God's mercy and love are God's supreme and definitive attributes. So, for me, this is all about God showing us the truth about ourselves (we're lost without God) and about Himself (God won't let us be lost, because He loves us perfectly and eternally).
quote:Not a double post, and my first answer still stands.
I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that believing in eternal damnation is a requirement for a Christian.
quote:Quite right. I had misremembered a passage in +Kallistos Ware's 'The Orthodox Chuch' but in finding it, I discover exactly the point you make. But I did not misremember the bit where +Kallistos says that universalist hope is compatible with Orthodoxy but not universalist certainty!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:My understanding of the Orthodox position is that it's not so much God's sovereignty as man's sovereignty that prevents us from dogmatically saying "all will be saved." Some may hold out, and God will respect their freewill (otherwise, what's freewill for?). "He cannot ravish; He can only woo." --Screwtape.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:This is closest to my own position as well. The passionate universalism of my youth is now tempered by that recognition of God's sovereignty.
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that there is a tradition within Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and, I think, Catholicism which says something to the effect that we are not entitled to full on universalism because, ultimately, God is sovereign but that we are entitled to hope that all will be well, and all will be well and all manner of things will be well. That is not a million years from where I find myself but I note that implicit is the idea that to be orthodox involves the acceptance of the possibility of eternal damnation even if we hope that at the consummation of all things none shall be lost.
quote:I don't deny those things. Just that I am not at all convinced I have experienced them.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Well, yes, once you deny the possibility of the Sacraments of the Church, the Grace of God, and the possibility of Mystical Experience things do look pretty bleak.
Speaking for myself, I think I'm a pretty rubbish Christian. But on occasion I have (I hope!) touched the hem of His robe and that convinces me that it is worth persevering.
quote:And some people try to convince you, through philosophical arguments, that such a girl does exist, and she might actually love you, even though you can't see her just yet, but maybe sometime.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm unconvinced. His "wooing" is more of the nature of someone coming around and telling you there's this girl who really fancies you, but you can't actually meet her until you've corresponded online for a long while and really built up a relationship. And then other people tell you that you'll not actually meet until your wedding day, which is at an unspecified point in the future, and no-one who's ever gone off to got married has ever spoken to single people again to tell them it's real, except allegedly one two thousand years ago, but records are a bit sketchy and there are lots of different opinions about him.
quote:Thanks for the observation on my eloquence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That's very eloquent, but I can't help hearing in my mind Fulke Greville's famous maxim: Created sick, and commanded to be well. Later this has been picked up by various atheists, as showing one absurdity in Christianity.
Dubious Thomas wrote:
Answer #2 (which is simply a weak and tentative attempt to explain why God was pleased to do things this particular way): We can start with Paul: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). It's all about God's mercy. If we weren't all of us, without exception, damned, then God couldn't be merciful to all of us. In which case, we'd never be able to know that God's mercy and love are God's supreme and definitive attributes. So, for me, this is all about God showing us the truth about ourselves (we're lost without God) and about Himself (God won't let us be lost, because He loves us perfectly and eternally).
But I suppose many Christians would argue that that should read 'permitted to be sick', not 'created sick'.
quote:I'll need to give it a bit more thought (I think!)....
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dubious Thomas
Well, no, I don't think that the way you have portrayed it is absurd; it escapes the pointed nature of Fulke Greville's maxim.
Well, I suppose it depends on how you take 'created sick'. Christians who support evolution can presumably argue that because we are animals, descended from a long line of animals, we have partly an animal nature, for example, aggression, envy, greed, and so on. These are all perfectly healthy in moderation, (possibly).
But of course, being human, we go overboard with them, and we cannot mend ourselves, yes.
But this seems quite different from 'created sick, and commended to be well', doesn't it?
) quote:I agree with most of this - although I disagree that humans do nothing when we choose to believe or do good and that it's all God's doing (we can't do it without God, but God can't force us to do it either). But you already know that. I'm ok with creation itself being broken - I think anything that is created and not divine is imperfect (not complete like God is) and only God can perfect it (but since we have free will, we sapient creatures need to accept God's offer of perfectability).
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Thanks for the observation on my eloquence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That's very eloquent, but I can't help hearing in my mind Fulke Greville's famous maxim: Created sick, and commanded to be well. Later this has been picked up by various atheists, as showing one absurdity in Christianity.
Dubious Thomas wrote:
Answer #2 (which is simply a weak and tentative attempt to explain why God was pleased to do things this particular way): We can start with Paul: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). It's all about God's mercy. If we weren't all of us, without exception, damned, then God couldn't be merciful to all of us. In which case, we'd never be able to know that God's mercy and love are God's supreme and definitive attributes. So, for me, this is all about God showing us the truth about ourselves (we're lost without God) and about Himself (God won't let us be lost, because He loves us perfectly and eternally).
But I suppose many Christians would argue that that should read 'permitted to be sick', not 'created sick'.
I do see the point you are making. But, while I do take into respectful account atheist and other non-Christian evaluations of Christianity, I nevertheless don't take such judgments about apparent absurdity as proof that Christianity's teachings are untrue. Many things appear "absurd," which are nevertheless true.
As a Christian who accepts the overwhelming evidence for the dominant scientific understanding of the origins and development of life (including the theory of evolution), I have to concede that we were "created sick." Brokenness is built into the fabric of existence. The biblical stories are "myths" that offer a theological account of the brokenness and point to a solution. The mistake people make is trying to take the myths literally -- but myths aren't supposed to be taken literally ... precisely because they're myths; taking a myth literally is like taking "my love is a red, red rose" literally.
So, yes, "created sick" and told, "be well"! This is basically what Luther noted (following Paul). God commands us, "be well," even though we can't be. Then, when we recognize that we cannot heal ourselves, we turn to God and God's unmerited grace and we get healed.
Absurd? Yes! True? Yes!
"prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est" ( "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd")(Tertullian, De Carne Christi)
quote:I appreciate the questions and challenges.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
"Created sick commanded to be well"
If someone was able to create
a group of people that were unable to be happy without the help of that
person. For example: they need a drug that only He can provide.
No matter how hard they try they cannot prosper alone they need Him.
Nobody in their right mind would call that person good.
Why does God get a free pass?
And can anyone explain what is the point of sending people to the Earth
in Universalism? To the previously given examples of infants dying I can add mental illness for example.
Why send us here as "imperfect" as we are in the first place?
Of course damnationism would only make matters worse.
quote:I have been following this thread with interest.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
1) You are demonstrating that there is no God.
2) You are demonstrating that, while God exists, God is not good, but actually evil.
3) You are demonstrating that, while God exists, we have misunderstood or misrepresented God's Nature.
Would you say that any of these options represents the position you are advocating?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ikkyu, it's terribly simple. It's OUR story, not His. He's trying to shine light in to it. Through the aperture of bloody, smoky, inner reptile, super-predator, social monkey, haunted brains. Why do we persist in saying that He told the story in ANY regard? How did He do that? Let alone ANY of the events attributed to Him in it?
How can one be 'orthodox' to these monkey ravings and at the same time be orthopractic to love? Including where they meet: in Jesus.
quote:As my posts to this thread make clear, I'm "with you" on all of this. I first posted to the thread, not too very long ago, when I was confronting head-on the idea that IngoB (and others) might be right about what Christians have to believe in order to be Christians. I don't blame you at all for rejecting Christianity if you genuinely concluded that it is what IngoB claims it is -- and I don't mean this at all as a negative judgment on IngoB: I really appreciate his blunt honesty; he doesn't candy-coat hellfire the way some other traditional Christians here do.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I have been following this thread with interest.
I used to be Catholic,and finding that IngoB's
position about hell has been the orthodox
Christian position for many centuries was one of
the reasons I no longer consider myself a Christian.
quote:To be clear, I'm not claiming that universalism is the "traditional" Christian view. Clearly, it isn't. But I believe that universalism really is there in the tradition, if we will just open our eyes to see it. And this isn't just something modern people have done: we find Christians groping toward universalism already in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (Clement of Alexandria and Origen, for example). And then there is Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century, who expresses clear universalist ideas -- grabbing a quick example from the Wikipedia article about "Universal reconciliation":
I was and still am more attracted to the Universalist position.
But I again agree with IngoB that its hard to
claim that as the "traditional" Christian view.
quote:
Gregory of Nyssa, in his book Sermo Catecheticus Magnus, described: "The annihilation of evil, the restitution of all things, and the final restoration of evil men and evil spirits to the blessedness of union with God, so that He may be 'all in all,' embracing all things endowed with sense and reason."
quote:I do a "crap" job of it most of the time!
I am always interested in seeing how less "traditionalist" Christians support their views.
Of which this thread is a perfect example!quote:I don't see this metaphor as "fitting" with the biblical stories. In those myths (recall my emphasis on the fact that they're "myths"), God doesn't throw humankind overboard into the storm; humankind throws itself into the storm -- right after God has said, "Be careful! This is a really bad storm and the deck is slippery." Then, when humankind is in the stormy waters, God throws out a lifeline, etc. And, finally, God jumps in with us ... and we drown Him!
The story of salvation in the Bible does not make sense to me.
It seems to be a story about someone who throws you overboard into a raging storm and then hides.
quote:I'm glad you enjoyed the contact with Pure Land Buddhism. Many Americans who are into the austerity of Zen find the "Amida loves me this I know for the sutras tell me so" pietism of Jodo Shinshu rather off-putting.
Off topic: a comment you made earlier in the tread prompted me to visit the local Pure Land Buddhist temple which I enjoyed immensely thank you. (I usually do Zen).
quote:Well, Jerome said "I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its King, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.", Augustine said "There are very many who, though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." Basil the Great said "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.". And Origen was, at his time, the most influential theologian (and was incidentally never anathematised for his universalism).
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm not claiming that universalism is the "traditional" Christian view. Clearly, it isn't.
quote:Thanks for this. I'm reluctant to overstate the case for universalist ideas in the early centuries of Christian history. But I certainly don't object to others bringing forward the evidence for it.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, Jerome said "I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its King, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.", Augustine said "There are very many who, though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." Basil the Great said "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.". And Origen was, at his time, the most influential theologian (and was incidentally never anathematised for his universalism).
So, at least for the first few hundred years of Christianity, there is a fair case to say that, whether or not it was the dominant view, it was a large part of the Christian tradition. And it has always continued to be a part of the stream of Orthodoxy.
But yes, of course it is not the traditional view now, though perhaps it is gradually becoming more prevalent.
quote:It was only my discovery of this "alternative" Christianity which allowed me, in middle age, to return to the religion I abandoned as repugnant in my mid teens. In my early 30's I chanced to meet the now deceased Anglican priest Dr Martin Israel whose books and personal contact became a great source of inspiration to me. Though unorthodox to say the least, he was a deeply spiritual man and mystic, who made me realise that all Christians aren't like the hell brigade I grew up with.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, at least for the first few hundred years of Christianity, there is a fair case to say that, whether or not it was the dominant view, it was a large part of the Christian tradition. And it has always continued to be a part of the stream of Orthodoxy.
quote:I agree about IngoB's Honesty. The catholic priest I spoke to when I was thinking about this in High School was also very clear.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I don't blame you at all for rejecting Christianity if you genuinely concluded that it is what IngoB claims it is -- and I don't mean this at all as a negative judgment on IngoB: I really appreciate his blunt honesty; he doesn't candy-coat hellfire the way some other traditional Christians here do.
quote:I wonder what would have been the effect on me had I been exposed to Christian Universalism back then. At the time I started reading the bible with new eyes. I started seeing it close to the way I see it now which is that its all man made. Which does not mean there is no value in it.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
To be clear, I'm not claiming that universalism is the "traditional" Christian view. Clearly, it isn't. But I believe that universalism really is there in the tradition, if we will just open our eyes to see it.
quote:I beg to differ.
I do a "crap" job of it most of the time! Of which this thread is a perfect example!
quote:I used to have a very strong negative reaction to
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Calvinism "solves" this problem (sort of!!!) by asserting that God would be unjust if He left it to us -- because we couldn't possibly, in our own power, do what God calls us to do.
quote:While the argument does not help me have faith in God since that ship sailed away a while back, it helps me understand your point of view better.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
In my not terribly humble opinion, only universalism solves the problem, by affirming both that God can save everyone and that God wishes to save everyone, which means that God will save everyone. As Rob Bell has it in the title of his book, "love wins.
But, my guess is that this doesn't make much more sense to you than any other Christian claim.
quote:In the Jodo Shinshu temple I went too one thing they tell you right away is about the 84,000 dharma doors. There are many ways to enlightenment. If we take enlightenment to mean
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm glad you enjoyed the contact with Pure Land Buddhism. Many Americans who are into the austerity of Zen find the "Amida loves me this I know for the sutras tell me so" pietism of Jodo Shinshu rather off-putting.
If you study this tradition further, you'll find that it challenges "traditional" Buddhism (including Zen) in many of the same ways Christian universalism challenges "traditional" Christianity. I find the parallel and (as best I can tell) utterly independent development a fascinating phenomenon in religion.
quote:Yes! I don't agree with the free will stuff ...
Originally posted by stonespring:
After some thought I think it's worth discussing that even for universalists it seems to me that it is important that we look into the effects of salvation/regeneration/whatever you want to call it on a person's life before death even in the cases where someone really seems to not believe in God or do good deeds. I'm not saying that I agree with the damnationists and annihilationists that this life is meaningless unless a person's chance to accept salvation/whatever you call it ends at death. Rather, I'm inclined to think that there is a personal salvation story in every person's life, even the people who seem to be the worst people. Every person is caught up in a battle between good and evil, and we all know that some people seem to be affected more by one than the other. However, I would say that even in the worst people there is evidence of the salvation process - although our free will can impede it so that the process is far from complete when we die. God offers salvation - we can reject it but I think that our being in God's image means that part of us is saying yes even when almost everything visible to an outsider seems to reflect our saying no. So although I'm a firm believer in human free will and that salvation is impossible unless a person accepts it without being compelled by God to do so, I'm open to the good in us helping God to save us even when the rest of us refuses. Does that make sense?
... but it still makes sense. Ideas that are wrong often make sense! quote:No hint?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
With no hint beyond the glass?
quote:It does to me. Especially the free will part.
Originally posted by stonespring:
So although I'm a firm believer in human free will and that salvation is impossible unless a person accepts it without being compelled by God to do so, I'm open to the good in us helping God to save us even when the rest of us refuses. Does that make sense?
quote:Sorry, I missed this post until now!
Originally posted by Zappa:
Sigh ... having been somewhat absent from the decks of late I pop my head up to find about eight pages on the subject on which I wrote my PhD (universalist soteriology in Paul).
Be thankful I was absent ... I could have bored you all to tears. I'll just doff me hat to y'all ... and head back to the ranks of Origen, Farrar, Robinson, Bell and others who believe that Christ is Saviour of the World, not of a select few.
quote:This is from page 1 of this thread with a small bit left out
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jesus tells us to make disciples. The Church should be trying to make disciples but not everybody comes to Christ. What happens when they die? I just don't know.
Atheists believe that when they die they return to dust and there is no afterlife. Hard for anybody to complain if when they die God allowed them to turn to dust and cease to exist. Many Eastern religions have as their goal and end to the cycle of birth and rebirth. Again, annihilation gives them what they want as well.
The question comes down to free will and grace. I don't have nor do I need the answer. To the extent that it is unclear perhaps it is unclear for a reason.
quote:I managed to find the title page and preliminary matter online, for those who are interested....
Originally posted by anteater:
Zappa:
Is your thesis available to read (i.e. in electronic form)?
quote:Always showing off! It's disgusting, really!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, I found the whole thing. All 469 pages. Ain't I special.
quote:I have a lot of time for your views, but when you make statements like the above, I wonder whether you rejected hell on a false understanding. My most conservative friends would never take this view. However you are recalling the past, so maybe this was the (erroneous) whew you then held.
I had vowed, in my late teens, never to belong to an organisation which threatens people with damnation just because they disagree with what the organisation proclaims.
quote:It wasn't erroneous from where I was! For just over a year, I belonged to an Evangelical Church which I used to attend with my father. Prior to that, he'd taken me to the Baptist Church since early childhood. These people believed that, in order to be saved, you had to make a personal request to Jesus to come into your life and save you. That humungous proportion of humanity which didn't do that all went to hell.I argued with them because my mother, who was always an indifferent, by default Anglican was automatically hell-bound to these people. I pointed out that, whatever her theology, or lack of it, she belived in, and lived by Christian values, like being kind to the stranger, not judging people, and helping anybody that it was within her power to help.
Originally posted by anteater:
I have a lot of time for your views, but when you make statements like the above, I wonder whether you rejected hell on a false understanding. My most conservative friends would never take this view. However you are recalling the past, so maybe this was the (erroneous) whew you then held.
quote:This has been a fascinating and helpful thread for me, and I thank all who have posted on it.
Originally posted by anteater:
PaulTh*:quote:I have a lot of time for your views, but when you make statements like the above, I wonder whether you rejected hell on a false understanding. My most conservative friends would never take this view. However you are recalling the past, so maybe this was the (erroneous) whew you then held.
I had vowed, in my late teens, never to belong to an organisation which threatens people with damnation just because they disagree with what the organisation proclaims.
.....
quote:In simpler words, what I meant was a critique of the fact that universalism tends to emphasize either that what happens in this life has no effect on whether or not someone is saved or that if someone seems destined for Hell when they die, they can repent after death. I suggested that if everyone is saved, that it would make sense for repentance and salvation to have some kind of manifestation in this life - and for a universalist, that manifestation would have to be present, even if very subtly, in even the greatest of sinners.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:It does to me. Especially the free will part.
Originally posted by stonespring:
So although I'm a firm believer in human free will and that salvation is impossible unless a person accepts it without being compelled by God to do so, I'm open to the good in us helping God to save us even when the rest of us refuses. Does that make sense?
.
quote:Usually it is assumed that Adam and Eve were immortal as in protected against dying on earth by God's providence, preternatural gifts, command over nature and other graces, and that they would have been assumed to heaven, body and soul, at a suitable point in their adult life.
Originally posted by QLib:
But those texts seem to work on the assumption that Adam and Eve originally possessed bodies that were not mortal. This simply cannot be - if they were on this earth, then they were mortal. So the only explanation for that would be God foreknowing that they were going to sin, and so giving them mortal bodies to start with.
quote:Christ's actual first coming is inextricably linked to the fallen state of man. What would have happened if man had not fallen is anybody's guess and nobody's concern.
Originally posted by QLib:
Would jesus's earthy body have proved to be immortal if he hadn't been crucified? My guess is that the answer to that question is no - he had to go through a resurrection process.
quote:I note first that you skipped lightly over "incapacitation" as a general reason for punishment, and as a possible reason for hell. I think one can make a good case for "eternal incapacitation" from scripture and (moral) philosophy / theology.
Originally posted by stonespring:
My question was not whether retribution has beenisted as a legitimate grounds for punishment, but why. I think we can discuss deterrence as a reason why eternal damnation may exist but I don't see any value in punishment for the sake of inflicting harm on one who has done wrong (ie, retribution).
quote:"Tempered by mercy" is enough to make your opponents point. That's all that's claimed. God's habit of mercy includes the dead as well as the living.
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, retributions is everywhere in scripture, including as motivation of holy people and, sure enough, God. It is tempered by mercy, indeed, but not abandoned.
quote:Not entirely universal though. And plenty of natural human responses aren't eternal qualities of God, but secular, time-bound, features of our animal nature. Hunger and thirst are universal human (and animal) responses, no-one claims they are eternal attributed of almighty God.
Second, retribution is a basically universal human response.
quote:Not by Jesus, for one. And not always by the prophets. You half-acknowledged that but tried, rather artificially, to twist out of it by claiming forgiveness as some kind of subcategory of vengeance. Not a sermon that would be easy to preach with any logical development of thought.
Given that retribution is seen generally as a positive thing in scripture....
quote:If that truly was all that's claimed, then I would be an Universalist. But Universalism does not temper retribution by mercy, it essentially abolishes it.
Originally posted by ken:
"Tempered by mercy" is enough to make your opponents point. That's all that's claimed. God's habit of mercy includes the dead as well as the living.
quote:This fails to engage with my point. Retribution is clearly a moral response. God has written the moral law on the human heart. We could only claim that retribution is not part of this "heart law" if it was condemned as human failure. Scripture does not do so, to the contrary. So it is a part. Of course, that we we have established retribution as a God-given element of human justice does not per se mean that God Himself acts in a manner that would appear to us as retribution. But then scripture is clear that God in fact acts that way.
Originally posted by ken:
Not entirely universal though. And plenty of natural human responses aren't eternal qualities of God, but secular, time-bound, features of our animal nature. Hunger and thirst are universal human (and animal) responses, no-one claims they are eternal attributed of almighty God.
quote:Actually, I consider that particular suggestion to be rather insightful (what I said, not your caricature). Moving on though...
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Not by Jesus, for one. And not always by the prophets. You half-acknowledged that but tried, rather artificially, to twist out of it by claiming forgiveness as some kind of subcategory of vengeance. Not a sermon that would be easy to preach with any logical development of thought.
Originally posted by ken:
Given that retribution is seen generally as a positive thing in scripture....
quote:So, you disagree with Martin Luther's scriptural understanding of the human condition? Is this typical of Missouri Synod members? I recommend you have a look at Luther's famous (and/or "infamous") The Bondage of the Will.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The belief in human freedom is probably hardwired into us, as I know no one who can refrain from blaming the guy down the table when you ask, "Please pass the salt," and instead of doing so, he sticks out his tongue at you. Not even hardcore determinists.
That said, I think we do in fact have freedom. Freedom does not mean having no starting point, no raw materials, and thus making choices in an utter vacuum. It means taking the raw materials of your situation, whatever they may be, and choosing one of several possible courses that are open to one. In other words, yes, you get dealt a certain hand of cards because of your birth and upbringing, but it's still up to you how you play those cards.
quote:Amen!
If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as—"Free-will!"
quote:
“Faith is a divine work in us. It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God (John 1). It kills the old Adam and makes altogether different people, in heart and spirit and mind and powers, and it brings with it the Holy Spirit.
Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. And so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises, it has already done them, and is always at the doing of them.
He who does not do these works is a faithless man. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are, though he talks and talks, with many words about faith and good works.
Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that a man would stake his life on it a thousand times. This confidence in God’s grace and knowledge of it makes men glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and all His creatures.
And this is the work of the Holy Spirit in faith. Hence a man is ready and glad, without compulsion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, in love and praise to God, who has shown him this grace.
And thus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate burning and shining from fire."
quote:I can assure you that I'm familiar with the context, etc.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, of course I've had a look at Bondage of the Will. Have you looked at the context in which he wrote it? Go track down Erasmus and the Freedom of the Will.
quote:I assumed that you wouldn't see Luther as infallible, which is why I emphasized that Luther's argument was "scriptural." The issue here, as I see it, is whether or not Luther correctly interpreted and explained the evidence of Scripture. I think he did, and so do many others.
As for other LCMS Lutherans, whatever. None of us (that I know of, anyway) feel bound to treat Luther as Holy Writ. We certainly take what he said into account--the man was a genius and also, we think, under the leading of the Holy Spirit--but he was a far cry from being an apostle, much less the Christ. No Lutheran is bound to abide by everything the man wrote or said. But every thinking Lutheran is bound to at least consider it, even if we wind up believing him wrong.
quote:Honestly, I wasn't aware we were away from the subject....
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Now, back to the subject--
quote:By "away from the subject" I meant the ad hominem regarding my LCMS membership. Anyway--
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Honestly, I wasn't aware we were away from the subject....
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Now, back to the subject--
I must be brief at this moment, sorry.
I think it's important here to distinguish between the freedom of those who have a living relationship with Christ and the "freedom" of those who don't. Since this is a thread about "universalism," my concern is with the claim that those who are not-yet-Christians have the freedom to decide whether to accept or reject God's offer of salvation.
I'm hard pressed to find any Reformer who thought the "pre-saved" have such a capacity. That's why I referred to Luther's The Bondage of the Will.
Obviously, you don't have to agree with Luther (and every other 16th century Reformer). But if you disagree with them, it seems to me that the burden off proof lies with you to explain why and how they so badly misinterpreted Scripture.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:One cannot be saved if one is not in danger. Strictly speaking, there is no salvation at all in universalism. Furthermore, you assume here that this life is a given. It is not. Why does God even allow any of this sin and repentance nonsense? He should simply make us fit for heaven, period. Perhaps you say that this is not possible, for some reason. What reason would that be? But say you find one, then is it not the case that you allow for something like purgatory? You need that sort of thing, to bridge the gap between the atrocious behaviour of many humans in this life and the assumption of perfect heavenly sanctity. But if such a purgatory is available, which can make us fit for heaven, then why does God not put us into this purgatory directly? Create us in purgatory, make us fit for heaven there, and all will be happy ever after. There still is no reason for this life in all that.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I suggested that if everyone is saved, that it would make sense for repentance and salvation to have some kind of manifestation in this life - and for a universalist, that manifestation would have to be present, even if very subtly, in even the greatest of sinners.
quote:Perhaps. But that is a complete non sequitur. I can't say that any particular individual has AIDS, since nobody I know has the disease, or at least nobody I know has told me that they have it. But I'm sure beyond reasonable doubt that there are people who have AIDS, because I've heard many trustworthy and consistent reports that some people have this disease. We cannot observe the afterlife, and unlike for the saints and their miracles God does not permit any interaction of the doomed with this world (or at least we don't know that He does). Therefore, we cannot obtain compelling evidence that any particular individual is in hell, even though we know that some particular individuals are in heaven. However, it does not follow at all that we are clueless concerning the existence and occupancy of hell. We have many trustworthy and consistent reports that it exists and that there are sinners in it - primarily from scripture and its authoritative interpretation by the Church Fathers, but also from visions of various saints.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Catholic Church has never claimed that any particular individual is in hell. Perhaps that's why Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor thinks he can justify saying that we're not bound to believe that anyone is there.
quote:Read your Catechism...
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In the Apostles Creed we say:
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I would make no arguements nor disputes with this, but I don't feel bound to accept that, after His descent into hell, to preach to the captives, and break the bars, His judgement will send anyone back there.
quote:
633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.(Cf. Phil 2:10; Acts 2:24; Rev 1:18; Eph 4:9; Pss 6:6; 88:11-13.) Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":(Cf. Ps 89:49; 1 Sam 28:19; Ezek 32:17-32; Lk 16:22-26.) "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."(Roman Catechism I, 6, 3.) Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.(483 Cf. Council of Rome (745): DS 587; Benedict XII, Cum dudum (1341): DS 1011; Clement VI, Super quibusdam (1351): DS 1077; Council of Toledo IV (625): DS 485; Mt 27:52-53.)
quote:Personally I would say that one can and must hope that every single individual goes to heaven, but one cannot and must not hope that all individuals go to heaven. And yes, there is a difference. One cannot and must not hope that hell will be empty, because then scripture and tradition would speak in vain and bear false witness about God, and furthermore God would be playing an essentially empty game with us by subjecting us to the trials of this life.
Originally posted by Gildas:
I get the impression from Ingo's postings on this thread that there are traditionalist Catholics who would take that line. Presumably traditionalist Orthodox as well. Certainly Protestant fundamentalists.
quote:Seriously, one of the main problems here is the constant analogising to some kind of human ruler, or in this case, human mad scientist. God's "goodness" is not obedience to some set of human morals, but that He is the first efficient cause of all goodness. Or as St Augustine puts it: "This thing is good and that good, but take away this and that, and regard good itself if you can, so will you see God, not good by a good that is other than Himself, but the good of all good." I do not see the fact that I need to breathe air regularly to live as something that distracts from the goodness of my life, rather breathing is part of my life, part of the way I am made. Likewise our need for God is not some kind of terrible addiction, but simply intrinsic to our (well-)being.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
If someone was able to create a group of people that were unable to be happy without the help of that person. For example: they need a drug that only He can provide. No matter how hard they try they cannot prosper alone they need Him. Nobody in their right mind would call that person good. Why does God get a free pass?
quote:"Damnationism" is perfectly compatible with the earthly life that we do observe, namely considering it as a time of trial, an extended test. That we are taking this test in a rather horrible state is because of Adam, and that we can pass it is due to Christ. Of course, one can ask why God does not simply create us perfected. But I think there is a "God cannot create (Euclidean) square circles" problem here. God can create an entity that freely chooses Him, but not one that has freely chosen Him. It's like me saying to you "I command you to be spontaneous." That doesn't work.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
And can anyone explain what is the point of sending people to the Earth in Universalism? To the previously given examples of infants dying I can add mental illness for example. Why send us here as "imperfect" as we are in the first place? Of course damnationism would only make matters worse.
quote:One should be careful in judging "universalist" statements. St Jerome, for example, may appear to be a "universalist" in some of his writings, but actually rather thought (at one point) that salvation was universally extended to all the baptised, not literally to everybody. It is even questionable whether Origen himself, who was the source for most of the latter universalist tendencies, actually was a universalist. His known writings on the matter are incoherent. The section on Patristic Christianity in Wikipedia's Apocastastasis lists some material.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Thanks for this. I'm reluctant to overstate the case for universalist ideas in the early centuries of Christian history. But I certainly don't object to others bringing forward the evidence for it.
quote:This language is alien to me ("claim Jesus as my own", at the Lost & Found, or what?), and traditional RC understanding is a lot more differentiated than simply "one offence and you are out". If that were true, I would certainly go to hell. I would appreciate if you wouldn't attribute views to me that I find barely recognisable. You may disagree both with me and your former Evangelical Church, but that does not mean that we would agree with each other.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
They thought, as IngoB does, that with one transgression, and we all trangress, if you haven't claimed Jesus as your own, it will lead to eternal hell.
quote:It wasn't an ad hominem.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
By "away from the subject" I meant the ad hominem regarding my LCMS membership. Anyway--
quote:Semantics.
People do not "come into the world". They are given birth to.
quote:Not semantics. Being born is something that happens to you, not something you do.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
quote:Semantics.
People do not "come into the world". They are given birth to.
quote:Then my apologies.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:It wasn't an ad hominem.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
By "away from the subject" I meant the ad hominem regarding my LCMS membership. Anyway--
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If Scripture says so (and that is the point to be proven), then we're stuck with that reality.
quote:You need look no further than the Bible itself. All sorts of very odd comings and goings there.
Originally posted by Gildas:
I have never yet come across the idea that coming into the world or, indeed, leaving it is ever other than a matter of brute fact, except possibly in the works of Mr David Icke.
[ETA: Crosspost]
quote:I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. I don't think that the nature of this life fits your understanding at all. This life is so much more than a test. This life is built around the beauty being in the journey, not the destination. This world is about growth, life and death. It's about learning and enjoying. It's about maturing.
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point here is quite simple. The structure of this life as we experience it is very compatible indeed with the traditional point of view. This is a test. A race to be run, with a prize for the winner. A fight to be fought, in which you can get knocked out if you don't watch it. What turns it into this test is however not the need to beat (or beat up) another human being, but rather God's demands on us. It is precisely in faith that the full and real challenge of this life is revealed. As we raise our heads up from our feet, up from the the mere struggle to survive, we finally start to see what kind of race we always have been running.
Well then, none of this with universalism. Sorry, it's just not there. That's like these children sports tournaments, where absolutely everybody gets a gold medal just for participating. But we are not children here in that sense. And how do we know that? Well, because children sports tournaments are nice, safe things. But this life is neither nice nor safe. Switch on the news. Or simply interact with all those people around you. This life is clearly about playing for keeps. The only question is what we are trying to keep, and the Christian (indeed, general religious) point is that it is not material gains in the end.
quote:Look back at the post. "we" refers to Lutherans. The historic Lutheran position is that "Scripture cannot be broken," and therefore it can be relied upon in matters such as these (e.g. whether anyone ever goes to hell). Remains only to establish WHAT the Scripture is saying, which is not always crystal clear--for example, there is no statement I can recall that says flat out, "Some people are going to hell." But the warning is ever-present, and we have at least one fictional character in a parable who winds up in the flames,as well as Judas being described as "lost". Those passages are troubling to a believer in the historic Lutheran position who nevertheless hopes against hope that all will, in the end, be saved. I'm one of them.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If Scripture says so (and that is the point to be proven), then we're stuck with that reality.
Fallible people wrote scripture. They may have been God-inspired, but they could only use what they knew. Their lives and times were full of retribution and a 'testing' God. It doesn't mean they were right.
quote:Hardly. Each person has the burden of proof to defend their own interpretation of scripture. The whole "incapable of choosing God" thing is one of the greatest evils Augustine, in chasing the phantasm of his imagined Pelagius (who may or may not have anything to do with the real Pelagius), unleashed on the theological world. I gives rise to all the evils of the Reformation.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm hard pressed to find any Reformer who thought the "pre-saved" have such a capacity. That's why I referred to Luther's The Bondage of the Will.
Obviously, you don't have to agree with Luther (and every other 16th century Reformer). But if you disagree with them, it seems to me that the burden off proof lies with you to explain why and how they so badly misinterpreted Scripture.
quote:Well, how about considering such explanation as a courtesy to the long dead who cannot defend themselves against one's criticism? I agree that it would be fantastic if Luther, Calvin et al. miraculously posted on SoF in support of their position. But it is just very unlikely that that will ever happen.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Hardly. Each person has the burden of proof to defend their own interpretation of scripture.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Obviously, you don't have to agree with Luther (and every other 16th century Reformer). But if you disagree with them, it seems to me that the burden off proof lies with you to explain why and how they so badly misinterpreted Scripture.
quote:Could you be a bit more precise about what exactly St Augustine is supposed to have taught there, and in particular, where in his writings we may find this teaching expressed clearly? If it is one of the greatest evils he has unleashed on the theological world, then that should be relatively easy.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The whole "incapable of choosing God" thing is one of the greatest evils Augustine, in chasing the phantasm of his imagined Pelagius (who may or may not have anything to do with the real Pelagius), unleashed on the theological world. I gives rise to all the evils of the Reformation.
quote:You are right and I apologise, because I know your view is very different from that of Evangelical Protestants. I was just trying to explain the visceral aversion I have to all forms of "hard" Christianity from whatever tradition. I've yet to come upon any other religious tradition on the planet for which I have such contempt!
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would appreciate if you wouldn't attribute views to me that I find barely recognisable. You may disagree both with me and your former Evangelical Church, but that does not mean that we would agree with each other.
quote:I'm enough of a semi-Pelagian to agree with this. I certainly believe that all of us must co-operate to some degree in the process of our salvation. My universalism comes from my belief that we won't only get this short life on earth to complete this process, and that, in the end, "every knee shall bow" and no-one will ultimately reject God's love for eternity. If original sin, leading to a belief in total depravity can be traced to Augustine, as many think it can, it did give rise to all the evils of the Reformation.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Hardly. Each person has the burden of proof to defend their own interpretation of scripture. The whole "incapable of choosing God" thing is one of the greatest evils Augustine, in chasing the phantasm of his imagined Pelagius (who may or may not have anything to do with the real Pelagius), unleashed on the theological world. I gives rise to all the evils of the Reformation.
quote:If every single passenger and crew member is saved from a sinking ship, does that mean they were never really in danger at all?
Originally posted by IngoB:
One cannot be saved if one is not in danger. Strictly speaking, there is no salvation at all in universalism.
quote:So why not go back a step and consider that Scripture can be broken, because not only the interpretation but also the writing was by fallible people who could be wrong?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look back at the post. "we" refers to Lutherans. The historic Lutheran position is that "Scripture cannot be broken," and therefore it can be relied upon in matters such as these (e.g. whether anyone ever goes to hell). Remains only to establish WHAT the Scripture is saying, which is not always crystal clear--for example, there is no statement I can recall that says flat out, "Some people are going to hell." But the warning is ever-present, and we have at least one fictional character in a parable who winds up in the flames,as well as Judas being described as "lost". Those passages are troubling to a believer in the historic Lutheran position who nevertheless hopes against hope that all will, in the end, be saved. I'm one of them.
quote:Of course life is more than just a test. But we were talking about how life relates to salvation, i.e., we were considering a specific aspect of life. And with regards to that, life is best characterised as a kind of test. That point of view is of course eminently scriptural, in particular Pauline. (And frankly, I hate "the way is the goal" speak. And I say that as sometime martial artist and former Zen practitioner. That sort of language is almost invariably a sign of incompetent and impotent Western romanticism, not of healthy 'Eastern' wisdom and practice.)
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. I don't thik that the nature of this life fits your understanding at all. This life is so much more than a test. This life is built around the beauty being in the journey, not the destination.
quote:That does not in any way contradict the statement that this life is a salvation-determining test. It simply says something about the kind of test life is.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This world is about growth, life and death. It's about learning and enjoying. It's about maturing.
quote:It is in my opinion an essential lesson for every believer to stop thinking in human categories of "fairness" as far the God's creation goes. As I keep saying, read Job. More generally, the modern "personalist" conception of God is simply not intellectually defensible in my opinion, but is definitely not identical to classical theism. In many ways, Universalism is a stop gap measure to patch over all the horrid difficulties that arise from considering God as "Sky Daddy" in a direct extrapolation from human experience. I agree with Brain Davies, Denys Turner and others in saying that classical theism (in particular Thomism) does not consider God as a moral agent, and does not believe that God is "good" in the sense of being "morally well behaved". That just is false "personalist" notions of God spilling over into the moral sphere. If God basically is a bigger and better version of a human being, then one can ask whether his moral behaviour is accordingly bigger and better. But God is not that. God's goodness is essentially being the cause of the goodness of creatures. God is Good is hence basically the same as saying that God is Creator.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If this life is just a test, then it's an incredibly unfair one. One where some people are given all the answers, others none. Some are given decades to complete the test, others seconds. Most people's results depend on the answers someone else gives. If mortality was truly built to test people and sort everyone into two categories, pass and fail, then it would look very different to this existence. This life is far too messy.
quote:The sorting is 100% efficient. And all you are doing here is trying to claim all goodness and sweetness for yourself, in the hope of letting my position appear all cold and mean. But I have said nothing that would speak against supporting, helping and learning from each other. All I'm saying is that there is an edge to all that. It is not some kind of hobby, a nice thing to do to pass the time until we reconvene in heaven. It is an urgent matter, and it has eternal consequences. We are not playing games here. Now, I agree that doing good and living a good life should ideally transcend our desire to avoid hell. It should become something that we do for its own sake and to please God (which are in a sense the same thing). However, in order to transcend something, it has to be there first! It is by going beyond our "survival instinct" as far as eternity is concerned that we can achieve "heroic sanctity", but that does not mean that that survival instinct is mistaken.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
However, as a starting point on a journey of growth, with a striving, a movement towards, and a hope for ultimate maturity for all, this life does make more sense. Our corporate existence becomes a responsibility to support, help and learn from each other, rather than an unfair responsibiltiy where one might accidently damn the other. Every good thing becomes valuable as part of a path to God, rather than something disposable to be thrown away if we fail. This life (and, IMV Scripture) reflects that interpretation much more than your sorting machine does. Machines should be far much more efficient.
quote:Well, no. Because the test in your system is so important that whether you pass or fail overrules any of that other good stuff. Think of two friends in this life, who spend it supporting each other, helping each other, learning from each other. But then, at the end, they both fail the test. All that beautiful, good, Godly interaction becomes nothing, chucked away as worthless. No-one is fully good and no-one is fully evil. So, for the damned, the good and the evil in them are both deemed inadequate and thrown away. So maturity doesn't matter, Christlikeness doesn't matter (saying they do matter from the point of view of the saved is not enough - from the point of view of the damned, your perspective basically says "all this goodness is not worth keeping, because it is unredeemable").
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That does not in any way contradict the statement that this life is a salvation-determining test. It simply says something about the kind of test life is.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This world is about growth, life and death. It's about learning and enjoying. It's about maturing.
quote:We've done this to death before, and I'm not sure what else there is to say, other than that because we are made in God's image, we can get a glimpse of what God is like through our humanity. God's goodness and fairness is endless levels above our own, but they are not in totally different, alien categories. In Scripture God constantly talks to people on their level, according to their understandings. When we talk about God as Father, God as Good, God as Love, those things of course mean something more than human understandings of those things, but not different categories altogether. The Prophets (and Jesus) reveal God as incredibly interested in fairness and justice. Those things come out of who God is, what he is like. For me, throwing our hands up and saying "God's Fairness is so other from our own that we can't even bother trying to comprehend it" is a cop-out, and more importantly, at serious odds with the picture of God that we get in Scripture (Job or no Job).
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is in my opinion an essential lesson for every believer to stop thinking in human categories of "fairness" as far the God's creation goes. As I keep saying, read Job.
quote:And you're now again playing the "if it's not eternal then it's inconsequential" card again, which is patently nonsense. It is an urgent matter, and of course we are not playing games. Judgement day is going to be serious, sin is serious. Injustice is serious. The difference is not the severity, but what God does about those things, and whether his salvation plan has the potential to be big enough for all, or just some.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And all you are doing here is trying to claim all goodness and sweetness for yourself, in the hope of letting my position appear all cold and mean. But I have said nothing that would speak against supporting, helping and learning from each other. All I'm saying is that there is an edge to all that. It is not some kind of hobby, a nice thing to do to pass the time until we reconvene in heaven. It is an urgent matter, and it has eternal consequences. We are not playing games here.
quote:And this is the gospel, the Good News, thanks be to God.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It is still a big deal, it is still not a game. The punishment is real, but it is for a reason, it is for discipline, growth, salvation. And it does not have to last forever. Hell is not the last word. There is still a Hope beyond even Hell and punishment, that in the end there will be salvation.
quote:Quite. I'm much more strongly anti-eternal-punishment, pro-post-mortem-conversion, pro-God-as-parent than I am staunchly pro-universalism. However, the universalism I have flows primarily out of those three things.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I see no indication from reason or my conscience that eternal damnation with no chance if escape is a just punishment for anything.
quote:This is exactly as ridiculous as saying that mathematics does not matter for a maths exam, because one can understand some mathematics and yet fail that exam. And your universalist answer is like concluding that one hence must simply let everybody pass the math exam, no matter what they got wrong or right. It is irrelevant as well that even David Hilbert would occasionally make a maths error, and that Ryan Gosling would occasionally get some maths right. The cut is not whether one is completely and totally evil, or not. In fact, according to traditional theology it is strictly impossible to be completely and totally evil, because all evil is privation and something completely and totally lacking also lacks existence. So yes, if your ever so sweet and beautiful friends (perhaps we could add some muzak to your idyllic depiction?) manage to sin mortally - grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent, no less - and do not repent, then they can contemplate eternally in hell why all their friendship, support, help and learning could not even get them to the most basic recognition of God's law and obedience to it. And frankly, I'm fine with that even though it is as threatening to me as to next guy. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, no. Because the test in your system is so important that whether you pass or fail overrules any of that other good stuff. Think of two friends in this life, who spend it supporting each other, helping each other, learning from each other. But then, at the end, they both fail the test. All that beautiful, good, Godly interaction becomes nothing, chucked away as worthless. No-one is fully good and no-one is fully evil. So, for the damned, the good and the evil in them are both deemed inadequate and thrown away. So maturity doesn't matter, Christlikeness doesn't matter (saying they do matter from the point of view of the saved is not enough - from the point of view of the damned, your perspective basically says "all this goodness is not worth keeping, because it is unredeemable").
quote:Well, you are simply wrong. It is important to realise that there is a third option besides univocal or equivocal description, namely analogical one. Hence to say that it is not possible to univocally describe God and man is not to say that we are equivocating, it is to say that we are using analogy when we talk about God. Furthermore, much of the language we use about God is to be simply understood as a labelling of the effects that God causes by the disposition a human actor causing such effects would likely have. So if we say that God shows His wrath, then what we mean is that what God is doing seems to us like what a wrathful human might do. It does not mean that God is actually wrathful.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We've done this to death before, and I'm not sure what else there is to say, other than that because we are made in God's image, we can get a glimpse of what God is like through our humanity. God's goodness and fairness is endless levels above our own, but they are not in totally different, alien categories. In Scripture God constantly talks to people on their level, according to their understandings. When we talk about God as Father, God as Good, God as Love, those things of course mean something more than human understandings of those things, but not different categories altogether. The Prophets (and Jesus) reveal God as incredibly interested in fairness and justice. Those things come out of who God is, what he is like. For me, throwing our hands up and saying "God's Fairness is so other from our own that we can't even bother trying to comprehend it" is a cop-out, and more importantly, at serious odds with the picture of God that we get in Scripture (Job or no Job).
quote:It is a killer argument against universalism, so it doesn't surprise me that you try to belittle it.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And you're now again playing the "if it's not eternal then it's inconsequential" card again, which is patently nonsense.
quote:I'll tell you what I'll do at "judgement" day if universalism is true. Yawn. Twiddle my thumbs. Wait in generalised boredom for the empty ceremony of universal embarrassment to end. And what is the most God then can do to still make me care? Why, it is of course to threaten me with as much hell as you allow God to have. You might go "hah, but you will pay dearly for all your sins by suffering in purgatory". Well, at least you would probably end there after I shrugged at your afterlife opportunities to mature and grow. But anyway, none of this will really matter. I already know that I'm going to heaven, so I will take whatever you throw at me in the same spirit as a root canal. And the interesting bit is that going back to this life, this is only mildly deterrent. For it is true, maybe I would get scared off some minor misdeed if I knew that I would have to pay dearly for that in purgatory (or in your language of sweetness and delight, work through my issues for a long time). But let's say I really want to screw this married woman, and she would be more than happy to let me. Now, can your finite purgatory deter me from that? The point is that the opportunity to commit adultery with her is unique and concrete, and in the here and now. Whereas the punishment of purgatory is distant and vague. And in particular, there will not be hell to pay for this. Just some temporary time spent in purgatorial correction camps until I get to be in heaven with everybody else. In a way, no purgatorial correction can take away that unique pleasure of this concrete sin in my life. It will always be there as that thing her and I did, an eternal memory of some forbidden fruit I managed to taste, and got away with. Your purgatory is not in fact like the traditional one, where one has already rued what one did even while still alive, and where in purgatory the ongoing repentance and the temporal effects are merely completed and perfected so as to allow entrance to heaven. Your purgatory is powerless to deter me in this life, and to reform me in the afterlife, for I know that all its threats are empty and that I will get away with murder. Literally, if it comes to that.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It is an urgent matter, and of course we are not playing games. Judgement day is going to be serious, sin is serious. Injustice is serious.
quote:Fantastic. And apropos of nothing, would you happen to have an attractive wife (or be one, I guess...)?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The punishment is real, but it is for a reason, it is for discipline, growth, salvation. And it does not have to last forever. Hell is not the last word. There is still a Hope beyond even Hell and punishment, that in the end there will be salvation.
quote:As far as "cognitive dissonances" go, the traditional picture is entirely coherent. It may not allow you to maintain the delusion of God as some kind of benevolent super-human, whose activity univocally can be described in human terms. But it sure as heck is compatible with scripture and with the observed world, and is internally consistent and compatible with philosophical analysis. Most Christians wouldn't know the first thing about it though. As far as being cold and mean goes, well, I prefer to start with reality and then see what accommodations can be made. I don't start with the accommodations I would like to see, and then busy myself declaring them to be reality. You may find your God comforting, but I don't think that your conceptions about Him make any sense at all. This world was not made by a benevolent super-human kind of entity, as is demonstrated by the simple fact that every human being past the age of reason will easily come up with multiple valid ideas for a much better world. Your ideas about God are hence incompatible with observable reality, and your universalism is little more than one aspect of the strained fudge that tries to make all-loving and ever-sweet Sky Daddy compatible with the not indifferent and often bitter world of experience.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The thing is as well, as lovely as you are, your position is cold and mean. I don't need to paint it that way; that's simply how it comes across to many, many people. That's why countless people won't even consider Christianity (or have left it), and why many Christians live in a state of cognitive dissonance where they can't reconcile the pictures of God being both Love, and yet also worst than the most unreasonable human parent. It's also why many Christians (myself included) have left that way of thinking and encountered a more real God and Gospel that has saved our faith. And that Gospel was always there, in Scripture, in the Christian tradition; it was just a case of discovering it.
quote:I'm feeling like I'm experiencing "realized eschatology," because this thread is really starting to make me yawn with boredom at the same points being made over and over, just in different ways. It's like rearranging furniture. That sofa really can only go in two or three places!
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'll tell you what I'll do at "judgement" day if universalism is true. Yawn.
quote:I'm surprised that this hasn't already come up on this thread. Those who claim that the plain words of Jesus talk of eternal punishment often overlook the liguistic arguement that he may have said no such thing. I have little doubt that those who die in need of correction may suffer for their sins. Perhaps Hitler has to suffer for every one of the 45 million deaths he's alleged to have caused. But even that could have an age-enduring limit. I'm not at all convinced that Jesus meant that punishments are eternal.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We could argue again about the use of language the gospel writers chose. For me, the thing that is remarkable is that they had a whole raft of contemporary, unending-retributive-punishment words to choose from, eirgmon aidion, timoria adialepton, athanaton timorion (eternal imprisonment, unending torment, deathless torment). Instead, they (Jesus?) chose aionion kolasin, age-enduring discipline.
quote:It is not clear to me what sort of answer you expect here. Nothing that I say about the afterlife is in contradiction with what can be observed about the world. In that way my view is consistent. In particular, what I say about God and the afterlife, and about God and this world, can be said using the same concept of God.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How is your view of the afterlife consistent with the observed world?
quote:Are you saying that you cannot think of anything that is not illogical but would make the world a better place? I find that hard to believe...
Originally posted by stonespring:
What makes you think that it is obvious to the human way of seeing things that there could be a better world?
quote:He has really, really bad breath?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
But God -- the Real One -- just isn't that small, and weak, and petty. He's the One Who has redeemed the entire universe. He's infinitely more terrifying than the one who can turn human beings into eternally roasting marshmallows. Infinitely more!
quote:Oh, I won't be yawning, don't worry. But that's because your God does not exist.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
So, go ahead, IngoB, plan to yawn! I look forward to watching you try!
quote:BINGO! You go to the head of the class!
Originally posted by IngoB:
But wait, you seem to say that the redemption of the universe is infinitely more terrifying than eternal hell fire.
quote:I know you are, but what am I? ... Um, I mean ... No, IngoB, it's your god who doesn't exist. I'm afraid of your god to just about the extent I'm afraid of Zeus, Marduk, or Vishnu. Which is, not much.
Oh, I won't be "yawning," don't worry. But that's because your God does not exist.
quote:But you've said multiple times that the observable world seems more aligned with your view of the afterlife than with any form of universalism (or with my somewhat Pelagian spin on things which seems to question why we have any original sin to be forgiven in the first place). How is this so?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:It is not clear to me what sort of answer you expect here. Nothing that I say about the afterlife is in contradiction with what can be observed about the world. In that way my view is consistent. In particular, what I say about God and the afterlife, and about God and this world, can be said using the same concept of God.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How is your view of the afterlife consistent with the observed world?
quote:Are you saying that you cannot think of anything that is not illogical but would make the world a better place? I find that hard to believe...
Originally posted by stonespring:
What makes you think that it is obvious to the human way of seeing things that there could be a better world?
quote:How is that terrifying, unless you happen to be an enemy of the Lord?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
That's right, infinitely more terrifying than eternal fire. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:25-26).
quote:You are probably looking for the word "terrific" then...
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Terrifying! And wonderful!
quote:Well, this is the difficulty of the Christian afterlife in a nutshell. The proper response to this is of course to wait patiently till judgement day, and when you are led away with the goats to go all neener-neener on your ass. Unfortunately, this very act at that point in time would mean that one finds oneself among the goats as well. To escape this fate and be counted among the sheep then, one must even hope now that you shall be a rather confused sheep yourself. And obviously then one will have to be overjoyed that somehow you made the herd, rather than going all neener-neener on your ass among the sheep. So this raises the deep theological question, since you so utterly deserve that somebody will go neener-neener on your ass, when and how will God allow it?! Is that perhaps what purgatory is all about, the place where we can get the necessary neener-neeners out of our system? Oh, the mysteries of faith...
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
No, IngoB, it's your god who doesn't exist. I'm afraid of your god to just about the extent I'm afraid of Zeus, Marduk, or Vishnu. Which is, not much.
quote:Must be nice to know just what someone else deserves!
Originally posted by IngoB:
...since you so utterly deserve that somebody will go neener-neener on your ass....
quote:I find myself thinking more and more of six-year-old Anthony Freemont in the Twilight Zone episode, "It's a Good Life"!
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all about what you would do if you were God.
quote:
If you think about it, the little boy in this episode describes the christian god and the relationship his followers have with him to perfection.
quote:Well put. I kept reading to see if anyone would address it, but nobody seems to have.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If every single passenger and crew member is saved from a sinking ship, does that mean they were never really in danger at all?
Originally posted by IngoB:
One cannot be saved if one is not in danger. Strictly speaking, there is no salvation at all in universalism.
quote:You're talking in the context of your exam analogy as if I agree it's accurate or useful. My point is that it's not useful at all. In your mathematics exam, any maths learning that Ryan Gosling did is wasted and disposable. It was pointless, because he didn't pass. And so, in your eschatology, a vast sea of good, Godly things get chucked into Gehenna. That's my criticism. And so Godliness and goodness is undervalued, and your impotent God has to throw away that which he had intially created and called 'good'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This is exactly as ridiculous as saying that mathematics does not matter for a maths exam, because one can understand some mathematics and yet fail that exam. And your universalist answer is like concluding that one hence must simply let everybody pass the math exam, no matter what they got wrong or right. It is irrelevant as well that even David Hilbert would occasionally make a maths error, and that Ryan Gosling would occasionally get some maths right. The cut is not whether one is completely and totally evil, or not.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, no. Because the test in your system is so important that whether you pass or fail overrules any of that other good stuff. Think of two friends in this life, who spend it supporting each other, helping each other, learning from each other. But then, at the end, they both fail the test. All that beautiful, good, Godly interaction becomes nothing, chucked away as worthless. No-one is fully good and no-one is fully evil. So, for the damned, the good and the evil in them are both deemed inadequate and thrown away. So maturity doesn't matter, Christlikeness doesn't matter (saying they do matter from the point of view of the saved is not enough - from the point of view of the damned, your perspective basically says "all this goodness is not worth keeping, because it is unredeemable").
quote:But those analogies mean something. They help us understand God. You have gone too far into making God unknowable. We might as well call God 'Evil', 'Hateful' and 'Unjust', but say that those descriptions are different to our human understandings too. Everything becomes arbitrary. God is both knowable and unknowable, but God has revealed Godself to us in Jesus. I struggle to see how our discussing this is going to become anything other than assertion and counter-assertion, though.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, you are simply wrong. It is important to realise that there is a third option besides univocal or equivocal description, namely analogical one. Hence to say that it is not possible to univocally describe God and man is not to say that we are equivocating, it is to say that we are using analogy when we talk about God. Furthermore, much of the language we use about God is to be simply understood as a labelling of the effects that God causes by the disposition a human actor causing such effects would likely have. So if we say that God shows His wrath, then what we mean is that what God is doing seems to us like what a wrathful human might do. It does not mean that God is actually wrathful.
quote:Where to begin... Well, since you've already questioned my repentance on this thread, it's only fair to reciprocate. I've heard it said that unless one genuinely asks the question Paul asks in Romans 6:1 ("Shall we go on sinning?"), then they haven't grasped the gospel. If that's really what your attitude ends up being, then I have a hunch that you'll end up sitting outside the gates of the heavenly city, and it'll be a long time before you're allowed in...
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'll tell you what I'll do at "judgement" day if universalism is true. Yawn. Twiddle my thumbs. Wait in generalised boredom for the empty ceremony of universal embarrassment to end. And what is the most God then can do to still make me care? Why, it is of course to threaten me with as much hell as you allow God to have. You might go "hah, but you will pay dearly for all your sins by suffering in purgatory". Well, at least you would probably end there after I shrugged at your afterlife opportunities to mature and grow. But anyway, none of this will really matter. I already know that I'm going to heaven, so I will take whatever you throw at me in the same spirit as a root canal. And the interesting bit is that going back to this life, this is only mildly deterrent. For it is true, maybe I would get scared off some minor misdeed if I knew that I would have to pay dearly for that in purgatory (or in your language of sweetness and delight, work through my issues for a long time). But let's say I really want to screw this married woman, and she would be more than happy to let me. Now, can your finite purgatory deter me from that? The point is that the opportunity to commit adultery with her is unique and concrete, and in the here and now. Whereas the punishment of purgatory is distant and vague. And in particular, there will not be hell to pay for this. Just some temporary time spent in purgatorial correction camps until I get to be in heaven with everybody else. In a way, no purgatorial correction can take away that unique pleasure of this concrete sin in my life. It will always be there as that thing her and I did, an eternal memory of some forbidden fruit I managed to taste, and got away with. Your purgatory is not in fact like the traditional one, where one has already rued what one did even while still alive, and where in purgatory the ongoing repentance and the temporal effects are merely completed and perfected so as to allow entrance to heaven. Your purgatory is powerless to deter me in this life, and to reform me in the afterlife, for I know that all its threats are empty and that I will get away with murder. Literally, if it comes to that.
quote:I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Please can you explain?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Fantastic. And apropos of nothing, would you happen to have an attractive wife (or be one, I guess...)?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The punishment is real, but it is for a reason, it is for discipline, growth, salvation. And it does not have to last forever. Hell is not the last word. There is still a Hope beyond even Hell and punishment, that in the end there will be salvation.
quote:Well, firstly, it was Jesus who revealed God to be a Heavenly Father, who called him Abba, as did Paul. So, if you're criticizing the idea of God as a loving parent, then you should probably be looking for a religion other than Christianity. It's pretty central to the whole thing...
Originally posted by IngoB:
tries to make all-loving and ever-sweet Sky Daddy
quote:Because faith is not a matter of choice--not for me, anyway. I believe what I believe BECAUSE I believe it. That is what reality looks like to me. I can no more choose to believe that Scripture is broken than I can choose to believe that there is no sun. My brain just doesn't bend that way.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So why not go back a step and consider that Scripture can be broken, because not only the interpretation but also the writing was by fallible people who could be wrong?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look back at the post. "we" refers to Lutherans. The historic Lutheran position is that "Scripture cannot be broken," and therefore it can be relied upon in matters such as these (e.g. whether anyone ever goes to hell). Remains only to establish WHAT the Scripture is saying, which is not always crystal clear--for example, there is no statement I can recall that says flat out, "Some people are going to hell." But the warning is ever-present, and we have at least one fictional character in a parable who winds up in the flames,as well as Judas being described as "lost". Those passages are troubling to a believer in the historic Lutheran position who nevertheless hopes against hope that all will, in the end, be saved. I'm one of them.
quote:I might be starting to understand the issue here (see my post in the other thread)....
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Because faith is not a matter of choice--not for me, anyway. I believe what I believe BECAUSE I believe it. That is what reality looks like to me. I can no more choose to believe that Scripture is broken than I can choose to believe that there is no sun. My brain just doesn't bend that way.
Originally posted by Boogie:
So why not go back a step and consider that Scripture can be broken, because not only the interpretation but also the writing was by fallible people who could be wrong?
quote:This isn't a case of asking the Muslim to choose to believe something different, but simply to consider whether existing beliefs are right.
So why not go back a step and consider that the Qur'an could be wrong, because not only the interpretation but also the writing was by a fallible person who could be wrong?
quote:If you know in advance that you are going to be "saved" from the ship at the time when it lands, it's not called "being saved". It's called disembarking. You can tell me all sorts of elaborate stories about that being some supposed rescue mission. But if it is just the pier, and we are all going to step out when we get there, and nobody is in the slightest danger of drowning, and the worst that can happen to anybody is to be kept waiting by one of the officers until their paperwork checks out, then there simply is no reason to be concerned at all.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Well put. I kept reading to see if anyone would address it, but nobody seems to have. I can only add "exactly!" because I agree.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If every single passenger and crew member is saved from a sinking ship, does that mean they were never really in danger at all?
Originally posted by IngoB:
One cannot be saved if one is not in danger. Strictly speaking, there is no salvation at all in universalism.
quote:There's nothing good being lost here that an impotent God would have loved to keep, there's a punishing of something bad that an infinitely potent God wants to see burned. God wants to save every individual human being, true, but not at all costs and certainly on His terms and not on ours. That the doomed burn in hell is not some kind of cosmic failure mode, it is the very execution of the will of God. He is not being thwarted, He is thwarting. If I am trying to throw a bad apple in the trash can, you are trying to stay my hand, going on about how there is some nutritional value in that rotten fruit, how I could suck some calories out of that decaying organic matter still. But I do have good apples to eat, and I have no need for bad ones. Sure, if there is just some small blemish, I will cut that off and then eat the rest of the apple. But if it is rotten and mouldy, I'm not gobbling that down just because it is not totally foul in every cubic millimetre. I take it and throw it in the bin. And there's no impotence in that. Apples can go bad, and I knew that when I planted that apple tree. There's no such thing as a real organic apple without the possibility of rotting. But apples can be good, too, and I wanted to have some tasty apples. It's all my choice. My apple tree. My apples. My taste. My bin.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And so, in your eschatology, a vast sea of good, Godly things get chucked into Gehenna. That's my criticism. And so Godliness and goodness is undervalued, and your impotent God has to throw away that which he had intially created and called 'good'.
quote:Nonsense. Neither analogies, nor labelling by similar effects, is arbitrary.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We might as well call God 'Evil', 'Hateful' and 'Unjust', but say that those descriptions are different to our human understandings too. Everything becomes arbitrary
quote:Who cares? At that point a long time is just an infinitesimal inconvenience. Unlike now, I would then be sure that I am going to eternal heaven.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If that's really what your attitude ends up being, then I have a hunch that you'll end up sitting outside the gates of the heavenly city, and it'll be a long time before you're allowed in...
quote:You will be scared shitless about what? About being confronted with your sins? It's not like you don't know them. About being embarrassed in front of others? It's not like their dirty laundry is not being washed at the same time. Just tell God to make a bullet point extract of the relevant entries in the book of life, sign that off, and be done with it. Or if God feels the need to make you jump through some hoops, jump through the hoops. Hug you enemies seven times seventy times, or whatever He wants. It is after all just so much ado about nothing, for whatever you have done and are doing now, eventually the result will always be heaven. God doesn't have any say in that, really.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
At Judgement Day, be assured that you, I and everyone else can still be scared shitless. Because there's no way that Universalism will be true then, because there will still be a lot to work to do. You seem to be talking as if I believe that God will declare on Judgement Day "It's alright everyone, Universalism was true after all", and will ignore sin and injustice. That's simply not the case.
quote:I had just explained to you how vague threats of transient consequences are not a sufficient deterrent to attractive sins like adultery.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Please can you explain?
quote:Oh, I think that analogy was quite fitting, in particular in the ancient Middle Eastern context. It does not fit that much into the modern Western context though. There always was a tension between "Abba" and other things Jesus and the rest of scripture said about the Father. But with modern conceptions, the Father becomes positively schizophrenic.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, firstly, it was Jesus who revealed God to be a Heavenly Father, who called him Abba, as did Paul. So, if you're criticizing the idea of God as a loving parent, then you should probably be looking for a religion other than Christianity. It's pretty central to the whole thing...
quote:Huh? Whatever gave you that strange idea? My son is a delight.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Being a father is damn difficult (I believe you're discovering that at the moment?).
quote:Up to a point, Lord Copper. If we take the story of the prodigal son, which no doubt you find paradigmatic for all that, we note what the father there does not do. He does not follow his son into the far country to extract him from his sinful life. Rather, he considers this son dead, as he says to the servants and to the elder son. Only when that son decides to repent and return to the Father, then he gets an almost too generous welcome. What would happened to that son if he had not returned to the father? He would have starved in that foreign land, separated from his father. That's what.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A real father isn't one who gives up on his rebellious kids, but one who gives every good thing of himself for them (even when they throw it back in his face), who waits for them, gives them freedom to fail, forgives them etc. etc. etc. The Father God that Christ revealed to his disciples.
quote:Yes, of course I have considered that suggestion. I considered it so strongly that I spent years learning the original languages just so I can be sure nobody's pulling the wool over my eyes in a translation! I have spent the last thirty-odd years learning as much as I can about the history, culture, and languages precisely because the truth thing matters so much to me. if Boogie means what you think she means, well... I don't think she'd say such a thing, myself--as if she thought I'd never considered it at all.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Lamb Chopped, I think you've misunderstood Boogie's challenge. As best I can tell, it wasn't a suggestion that you choose to believe something different. It was a suggestion that you consider that your current belief is in error.
Let me rewrite Boogie's suggestion as if addressed to a Muslim, who has asserted that she knows that Jesus isn't God, because the Holy Qur'an clearly states that he isn't:
quote:This isn't a case of asking the Muslim to choose to believe something different, but simply to consider whether existing beliefs are right.
So why not go back a step and consider that the Qur'an could be wrong, because not only the interpretation but also the writing was by a fallible person who could be wrong?
I'll tell you that I'm just as firmly convinced that the Bible is fallible as you (apparently) are convinced that it's infallible. I don't "choose" to believe the Bible is fallible, as if I could just as easily "choose" to believe that it is infallible. I believe what I believe because I am convinced by the evidence. But I continue to think about the alternative.
quote:If we take the story of the Lost Sheep (part of the same passage) the shepherd goes after the sheep and carries it back. In the story of the Lost Coin the coin doesn't even lose itself, its not sentient, the woman loses it, then finds it again. But there is still rejoicing in heaven.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...If we take the story of the prodigal son, which no doubt you find paradigmatic for all that, we note what the father there does not do. He does not follow his son into the far country to extract him from his sinful life. Rather, he considers this son dead, as he says to the servants and to the elder son. Only when that son decides to repent and return to the Father, then he gets an almost too generous welcome.
quote:Okay, perhaps you haven't misunderstood Boogie at all -- of course, she's the only one who can really say. I hope she'll post soon to clarify things!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, of course I have considered that suggestion. I considered it so strongly that I spent years learning the original languages just so I can be sure nobody's pulling the wool over my eyes in a translation! I have spent the last thirty-odd years learning as much as I can about the history, culture, and languages precisely because the truth thing matters so much to me. if Boogie means what you think she means, well... I don't think she'd say such a thing, myself--as if she thought I'd never considered it at all.
quote:Exactly. First Christ talks about pastoral care, explicitly in response to the question of the Pharisees why he eats with the sinners. Then as consequence of these efforts he gets to talk about repentance, and note that he says explicitly that the sinner has to repent. It is not so that Christ simply forgives the sinner; the heavens rejoice over any sinner that can be brought to repentance, not about any sinner who is being forgiven. And then he tells a parable that illustrate repentance. And yes, even there the Father comes rushing to the prodigal son as he approaches his old home. But it is the prodigal son who has to abandon his ways and return home first. If he doesn't, then he will starve a foreigner wishing that he could eat pig fodder. So the passage as a whole in fact puts a limit on the responsibility of bringing back the "lost sheep": sinners must repent or they will not be saved, and one cannot ultimately make them repent, just make it as easy as possible. (Of course, there are other passages as well which show that even one's pastoral efforts cannot be infinite, and that there comes a time when one has to shake the dust from one's feet and leave.)
Originally posted by ken:
If we take the story of the Lost Sheep (part of the same passage) the shepherd goes after the sheep and carries it back. In the story of the Lost Coin the coin doesn't even lose itself, its not sentient, the woman loses it, then finds it again. But there is still rejoicing in heaven.
quote:It's also about how I could enjoy an eternal bliss from which my unbelieving or undeserving brother was forever excluded.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all about what you would do if you were God.
quote:This seems to be at odds with your view that this life is nothing more than a test to determine who goes where in the afterlife, because if that is true then nothing we do in this life actually matters in this life - it's all about the next. That being the case, why would we need a deterrent to prevent us from doing bad things whose only negative effect on others is in this tiny, insignificantly finite portion of our eternal existence?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your purgatory is powerless to deter me in this life, and to reform me in the afterlife, for I know that all its threats are empty and that I will get away with murder. Literally, if it comes to that.
quote:I seriously, not rhetorically, have no idea what you are talking about. It is, of course, an exaggeration to say that this life matter only as far as the next one goes. Precisely in and through its function to determine our eternal life it acquires a significance of its own. But anyway, the test just is what we do in this finite portion of our existence. Thus on one hand it is correct to say that this temporal domain is as nothing compared to eternity, if we merely compare the "duration" of what happens. And thus universalism has not explanation for this life, because for universalism our life is one thing, and the afterlife is another thing, and ultimately what happens in the latter does not depend on the former. So the comparison there indeed boils down to comparing the "durations", leaving this life as a pointless nothingness. But on the other hand, in the traditional scheme all of eternity depends on our "performance" in this finite period of time. Thus the exact opposite holds to the situation for universalism. Here the entire significance of eternity gets crammed into the finite temporal space, loading up this life with infinite significance. The mere comparison of "durations" is not valid, because there is a strict causal connection between the domains, they are not independent, but one follows directly and exactly from the other.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This seems to be at odds with your view that this life is nothing more than a test to determine who goes where in the afterlife, because if that is true then nothing we do in this life actually matters in this life - it's all about the next. That being the case, why would we need a deterrent to prevent us from doing bad things whose only negative effect on others is in this tiny, insignificantly finite portion of our eternal existence?
quote:This is formally correct. You can sin in whatever way and how often you want, if you manage to sincerely repent of these sins, you will go to heaven. But here is the kicker. You don't know your hour. Death will come knocking, but you cannot be sure when. So it's a risky game to rack up mortal sins in the assumption that you will be able to repent of them in time. Maybe a van will run you over, and that will be that. Furthermore, you are not some kind of memory-free agent. The first thing you will learn about yourself if you ever try to combat a sin is that you are a creature of habit. So if you fancy the high risk, high reward game of sinning freely and then repenting just in time before your death, you most likely will find that you just can't stop sinning. Once the habits are there, it is tremendously difficult to get rid of them again. In fact, the whole Christian (traditional) orthopraxis is basically one massive and coherent attempt to disrupt bad habits and establish good habits. For example, the fasting that you should be doing right now in Lent traditionally (before modern wussification) would by now have left you so hungry for food that your body in reaction would have largely shut down the primary cause of sin: your sexual desires and impulses. It's a simple physiological reaction, as your body goes into survival mode against starvation, it shuts down the energy usually directed towards procreation. Finally, of course we are not talking about the corrupted Protestant version of repentance either. Oh no. Again, the real Christianity has put something in place there that on close examination has deep significance. You have to name and shame your sins, in kind and number, before another person (namely the priest in confession). You cannot just "ask God in prayer for forgiveness". Apart from sacramental questions, there is some serious psychology going on in this one as well. This bringing out in the open of what you have done, before another, is in and by itself a cathartic step. It is is tremendously easy to fake and fudge that in a mere prayer to God, because the difference between that and you simply forgiving yourself is really just a little mental sleight of hand. And that particularly comes to the fore as you struggle with bad habits. But go to the same priest again and again stating the same sins again and again, and feel the pressure build. Because you are a human, an embodied creature, and things become real to you in other physical beings. Playing mind games with yourself is endless, interactions with other people are not.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And it's not a very good deterrent anyway. You've already brought up the parable of the prodigal son, and what is that if not a message that screwing your neighbour's hot wife is perfectly OK so long as you then repent and return to the Father for some fatted calf fun time? In both cases there is no eternal consequence whatsoever for the sin, and the only difference is whether the repentance part comes before or after death.
quote:You don't know in advance. That's the point. You hope you (and everyone else) will be, and you trust in the rescue mission, in their expertise that they will save you. But the danger is still real.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you know in advance that you are going to be "saved" from the ship at the time when it lands, it's not called "being saved".
quote:But we're not talking about apples, we're talking about people, God's children. One's attitude to a piece of fruit that you consume is very different to one's attitude to your own children. I appreciate you could probably point to the parable of the sower here to back up what you're saying, but you're talking apples and oranges (well, apples and people) here.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I am trying to throw a bad apple in the trash can, you are trying to stay my hand, going on about how there is some nutritional value in that rotten fruit, how I could suck some calories out of that decaying organic matter still. But I do have good apples to eat, and I have no need for bad ones.
quote:Again, you won't know, and you won't be sure. Universal Hope is not a certainty. It's a Hope, that for me, best fits my understanding of God and his creatures.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Who cares? At that point a long time is just an infinitesimal inconvenience. Unlike now, I would then be sure that I am going to eternal heaven.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If that's really what your attitude ends up being, then I have a hunch that you'll end up sitting outside the gates of the heavenly city, and it'll be a long time before you're allowed in...
quote:Okay, so I hope I'm following your line of reasoning here (it's very strange). Because I believe that God will ultimately forgive everyone (in fact, already has), I'm more likely to commit adultery because I know that I'll 'get away with it' in the end? But only if I don't have an attractive wife, because I would be content and wouldn't want to play away (because people with attractive spouses never cheat...)? And you have some kind of statistical knowledge that people who believe in eternal punishment sin less than Universalists?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I had just explained to you how vague threats of transient consequences are not a sufficient deterrent to attractive sins like adultery.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Please can you explain?
quote:Well, of course he's a delight. That's my point. Being a parent magnifies everything. Our joy from the tiniest of things is massive, our love is enlarged. But our sorrow over their bad choices is also magnified. Everything is bigger. And so, how much more with God towards his children?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Huh? Whatever gave you that strange idea? My son is a delight.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Being a father is damn difficult (I believe you're discovering that at the moment?).
quote:Well, yes, of course. I don't know why you think I'd disagree with that. As Ken has pointed out though, a good, wise parent knows when to pursue, and also when to wait (and the various parables illustrate that).
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Up to a point, Lord Copper. If we take the story of the prodigal son, which no doubt you find paradigmatic for all that, we note what the father there does not do. He does not follow his son into the far country to extract him from his sinful life ...(snip)... What would happened to that son if he had not returned to the father? He would have starved in that foreign land, separated from his father. That's what.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A real father isn't one who gives up on his rebellious kids, but one who gives every good thing of himself for them (even when they throw it back in his face), who waits for them, gives them freedom to fail, forgives them etc. etc. etc. The Father God that Christ revealed to his disciples.
quote:I'm referring to your defence of damnation on the grounds that it provides a deterrence against sin in this life, as if we should welcome it because it will prevent people from hurting us. But if - as you assert - this life has relevance only as a "sorting hat" for the afterlife, then so long as we manage to get sorted into the right place it is irrelevant whether we get hurt or not during the process.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I seriously, not rhetorically, have no idea what you are talking about.
quote:You could have fooled me. Why else would you assert that if salvation is guaranteed then nothing else matters?
Finally, while it is good and proper to start with such "salavation calculations", this is not where all of this ends.
quote:Yes, of course they could. That's why we call it faith and not knowledge. And of course my conclusions are open to reconsideration at any time new evidence comes to view. I'd be terrified to do anything else. I've had enough people lying to me in my life (with catastrophic results) that the first hint of that sends me rushing to re-evaluation.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Okay, perhaps you haven't misunderstood Boogie at all -- of course, she's the only one who can really say. I hope she'll post soon to clarify things!
I do think you have misunderstood me. I had no intention of suggesting that you had "never considered it [biblical fallibility] at all," and I didn't (and still don't) interpret Boogie as suggesting that. Rather, I was working with the assumption that you had considered the possibility of biblical fallibility -- just as I have considered (many times!) the possibility of biblical infallibility. And I didn't see anything wrong with someone asking you to consider, again, that you might be mistaken! I'm frequently asked to reconsider my views, and I try very hard not to take offense or be defensive in response to such challenges. In academia, it's taken for granted that well-considered views might still be reconsidered.
Speaking of which, you've gone on record with me about your relevant education. I'll do the same. I have also spent years studying the original biblical languages (starting with much the same motivation), and I'll quote your words to say that I, too, "have spent the last thirty-odd years learning as much as I can about the history, culture, and languages." I went so far as to earn a doctorate from one of the "Ivy League" universities, and I've managed to become a tenured professor at a not-too-shabby research university. As I labor on this note, fussing over getting it "just right," I'm thinking that I probably should be working on my latest research project, instead of fooling around on the Ship.
Anyway, like you, I care about the truth thing. But my studies led me to quite different conclusions about what the truth is with regard to the Bible. My conclusions could be wrong. How about yours?
quote:Yes, of course it does. But universalism isn't suggesting Christianity is not true. Just that there are far fewer certainties than some Churches would have us believe.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's how it is for me in matters regarding the Lord. Because I know him now, when the universe throws up occasional evidence to suggest that Christianity is not true, I do not immediately start overhauling my faith. Instead I stick the new problem in a pile to be investigated and do so at leisure. I'm interested, but not worried. I would only consider "divorce" if the evidence became considerably stronger.
Does that make any sense?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But that's because your God does not exist.
quote:Will the real God please stand up! Let's face it and admit that nobody really knows if God exists at all. Ask Laura Mersini-Houghton what hr infinite multiuniverse theory tell her about God, and she'll tell you He doesn't exist. Not that I agree with her, but we all need some humility in our assertions about what God and the afterlife are like. It's a given in all religious traditions that God is unknowable, and we only have glimpses, through a glasss darkly, about any ultimate reality.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
No, IngoB, it's your god who doesn't exist .
quote:I hope IngoB's various jabs at biblical Christianity (i.e., Protestantism) aren't being missed in the flood of verbiage. They're of vital importance, because they point to the real issue here, which is not "universalism," but the Roman Catholic religion's system of institutionally-managed works righteousness, so well-described by IngoB. IngoB is right! In authentic Roman Catholicism, there is absolutely no place for "universalism," with its doctrine of absolute, unmerited grace. Roman Catholics who tend toward universalism should give what IngoB asserts careful consideration -- and they've got to ask themselves a hard question: Is the authentic Roman Catholic religion the one Jesus founded, which the Apostles propagated?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Finally, of course we are not talking about the corrupted Protestant version of repentance either.
quote:So would I. The atheist's universe is far, far preferable to IngoB's. But is IngoB's that of the Catholic Church? If so, why do so many people continue to attend it?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I sincerely hope IngoB's God doesn't exist. I'd much rather live in an impersonal universe in which I can return to the dust from where I came.
)quote:Yes, I agree with that. I am a "hope it's true though I can't prove it" person when it comes to universalism. As another poster said, we are the ones who get to decide whether universalism is true or not through our choices--God has already made his desire very clear.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But universalism isn't suggesting Christianity is not true. Just that there are far fewer certainties than some Churches would have us believe.
quote:Done! No problem, really. Let's just agree to try to read one another with a hermeneutic of good-will from now on -- this really applies mostly to my approach to you!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm glad you weren't saying what I thought you were. Forgive me for misreading.
But IngoB has a wonderful gift for bringing out the 16th century Protestant fulminator in me! It's probably because he has his 16th century Counter Reformation fulminator on full display.quote:My specialty is Judaism! That proverb is often rendered as, "Two Jews, three opinions!" Imagine a conversation involving Jewish scholars!
As for the education thing, well, you know the proverb: Two scholars, three opinions. But that's what makes discussion fun!
quote:(I "snipped" the rest of your comment here just for the sake of "space.")
I will say that there is one aspect in which our positions probably disagree with one another.... Does that make any sense?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture. Of course it all boils down once more to Chesterton's observation about Christian ideals (that is actual Christian ideals) not being tried and found wanting but rather being found difficult and left untried.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And what if it isn't? Well, this thought crossed my mind the other day in response to a blog post, by someone whose conservative friends (evangelical in this case) were telling here she believed in a "different Gospel". I was put in mind of Puddleglum in The Silver Chair, and (perhaps poorly) adapted his speech (in this case it was in the context of a couple of Dead Horses, but you'll get the gist nevertheless), thusly:
"All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up this other gospel of love, acceptance and tolerance. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up gospel values seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this tiny gospel of bigotry is the only one. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just silly liberals making up a touchy-feely gospel, if you're right. But silly liberals playing a game can make a gospel which licks your real gospel hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the touchy feely liberal gospel. I'm on the side of love and tolerance even if there isn't any loving, accepting, forgiving God to lead it"
quote:I think that's a rather unfair and unkind statement. We all have our own image of God, which can only be seen from our own pov, as we have no other.
Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture.
quote:That's the first time I've seen the eternal damnation of a significant subset of the human race described as a "Christian ideal".
Originally posted by CL:
Of course it all boils down once more to Chesterton's observation about Christian ideals (that is actual Christian ideals) not being tried and found wanting but rather being found difficult and left untried.
quote:I'm interested, and I don't suppose I'm the only one.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I have a personal "history" with this -- originally, I was going to "narrate" it here. But nobody is interested in my spiritual autobiography, I'm sure! So, I'll leave it at this.
quote:This charge that universalists are merely shaping a god in their own image is getting tiresome. That's not what we're doing. We're arguing that the God Who actually does exist is being misrepresented. We're saying that God has been stuck with a rotten PR department!
Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture. Of course it all boils down once more to Chesterton's observation about Christian ideals (that is actual Christian ideals) not being tried and found wanting but rather being found difficult and left untried.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I think that's a rather unfair and unkind statement. We all have our own image of God, which can only be seen from our own pov, as we have no other.
Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture.
There isn't a God of Scripture as far as I can see.
Scripture has many, many Gods - some totally unbelievable and some very tyrannical and unloving.
I would far rather look to Jesus than try and find how God actually 'is' from scripture.
Elegant simplicity! Far better than the pompous bluster of my response to CL!
quote:Sorry -- triple posting!
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:I'm interested, and I don't suppose I'm the only one.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I have a personal "history" with this -- originally, I was going to "narrate" it here. But nobody is interested in my spiritual autobiography, I'm sure! So, I'll leave it at this.
Nen - avid lurker on this thread and grateful to everyone who's posting on it.
quote:The trouble is, Jesus spoke a lot about judgement, hell, the need to be "saved" etc. He spoke of those who are worthy of the resurrection (implying some are not); he said calling someone a fool made you in danger of the fires of hell; he said if sin is a problem deal with it, however harshly, because it's better enter the kingdom of God maimed than be thrown into hell; he told a parable about the sheep and the goats and said the goats would be thrown into hell for not feeding, clothing him etc; he warned people who reported an atrocity by Pilate that unless they repented, they'd perish soon; he spoke regularly of the need for repentance - in fact, this was his very first message.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I think that's a rather unfair and unkind statement. We all have our own image of God, which can only be seen from our own pov, as we have no other.
Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture.
There isn't a God of Scripture as far as I can see.
Scripture has many, many Gods - some totally unbelievable and some very tyrannical and unloving.
I would far rather look to Jesus than try and find how God actually 'is' from scripture.
quote:He did. He exaggerated and used stories, parables and hyperbole much of the time.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The trouble is, Jesus spoke a lot about judgement, hell, the need to be "saved" etc. He spoke of those who are worthy of the resurrection (implying some are not); he said calling someone a fool made you in danger of the fires of hell; he said if sin is a problem deal with it, however harshly, because it's better enter the kingdom of God maimed than be thrown into hell; he told a parable about the sheep and the goats and said the goats would be thrown into hell for not feeding, clothing him etc ...
quote:We're going to go to Jesus Himself. As Christians, we have unmediated access to Him. Jesus doesn't exist and live in "the picture of Jesus in Scripture," and a person whose relationship is with that picture is an idolater.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
And if we're not going to go with the picture of Jesus in Scripture, then where and to what are we going to go?
! That deep desire for all to be saved, all to be redeemed, all to be made whole, is coming from Jesus, Who lives in your hearts ... and Scripture itself bears witness with the witness of our spirits:quote:I agree with you about the continuity. That's essential to the argument I'm making. What I would emphasize is that Scripture isn't our only source of knowledge of God -- as Scripture itself repeatedly testifies.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The thing is ...
The God of everything/everywhere/everywhen is continuous with the God of Scripture, or how do we form any knowledge of him?
quote:I agree. But our internal experiences are not separable in character/quality from our readings of Scripture. Both are human activities, bounded by our human fallibility. I know I could be utterly wrong about my universalist interpretation of Scripture. I only wish that more "damnationists" would express the same recognition of the possible fallibility of their interpretations of Scripture. When someone challenges universalism with a statement that begins, "But the Bible says...." I have to respond, "No, you say that the Bible says...."
Our own internal experiences are just as subject to error as our readings of Scripture can be, so I hesitate to take them as a guide. It is possible to be sincerely wrong.
quote:I'm a risk-taker! I'm willing to think the best of God and to risk being wrong. If I have to, I'll stand (more likely, kneel) before God and say, "I'm truly sorry that I thought you were more loving and merciful than you turned out to be! But ... in my defense, all that talk about love and forgiveness gave me the impression...."
I really prefer to hedge my bets and let Scripture correct my personal preferences. Particularly when Jesus showed such a high view of it.
quote:Death. See Roman 7:24-25; 1 Corinthians 15:26.
Originally posted by stonespring:
My question for universalists who have a more-or-less traditional Christian view of what salvation (but disagree with the "traditional" argument as to what we know about who will be saved) is, "What did/does Christ save us from?" I don't believe that anyone ever could deserve to be put in an inescapable state of suffering forever. So saying that we are all born deserving eternal damnation, but Christ saves us all, doesn't really make sense to me.
quote:But what kind of death? The spiritual death that people who do a lot of bad things can live in in this life? Annihilation when we die? Or an afterlife that is equivalent to a living death? How is this last option different than eternal damnation?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Death. See Roman 7:24-25; 1 Corinthians 15:26.
Originally posted by stonespring:
My question for universalists who have a more-or-less traditional Christian view of what salvation (but disagree with the "traditional" argument as to what we know about who will be saved) is, "What did/does Christ save us from?" I don't believe that anyone ever could deserve to be put in an inescapable state of suffering forever. So saying that we are all born deserving eternal damnation, but Christ saves us all, doesn't really make sense to me.
I'm tying out the brisk one-line approach to posting! Obviously, at some point I'm going to need to come back and "unpack" this.
Here's the great climactic scene from "The Doctor Dances" -- in the one and only Christopher Eccleston season.quote:Oh! Okay. This helps a lot. Your description of salvation seems perfectly compatible with what Scripture says, including the two passages I references a couple of posts back: "anything that separates creatures from God" seems to sum it up well.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I see salvation as meaning a process that I think may have began at the first moment of creation that leads to the end of all suffering, all wrong, all hate, etc., and anything that separates creatures from God.
quote:Right! The key thing to keep in mind here is that God is outside of time as we experience it. God simply IS. So, what we experience as having taken place in time and space just simply is for God. That means that (from our temporal point of view) Jesus had already been born, lived, died, etc. and accomplished our salvation, before the universe was created. Revelation 13:8 refers to Jesus as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." 1 Peter 1:20 says that Jesus was "chosen before the creation of the world."
I just don't understand how anyone ever didn't have access to salvation. So everything Christ did in the Gospels must have affected all human history starting with the creation itself.
quote:I see the Fall as referring to each of our individual experiences. It's a paradigm about how we're each Adam (and/or Eve!). We each do what Adam did. That's what I think Paul is getting at in Romans 5:14: "Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come."
The thing that I have the hardest time understanding is the Fall - as I said earlier I think it may just describe the transition from being instinctual animals (who are sinless) to being free-willed humans (who sin unless they let God help them (knowingly or not)).
quote:I look at it sort of like the spiritual equivalent of thermodynamics. Any closed system will inevitably dissociate (ie decay) over time. This is the principle of entropy. Sin, (or, rather, what Paul calls the law of sin and death; the two are synonymous for him) is spiritual entropy, and because of it, the essential us-ness will gradually fade into the shadows of un-being in eternity. The death and resurrection of Christ recreates us as creatures unbound from the law of sin and death.
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:But what kind of death? The spiritual death that people who do a lot of bad things can live in in this life? Annihilation when we die? Or an afterlife that is equivalent to a living death? How is this last option different than eternal damnation?
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Death. See Roman 7:24-25; 1 Corinthians 15:26.n
Originally posted by stonespring:
My question for universalists who have a more-or-less traditional Christian view of what salvation (but disagree with the "traditional" argument as to what we know about who will be saved) is, "What did/does Christ save us from?" I don't believe that anyone ever could deserve to be put in an inescapable state of suffering orever. So saying that we are alborn desrving eternal damnation, but Christ saves us all, doesn't really make sense to me.
I'm tying out the brisk one-line approach to posting! Obviously, at some point I'm going to need to come back and "unpack" this.
quote:This is how I see it too. The concept that salvation is a one-off event, a binary description of status, that people are either saved or damned, is, for me, alien to Scripture.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I see salvation as meaning a process that I think may have began at the first moment of creation that leads to the end of all suffering, all wrong, all hate, etc., and anything that separates creatures from God.
quote:Yes. The end of all suffering. All of it. But if Hell exists and is populated, then suffering still exists.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I see salvation as meaning a process that I think may have began at the first moment of creation that leads to the end of all suffering, all wrong, all hate, etc., and anything that separates creatures from God.
quote:I'd not read this quote from Clement before, which I think puts the language distinction very well:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I'm surprised that this hasn't already come up on this thread. Those who claim that the plain words of Jesus talk of eternal punishment often overlook the liguistic arguement that he may have said no such thing. I have little doubt that those who die in need of correction may suffer for their sins. Perhaps Hitler has to suffer for every one of the 45 million deaths he's alleged to have caused. But even that could have an age-enduring limit. I'm not at all convinced that Jesus meant that punishments are eternal.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We could argue again about the use of language the gospel writers chose. For me, the thing that is remarkable is that they had a whole raft of contemporary, unending-retributive-punishment words to choose from, eirgmon aidion, timoria adialepton, athanaton timorion (eternal imprisonment, unending torment, deathless torment). Instead, they (Jesus?) chose aionion kolasin, age-enduring discipline.
quote:How ironic that the only place timoria is used in the whole of Scripture is to describe the judgement of Christians, of the Church (Hebrews 10:29). Every other place in scripture, God's 'punishment' is chastisement, discipline - for the benefit of the disciplined, and that includes Hell.
For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.
quote:Awesome as in "a highly selective reading of the bible in order to confirm a strongly held prior opinion"?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's awesome, Marvin.
quote:Since this one keeps coming up: it is plain false to say that there is some kind of scholarly agreement that "kolasis" in Koine Greek meant "discipline" as opposed to (retributive) punishment. Most of the standard reference works in fact translate "kolasis" as "punishment", see for example the list here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd not read this quote from Clement before, which I think puts the language distinction very well:
quote:How ironic that the only place timoria is used in the whole of Scripture is to describe the judgement of Christians, of the Church (Hebrews 10:29). Every other place in scripture, God's 'punishment' is chastisement, discipline - for the benefit of the disciplined, and that includes Hell.
For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.
quote:Well, as far as I remember Marvin's previous thoughts on this subject, he seems to have changed his mind on it. I'm sure he can speak for himself, but I'd say his prior opinion was closer to yours, but has gradually shifted.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Awesome as in "a highly selective reading of the bible in order to confirm a strongly held prior opinion"?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's awesome, Marvin.
quote:I am certainly no expert in Greek language. But the more I've read about it, the more I'm persuaded that it did. The distinction is there, made by Clement and others (not just modern day scholars). The article you linked to spends a lot of time (rightly, IMO), against an annhiliationist translation of "cut off", which comes from the pruning etymology of kolasis.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since this one keeps coming up: it is plain false to say that there is some kind of scholarly agreement that "kolasis" in Koine Greek meant "discipline" as opposed to (retributive) punishment.
quote:My fears are still there, but I'm trying to listen to my hopes more often.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, as far as I remember Marvin's previous thoughts on this subject, he seems to have changed his mind on it. I'm sure he can speak for himself, but I'd say his prior opinion was closer to yours, but has gradually shifted.
quote:For what it's worth, the eminent classicist David Konstan has co-authored a book, Terms for Eternity, which addresses the issue head-on and lends strong support to the "universalist" position. I very much doubt that IngoB has the "credentials" in the study of ancient Greek that Dr. Konstan has!
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality of aionios kolasis being necessarily translated as "eternal punishment" is that it is entirely misleading. We have countless contemporary and biblical examples of aionios referring to a limited amount of time (even explicitly in relation to Gehenna / Hell!), and countless examples of kolasis referring to disciplinary punishment.
quote:As mentioned, there is no scholarly agreement that this distinction is in fact there, and the standard reference works for (Koine) Greek do not make that distinction. I'm not a Greek scholar either. Hence I cannot say whether making that distinction is just a fringe opinion, or whether it has a significant following among scholars. But given that making such a distinction has not penetrated the reference works (some of which have been published relatively recently), we can be rather sure that making such a distinction is not currently required. To say the least.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I am certainly no expert in Greek language. But the more I've read about it, the more I'm persuaded that it did. The distinction is there, made by Clement and others (not just modern day scholars).
quote:It first spends a lot of time showing that "punishment" is a perfectly adequate, even preferred, translation. Somehow you must have overlooked that...
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The article you linked to spends a lot of time (rightly, IMO), against an annhiliationist translation of "cut off", which comes from the pruning etymology of kolasis.
quote:Or rather, you would like it to be so, but you do not have any compelling argument for your case.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality of aionios kolasis being necessarily translated as "eternal punishment" is that it is entirely misleading.
quote:Nope, you do not. As a matter of fact, the same link also discusses "aionios" and while the translation there is more ambiguous than for "kolasis" with its primary meaning "punishment", the translation "everlasting" is certainly one of the main available options there. Furthermore, as also discussed at this link, in the particular case it is strictly the case that whatever modifier is being applied to "life" is also being applied to "punishment". The only way you could make the punishment of hell not everlasting is hence if the life of heaven also was not everlasting. You cannot differentiate the two, the parallel is precisely the author's point.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We have countless contemporary and biblical examples of aionios referring to a limited amount of time (even explicitly in relation to Gehenna / Hell!), and countless examples of kolasis referring to disciplinary punishment.
quote:Yes, other uses are possible. Indeed, I would bet that "kolasis" simply meant punishment, with no distinction in the word itself concerning the kind of punishment it was (disciplinary, retributive, kinky, ...), i.e., I expect that this worked just like in English or German. If so, then it is the context that determines the specific meaning, whereas one cannot tell from the word alone what the intention behind the punishment might be.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Even if aionios could at times be a euphemism for 'eternal' (it probably was), and even if kolasis could at times mean 'retributive punishment', it is very clear that they didn't have to.
quote:Of course I can demonstrate that, compellingly, at least for Mt 25:46. I only need one additional "assumption", namely that life in heaven is indeed everlasting. If so, then the obviously fully intended parallel structure the author uses in the text without the slightest doubt indicates that also the "kolasis" is everlasting. But if the "kolasis" is everlasting, then an interpretation thereof as "disciplinary measure" makes no sense. A discipline must end as the one subjected to the discipline changes. Hence the proper translation here must be "(non-disciplinary) punishment", and if we assume that God is not simply a sadist, the function of this punishment must be retributive.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To debunk a limited-duration-chastisement interpretation of those verses, you need to show that aionios necessarily meant infinite (and never finite) and kolasis necessarily meant retributive punishment (and not discipline). You can't, and pointing out even a few places where aionios seems to be talking about eternity and kolasis seems to be talking about vengeance isn't enough.
quote:I would ask also, is there one true meaning for each passage or verse, stark, timeless, devoid of context, regardless of the nature or condition of the person reading it? If so, why? Meaning justify that answer.
Originally posted by stonespring:
This is probably a different thread topic for purgatory or kerygmania, but is the true meaning of a verse of Scripture the same as the understanding of the meaning of it that existed in the mind of the human, divinely inspired author at the time of composition?
quote:You're asking the "million dollar question" of many biblical scholars!
Originally posted by stonespring:
This is probably a different thread topic for purgatory or kerygmania, but is the true meaning of a verse of Scripture the same as the understanding of the meaning of it that existed in the mind of the human, divinely inspired author at the time of composition?
]quote:My link in fact has LS as having the meaning "punishment" listed for "kolasis", but that is from the "intermediate" dictionary. I have checked with Amazon's "look inside" feature that you are likely both correct (here there is no explicit "punishment" in the entry, whereas here there is, unfortunately the "intermediate" one here does not give me access to the right page). "Divine retribution" will of course do nicely for my purposes. But in fact so does "chastisement". In old usage that is a synonym for punishment, in particular beatings. And if we consider the more modern meaning of "severe rebuke", then I'm quite happy with the translation that people are being "eternally castigated" by God. What it looks like to be castigated by God in the afterlife, practically speaking, is after all detailed elsewhere in scripture most clearly.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Again, for what it's worth, I just pulled Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (the BIG one!) off of my office shelf and opened it up to "kolasis" (darn, I wish I had the hang of typing in Greek characters!) .... This lexicon is the standard English-language work in Greek lexicography, still the first "go-to" for students and scholars. Here are the relevant bits of the entry: first, the literal meaning, "checking the growth of trees." Then, the more common metaphorical usages: "chastisement, correction" ... "divine retribution" (in this case, citing Matthew 25:46 as an example). No "punishment" here! Again, this is the English-language reference work.
quote:I genuinely hope that your theology is not informing your parenting behavior!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:My link in fact has LS as having the meaning "punishment" listed for "kolasis", but that is from the "intermediate" dictionary. I have checked with Amazon's "look inside" feature that you are likely both correct (here there is no explicit "punishment" in the entry, whereas here there is, unfortunately the "intermediate" one here does not give me access to the right page). "Divine retribution" will of course do nicely for my purposes. But in fact so does "chastisement". In old usage that is a synonym for punishment, in particular beatings. And if we consider the more modern meaning of "severe rebuke", then I'm quite happy with the translation that people are being "eternally castigated" by God. What it looks like to be castigated by God in the afterlife, practically speaking, is after all detailed elsewhere in scripture most clearly.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Again, for what it's worth, I just pulled Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (the BIG one!) off of my office shelf and opened it up to "kolasis" (darn, I wish I had the hang of typing in Greek characters!) .... This lexicon is the standard English-language work in Greek lexicography, still the first "go-to" for students and scholars. Here are the relevant bits of the entry: first, the literal meaning, "checking the growth of trees." Then, the more common metaphorical usages: "chastisement, correction" ... "divine retribution" (in this case, citing Matthew 25:46 as an example). No "punishment" here! Again, this is the English-language reference work.
quote:I agree that 'punishment' is not inadequate, because it is ambiguous of whether the intention is vengeful or restorative. However, it does little to investigate whether the implications of using kolasis rather than timoria related to the former or the latter.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It first spends a lot of time showing that "punishment" is a perfectly adequate, even preferred, translation.
quote:It's misleading because to an English reader it explicitly gives an impression of infinity. An impression which, in the original Greek, is at the very least, ambiguous, at the most, simply wrong.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Or rather, you would like it to be so, but you do not have any compelling argument for your case.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality of aionios kolasis being necessarily translated as "eternal punishment" is that it is entirely misleading.
quote:No, really, we do. Off the top of my head, in the Septuagint, Jonah's stay in the big fish is aionion. 3 days = eternity? here is a discussion of aionios, which makes the point that out of the 150 instances of aionios in the LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. I've already given you an example from Clement for kolasis meaning discipline, from memory there are plenty more examples in Josephus, and many many others. Honestly, the statements "aionion can relate to a finite amount of time" and "kolasis can relate to remedial punishment" are not controversial. Of course, whether those meanings were normative is more up for debate.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Nope, you do not.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We have countless contemporary and biblical examples of aionios referring to a limited amount of time (even explicitly in relation to Gehenna / Hell!), and countless examples of kolasis referring to disciplinary punishment.
quote:Ok, that relies on an assumption that aionios is an adjective that specifies a length of time, rather than a quality of time. It evidently is not an adjective that tells you how long something is (eg. a ten-minute talk), it tells you that that thing pertains to an age - not complicated, since its root is aeon, or age. The length of time that aionios describes can be anything from minutes, to eternity. It doesn't bother itself with the amount of time, but where that time is.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course I can demonstrate that, compellingly, at least for Mt 25:46. I only need one additional "assumption", namely that life in heaven is indeed everlasting. If so, then the obviously fully intended parallel structure the author uses in the text without the slightest doubt indicates that also the "kolasis" is everlasting.
quote:If one has uncouth opponents, then cheap shots and personal insults are a sure sign that one has won the argument.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I genuinely hope that your theology is not informing your parenting behavior!
quote:You're welcome to call me names and you're free to convince yourself that you've "won the argument."
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If one has uncouth opponents, then cheap shots and personal insults are a sure sign that one has won the argument.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I genuinely hope that your theology is not informing your parenting behavior!
quote:I think I'm leaning ever further into religious anarchy, and I'm ok with that - My current thought is that the truth of Scripture is independent of the mental processes of the authors or of the mental processes of any reader, even hierarchs of the Church. That means that although everything written in Scripture is true, no one can ever be sure that they actually know what it means.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:You're asking the "million dollar question" of many biblical scholars!
Originally posted by stonespring:
This is probably a different thread topic for purgatory or kerygmania, but is the true meaning of a verse of Scripture the same as the understanding of the meaning of it that existed in the mind of the human, divinely inspired author at the time of composition?
[We may need a Host to give us a judgment on this, but I think this "tangent" belongs here, because it is germain to the main topic, which is evidence, including biblical evidence, for and against universalism. But, I'm not a Host, so had better "shut up"!
... I'll just note, for now, that the New Testament frequently quotes and uses verses from the Old Testament with meanings that could not have been the ones in the minds of the original authors and readers. The best example is Isaiah 7:14 -- there is no way that Isaiah was thinking of a virgin-born Messiah when he penned that verse! Just look at it in context, and that fact becomes obvious. This doesn't, however, mean that the meaning Matthew gives to the verse is invalid--it's simply (as Mousethief noted) that biblical verses have multiple possible meanings, some of which only become obvious on the basis of later readings.
This is relevant to our discussion of universalism, because I will affirm, without apology, that I believe this hermeneutical principle is necessary for universalist arguments.
quote:If I may .... Why? Why should there be "one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and ... the Pope should be its leader"?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Oh, and I call myself Roman Catholic (despite all of the above) because I think there should be one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and that the Pope should be its leader (with all the provisos above).
quote:I think this must be part of your temperament. That you want people eternally castigated! Enough evidence exists to give room for doubt. For much of its history, it has suited the Church to have that sort of power over people. Perhaps many of us here want to give God and ourselves the benefit of that doubt, and, at least hope, that His love trumps judgement. As inflexible a view as yours shows that, like Aquinas, you see one of the pleasures of heaven to look down on the sufferings of the damned. I feel sorry for you!
Originally posted by IngoB:
then I'm quite happy with the translation that people are being "eternally castigated" by God.
quote:Absolutely not. At least 5% of our money (half of our tithe) needs to go to the same centralized institution for it to be effective and not to the pet church or charity of our choice. And everywhere we go in the world, we need to know that there is a church to call home. And the Church needs to have a leader to steer it through messy times - which is all the time. That, and none of the other Christian denominations are pagan enough for me. I mean it. I like Roman Catholicism because I like the appearance of human sacrifice and idol worship. That's part of what attracted me to it.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:If I may .... Why? Why should there be "one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and ... the Pope should be its leader"?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Oh, and I call myself Roman Catholic (despite all of the above) because I think there should be one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and that the Pope should be its leader (with all the provisos above).
Might I suggest that your religious "anarchism" take a further step?!
quote:The source for the quote is Parry's website, Theological Scribbles.
Let me ask you to hold in your mind traditional Christian visions of the future, in which many, perhaps the majority of humanity, are excluded from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision has the strongest view of divine love? Which story has the most powerful narrative of God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and love of God bringing him honor and glory? Which has the most satisfactory understanding of divine wrath? Which narrative inspires hope in the human spirit? To my mind the answer to all these questions is clear, and that is why I am a Christian universalist.
quote:Off duty last night, so I've just picked this up.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I genuinely hope that your theology is not informing your parenting behavior!
quote:Fine. I would say then that "eternal" is a better translation than "everlasting", because the former rightly understood is different from the latter, i.e., eternity is not an infinite length of time.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's misleading because to an English reader it explicitly gives an impression of infinity. An impression which, in the original Greek, is at the very least, ambiguous, at the most, simply wrong.
quote:No, you really do not. Obviously you do not have literally countless instances. But neither can you justify your hyperbole in a metaphorical sense. Even if I believed your quoted estimate that four-fifths of all usage implies limited duration, and I do not believe that (since this requires interpretation, and invites bias), 20% of cases that imply unlimited duration cannot be swept aside for the case at hand with countless uses of the word "countless".
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
No, really, we do.
quote:I actually do not have a problem with that. I will just point out that "eternal" in classical Christian theology does not mean "of infinite temporal duration", but rather marks a non-temporal state of unbounded life. So it is actually indicating a "state change", and hence can viably be used to indicate a "coming age" different in this regard from ours. In other words, I don't think that "eternal" is that bad a translation even if one buys into these arguments.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The length of time that aionios describes can be anything from minutes, to eternity. It doesn't bother itself with the amount of time, but where that time is. So, for example, NT Wright suggests that, 'eternal life' is much better rendered 'life in the coming age'. The adjective doesn't say anything about how long that life is, but that it is eschatological.
quote:I think this still is a rhetorical sleigh of hand. If you say in English "in the age to come" then you locate something more or less arbitrarily within a future era. If I say that in the Victorian age there were great poets, and in the Victorian age the pedal-driven bicycle was invented, then this does not tell me whether any specific great poet lived concurrently with the invention of the bicycle, or how long any of this took. You use this construction to decouple here the actual "timing" of the punishment from the life. But I do not think that this is fair to the Greek. If we insist on a "grammatical" interpretation, which is not a given at all - grammatical constructs can take on a life on their own and change meaning, as is apparently the case here in at least 20% of cases, then this would have to be translated as something like "life/punishment of the age" or "age-y life/punishment", etc. So it is the life/punishment characteristic of the age. And the parallelism then still suggests that the characteristics somehow have to do with each other, but in particular that both are age-encompassing. There is absolutely and utterly nothing here that would suggest a picture where one side goes directly into the "life of the age", and the other side first goes into the "punishment of the age" and then later into the "life of the age". That's not what the parallelism is doing at all. As a rhetorical means, it is clearly saying that as far as this particular age goes, one side goes to life, and the other to punishment. No more and no less.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, indeed, there is a parallel structure, but it is not of the nature you describe. It is fair to believe that zoe aionion is 'forever', but that belief is from elsewhere, not from the meaning of the words themselves. The parallel structure is contrasting "punishment/discipline in the age to come" with "life in the age to come". It says nothing about the corresponding durations.
quote:What's there to juggle? St Paul conveniently explains in one breath that the principle "all" in verse 18 translates into a "many" in practice (and it is not particularly contentious how that works either, namely by the difference between God offering salvation and man accepting it).
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Incidentally, that passage reminds me of a similar parallel structure, in Romans 5:18-19, where the damnationists try to deny the obvious parallelism by juggling the meanings of 'many' and 'all'. How ironic.
quote:How do we know that? I don't see it in the text.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But we know that there is no additional age to come after that.
quote:Precisely. Neither in scripture nor in tradition is there any indication of anything beyond the age to come after this world. I'd have to think if there's any scripture which directly and explicitly denies any further age. But there's simply no question that such a teaching was never intended in classical Christianity, and cannot be found in it. At which point I lose all interest in such speculations. I happen to believe that the full deposit of faith was given by Christ, there are no further prophets to come - universalist or otherwise - who will complete the gospel by supplying additional key information.
Originally posted by ken:
How do we know that? I don't see it in the text.
quote:Well, this is false as far as eternity itself is concerned. As should be obvious from the words being used, there is no room at all for time in the timeless unbounded life of God. It is a good question however what relationship risen humanity will have to this eternity, as far as any "experience of time" in the afterlife goes. I admit to having considerable trouble sorting that out. However, this does not help the universalist case. To what extent human experience can be filled with eternity or will render that as "infinite time" does not change what the coming age is like. The coming age just is God's age, and it will be as unchanging in its characteristics as He is.
Originally posted by ken:
You said yourself that this age to come is not best translated as "eternity" in a topological/cosmological sense. That is not an infinite extension of time but a timeless state that might contain time. But that eternity is an attribute of God, and there is room for an infinite number of ages, or spaces, in Gods creations. There might be many ages or many worlds or many universes. (Or even many mansions)
quote:Bully for classical Christian theology. And I will point out that for day-to-day usage, eternity, everlasting, forever, are all interchangeable terms. Eternity simply means 'forever'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would say then that "eternal" is a better translation than "everlasting", because the former rightly understood is different from the latter, i.e., eternity is not an infinite length of time.
I will just point out that "eternal" in classical Christian theology does not mean "of infinite temporal duration", but rather marks a non-temporal state of unbounded life.
quote:Of course not! But my point is very, very simple. I grew up reading the parable of the sheep and the goats, and the impression that the English translation left me with was that the goats would be tortured forever in the afterlife, so, though I didn't like it, I felt that as a Christian, I had to believe it. But it turns out that neither of those words (eternal, or punishment) necessarily mean that in Greek at all. Both words are actually much more ambiguous. That's not to sweep aside the possibility that aionios might possibly sometimes mean 'forever', or that kolasis might possibly sometimes mean 'retributive punishment'. Just that at the very least they didn't have to, and at the most, they usually didn't. I appreciate that translation of the Bible is an incredibly tricky job, but my feeling is that English speakers (I'm not sure how these verses are translated in other languages) have often been misled when it comes to the translation of these phrases, and that the reason for this is down to the prior theological stance of the translators, rather than a desire to render the original Greek faithfully.
Originally posted by IngoB:
20% of cases that imply unlimited duration cannot be swept aside for the case at hand with countless uses of the word "countless".
quote:Yes, exactly. The problem is that we don't have an English adjective that is equivalent. Age-y is probably the most helpful to give an idea of it, but it's not a real word... Age-enduring helps. For me, words like everlasting and eternal are unhelpful, though.
Originally posted by IngoB:
then this would have to be translated as something like "life/punishment of the age" or "age-y life/punishment", etc. So it is the life/punishment characteristic of the age.
quote:Yes (putting aside the argument as to whether punishment is the best translation of kolasis or not).
Originally posted by IngoB:
As a rhetorical means, it is clearly saying that as far as this particular age goes, one side goes to life, and the other to punishment. No more and no less.
quote:Ken beat me to it. How do we know that?
Originally posted by IngoB:
But we know that there is no additional age to come after that.
quote:Okay, in terms of countless uses of aionios to mean a finite amount of time. Over the last few years as I have looked at this stuff, I have personally lost count of the number of contemporary examples of aion and aionios explicitly referring to a temporary amount of time, and I have frequently come across the assertion that that was the default meaning, and that to translate it as 'everlasting' or 'eternal' is simply wrong. So, a quick google, and from here:
So he saves all; but some he converts by penalties, others who follow him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of his honor, that every knee may be bent to him
quote:Thanks, goperryrevs, for the whole of your post just above this one, but I particularly wanted to note my agreement with the above point. It's a point that, ISTM, conservative theologians (from various denominations) don't give sufficient attention to.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I appreciate that translation of the Bible is an incredibly tricky job, but my feeling is that English speakers (I'm not sure how these verses are translated in other languages) have often been misled when it comes to the translation of these phrases, and that the reason for this is down to the prior theological stance of the translators, rather than a desire to render the original Greek faithfully.
quote:That's bollocks. As you could demonstrate be reading what some other posters here have written.
Originally posted by IngoB:
What universalism always has to do, and what you are doing here, is nothing but establishing a Eastern style reincarnation scheme (more Hindu than Buddhist, due to insistence of personal continuation via a soul).
quote:People can be expected to upgrade their understanding with technical terms if they choose to inquire (intellectually) deeper into the faith. If you want to be a simple Christian believer, be a simple Christian believer. If you want to be a theologian in full command of the intellectual content of the faith, be that. But going from one to the other requires serious study and work. That's just how it is.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Bully for classical Christian theology. And I will point out that for day-to-day usage, eternity, everlasting, forever, are all interchangeable terms. Eternity simply means 'forever'.
quote:I agree to an extent. Except of course that a translator has to deliver a readable text. Sometimes ambiguities can be mapped, sometimes they cannot. And where they cannot be mapped, there it is reasonable for the translator to specify the most likely meaning. And I think I disagree with you concerning what determines the "most likely meaning" here. Because quite frankly, I think tradition is simply the living record of this "most likely meaning". We are not trying to reconstruct a "dead" text here, like some record of the Egyptian religion which has not survived. We are instead dealing with a text very much alive to a tradition. That said, I would agree that commentary or translator's notes added to the translation should make mention of the issue. So if you are complaining here that your favourite "study bible" does not indicate any potential difficulty with the text, then I will happily agree that indeed it should.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But my point is very, very simple. I grew up reading the parable of the sheep and the goats, and the impression that the English translation left me with was that the goats would be tortured forever in the afterlife, so, though I didn't like it, I felt that as a Christian, I had to believe it. But it turns out that neither of those words (eternal, or punishment) necessarily mean that in Greek at all. Both words are actually much more ambiguous. That's not to sweep aside the possibility that aionios might possibly sometimes mean 'forever', or that kolasis might possibly sometimes mean 'retributive punishment'. Just that at the very least they didn't have to, and at the most, they usually didn't. I appreciate that translation of the Bible is an incredibly tricky job, but my feeling is that English speakers (I'm not sure how these verses are translated in other languages) have often been misled when it comes to the translation of these phrases, and that the reason for this is down to the prior theological stance of the translators, rather than a desire to render the original Greek faithfully.
quote:But there is just no hint there of any sort of further process. In fact, the division into two different kinds of animals suggests exactly the opposite. Goats will never become sheep. But mostly I'm opposed to imagining a "hidden gospel". I don't think that there is anything hidden here, just because we find it difficult to deal with the plain meaning.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Again, for me, growing up, I believed that the parable of the Sheep and Goats necessarily implied that there was no hope for the goats, ever. It turns out, however, that the parable doesn't do that. It leaves space for a Hope that after that, there can still be redemption, that the possibility that all can be saved still remains.
quote:The problem here is that as far as ancient Greek goes, I am reduced to googling myself. And for once it is the "liberals" that have flooded the web with articles on this. (It is ironic that usually religious "conservatives" dominate the "new media".) That makes googling for contrary opinion quite difficult, which however does not mean that it does not exist, or even that is rare in the scholarly sphere. I think though that there is at least one pair of basically undeniable mention of eternal heaven and hell in scripture, namely Rev 20:10 and 22:5, respectively. The double usage of "aionos" really drives the eternal point home, cf. here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, a quick google, and from here:
quote:That's as may be, but IMO there's plenty of middle ground between those two states. And it's in that middle ground which most Shipmates find themselves, I should think.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you want to be a simple Christian believer, be a simple Christian believer. If you want to be a theologian in full command of the intellectual content of the faith, be that. But going from one to the other requires serious study and work. That's just how it is.
quote:Indeed. And one can hence expect some awareness that "eternity" does not necessarily mean "an infinite length of time" - on the Ship. My point was simply that "day to day usage" does not rule out "special usage in Christianity", just because not all Christians everywhere are aware of this.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
That's as may be, but IMO there's plenty of middle ground between those two states. And it's in that middle ground which most Shipmates find themselves, I should think.
quote:Agreed, but our tradition is a wide river, not a narrow stream. In fact, there is no one tradition, there are many traditions. Our Christian tradition includes people like the Gregories, Clement, the Alexandrians, Origen, and many others (I'd argue Jerome, St John and St Paul
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think tradition is simply the living record of this "most likely meaning". We are not trying to reconstruct a "dead" text here, like some record of the Egyptian religion which has not survived. We are instead dealing with a text very much alive to a tradition.
) whose viewpoint on this issue was closer to mine than yours, as well as plenty more contemporary believers than those ancients.quote:Sure. But I don't think the gospel I believe is hidden. It's also there in scripture, and in tradition. The every knee shall bow, that God is the saviour of all men, that he will have mercy on all. That Christ is reconciling all things to himself, and so on. As we've discussed earlier, trying to make sense of scripture and tradition when they say contradictory things is tricky. To deal with the plain meaning of one passage means rejecting the plain meaning of another. And that is something that people also struggle with.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But mostly I'm opposed to imagining a "hidden gospel". I don't think that there is anything hidden here, just because we find it difficult to deal with the plain meaning.
quote:Thanks for the link. For me, it appears to be assertion, with no real reasons given for the conclusions other than "because I say so". The double usage is strong, but I see no reason for it to fundamentally change the word's actual meaning. To say "I was waiting ages and ages" (or "I was waiting unto the age of the ages") sounds longer than "I was waiting ages", but it doesn't suddenly transform the finite to the infinite.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The double usage of "aionos" really drives the eternal point home, cf. here.
quote:Perhaps. To be honest, I would first like to hear what all those various bible translator teams have to say on this issue. I am not convinced that they are all entirely ignoring a well-established translation problem over doctrinal bias. This really is outside of my own field of expertise (or rather: even outside of my own amateurish explorations of Christianity). But I do not assign great weight to a specific take on things, just because it currently dominates the google results.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But for me, things could still be made easier for the novice (or even intermediate!).
quote:Sorry, but no. There's largely just on line of "traditional universalism" that I have seen confirmed (apart from the excited assertions of clearly biased sources). And it basically is "Origenism". And it is far from clear that Origen himself was then a "Origenist" in that sense, his writing are simply incoherent on the point. Furthermore, that line of traditions basically stands condemned in anathema. So this has little more relevance to me than that one can list a number Arians or people close to Arianism. Finally, of course you cannot have either St John or St Paul, and also not St Jerome (who, as mentioned before, was once universalist for the baptised but not for everybody).
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Agreed, but our tradition is a wide river, not a narrow stream. In fact, there is no one tradition, there are many traditions. Our Christian tradition includes people like the Gregories, Clement, the Alexandrians, Origen, and many others (I'd argue Jerome, St John and St Paul
quote:If they are Protestants, sure. It really is a different game for Catholics and Orthodox. Or should be.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To deal with the plain meaning of one passage means rejecting the plain meaning of another. And that is something that people also struggle with.
quote:Sorry, but that's rather weak. The link points to the other uses of this term in scripture, as well as expert opinion, and unless you are willing to assert that God's life, glory and reign is temporally limited, you are in some trouble here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me, it appears to be assertion, with no real reasons given for the conclusions other than "because I say so".
quote:Would you like a piece of cake?
Originally posted by stonespring:
I still don't get this whole idea that nothing matters unless the consequences are permanent. If people are faced with massive amounts of pain and suffering, possibly drawn out over a very long time, as the potential consequence of their actions, do you really think that has no effect on people since everything will be good in the end anyway? As I have said earlier, belief that all will be saved eventually does not mean that anyone will be saved who does not choose to accept salvation - so even the few people who keep on choosing suffering for eons and eons will still have the chance to accept salvation. There is just no end to this chance. That is all that my view of universalism is.
quote:Well, universalism evidently predates Origen, but yes, Origen was incredibly influential, and is synonomous with Universalism to some. Despite the fact the declaration of his heresy had nothing to do with his universalism, I do think it's unfortunate that the doctrine is so readily associated with him.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's largely just on line of "traditional universalism" that I have seen confirmed (apart from the excited assertions of clearly biased sources). And it basically is "Origenism".
quote:Well, there was an interesting thread on the Paul the universalist a while back, and the only way I can make sense of his writings is from a universalist perspective, that the elect are the firstfruits of a process that will culminate in the salvation of all people. But perhaps these discussions are for another time. My point is that, neither you nor the Catholic Church have a monolopy on these saints. It's very easy to claim a past hero as representing what we stand for, when perhaps they would be aghast the ideas we are so confident of (that goes for all of us).
Originally posted by IngoB:
Finally, of course you cannot have either St John or St Paul, and also not St Jerome (who, as mentioned before, was once universalist for the baptised but not for everybody).
quote:This is a very astute observation. It certainly is my belief that, in many ways, Constantine (and to an extent Augustine) ballsed up Christianity big time, especially in the West, and we've never recovered since. Of course, due to your Catholicism, it's impossible for you to believe that - there's no way that the Holy Spirit could have been sleeping at his post. In that way, we're starting from very different positions.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But in a more general sense, I can see how you can come to your point of view - as a Protestant. For as a Protestant, one can viably think of correcting the corruptions of history from a better interpretation of scripture, etc. I happen to think that this whole approach is horribly mistaken and completely ignores what a text can do, and more importantly, what it cannot do. But that in a sense is asserting my "Catholic" view against the "Protestant" one. If I were Protestant, I would be a lot more worried about universalism than I am now.
quote:Well, it didn't engage the questions I have. From my point of view, it basically said 'this means forever, so that means that it should be translated as forever'. It didn't explain how an adjective derived from a noun that is evidently finite could become infinite. It didn't look at contemporary texts and give a background to other uses of the word. The context of God's glory etc. argument isn't persuasive. To say that God is God of the Ages isn't to say that God is limited or finite. It says that he is master of time. God can be both aionion and aidion - they are not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The link points to the other uses of this term in scripture, as well as expert opinion, and unless you are willing to assert that God's life, glory and reign is temporally limited, you are in some trouble here.
quote:Me too, which is why I found your link disappointing.
Originally posted by IngoB:
To be honest, I would first like to hear what all those various bible translator teams have to say on this issue.
quote:Exactly! You finally get what I am saying! God is like Eddie Izzard's joke about the Church. He asks us, "Cake or Death?" again and again and again and lets us keep experiencing death if we choose death, but never stops asking us until we choose cake.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Would you like a piece of cake?
Originally posted by stonespring:
I still don't get this whole idea that nothing matters unless the consequences are permanent. If people are faced with massive amounts of pain and suffering, possibly drawn out over a very long time, as the potential consequence of their actions, do you really think that has no effect on people since everything will be good in the end anyway? As I have said earlier, belief that all will be saved eventually does not mean that anyone will be saved who does not choose to accept salvation - so even the few people who keep on choosing suffering for eons and eons will still have the chance to accept salvation. There is just no end to this chance. That is all that my view of universalism is.
No, thanks.
I said, would you like a piece of cake?
Yeah. And I said no.
Let me repeat, would you like a piece of cake?
No, really. Thanks, but no.
Just to make sure, some cake perhaps?
No. No. Kind of you to offer, but no.
Would you like some cake instead then?
How is that different? I don't want cake.
But you might enjoy some cake?
Thanks, really, no.
Here, just try some of this cake.
No. Njet. Nein.
Oh, I'm sure you would love this cake.
NOOOOOHHHH! What the hell? No, no, no.
No need to be upset. Here, have some cake.
I don't want your stinking cake. Go away.
Not before you've tried this beautiful cake. Here, have some.
Are you stupid? No as in no.
Perhaps you are ready to try that cake yet?
No. Not now, not ever. Screw your cake.
Look. Yummy cake. Yum. Yum.
Are you insane?
Insane with joy of eating cake, here try it.
This is a joke, right? There must be a hidden camera somewhere.
We can take a picture of you eating cake. Have some.
Shut up or I will kill you.
You are just cranky because you are hungry. Here, eat some cake.
... one million iterations later ...
But this cake is so moist and delicious.
Ahhhh. Help. My head. Ahhhh.
A piece of cake will surely cure your headache.
... one billion iterations later ...
Look, I can even give you two slices of cake, how about it?
OK, give me that cake. I will eat it.
I knew you would come around. Everybody decides to have their cake, by their own free will. Absolutely everybody. Eventually. One just has to have a bit of patience with them. Nobody refuses my cake. In the end.
