|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Universalism: The case against
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How do we know that? I don't see it in the text.
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.
quote:
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)
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.
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). Basically, we reappear in another iteration of basically this world, and we keep on doing so until we have overcome our worldly limitations. At that point then we can transcend the ever-repeating world cycle and join the great Beyond.
This is of course a valid conception of the afterlife. Many people believe in something like this, and in this scheme indeed eventually all sapient being (or perhaps even all sentient beings) will be "saved" in the sense of joining the great Beyond. It just is not Christian, it is not the gospel, and I do not believe in it personally.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
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".
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Yes (putting aside the argument as to whether punishment is the best translation of kolasis or not).
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But we know that there is no additional age to come after that.
Ken beat me to it. How do we know that?
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. Again, Clement:
quote:
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
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:
_____________________
Dr. Mangey, a translator of the writings of Philo, says, "Philo did not use aionios to express endless duration."
Josephus ... uses the word to represent the period of time between the giving of the law of Moses and that of his own writing [clearly not an eternity].
He also assigns aionios to the period of imprisonment of the tyrant John by the Romans
Saint Gregory of Nyssa speaks of anionios diastema, "an eonian interval."
Saint Chrysostum, in his homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that, "Satan’s kingdom is aeonian; that is, it will cease with the present world."
Saint Justin Martyr, in the Apol. (p. 57), used the word aionios repeadedly: aionion kolasin…all ouchi chiliontaete periodon, "eonian chastening but a period, not a thousand years,"
Plato: The gods he calls eternal, (aidios) but the soul and the corporeal nature, he says, are aionios, belonging to time, and "all these," he says, "are part of time."
(Incidentally, this suggests the very opposite of what you suggest, Ingo, that 'eternal' is a good translation of aionios, because it is outside of time. Aidios is well translated as 'eternal'/out of time, but, according to Plato, aionios is explicitly temporal. Apparently, it was Plato who first coined the adjective 'aionios' from the noun aion).
Again, I'm no Greek expert, and am very open to correction and addition, but, again, the point is simple. The idea that aionios necessarily means 'everlasting' or 'eternal' (as most translators render it) is false. This is further suggested by the uses of the word aion (age, from which aionios is derived). In terms of aion, "We have the whole evidence of seven Greek writers, extending through about six centuries, down to the age of Plato, who make use of Aión, in common with other words; and no one of them EVER employs it in the sense of eternity." (Rev. Ezra S. Goodwin). Words of course change meaning, and evidently Augustine (who also admitted that he was no expert in Greek), translated aionios as 'everlasting'. However, it seems fair to say that when Plato first used it, like its root, it only related to a finite time, and at the time of the Gospels, that it still had finite rather than infinite implications.
(Edit - Ingo, missed your reply to Ken in crosspost)
[ 14. April 2014, 10:56: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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).
That's bollocks. As you could demonstrate be reading what some other posters here have written.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Ken, either demonstrate it yourself or leave off the gratuitous swipes.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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'.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, a quick google, and from here:
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I think we're beginning to get a bit more common ground, which is nice, Ingo. I appreciate your comments on technical terms and translation. But for me, things could still be made easier for the novice (or even intermediate!).
quote:
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.
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) whose viewpoint on this issue was closer to mine than yours, as well as plenty more contemporary believers than those ancients.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The double usage of "aionos" really drives the eternal point home, cf. here.
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.
I suppose the problem is that in the ancient world they didn't have the mathematical concepts of infinity that we do now. So language is often euphemism (we see the same with Hebrew - olam, as aion). So we get this kind of words and phrases: "beyond the horizon", "unto the age of the ages", "enduring", "beyond measure", "no number", "no end" and so on. It's not easy to figure out how these should be interpreted, as the picture they represent isn't of infinity, but of vast size. Granted, that vast size is arguably sometimes a euphemism for the infinite, but I don't think that is always a given.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Um...so even if universalism does mean some kind of reincarnation - ie birth into a Purgatory that is very much like this world, if not practically identical - why is that a bad thing? Why does it have to mean that this life does not matter? 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.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But for me, things could still be made easier for the novice (or even intermediate!).
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.
quote:
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 ) whose viewpoint on this issue was closer to mine than yours, as well as plenty more contemporary believers than those ancients.
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).
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:
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.
If they are Protestants, sure. It really is a different game for Catholics and Orthodox. Or should be.
quote:
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".
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Would you like a piece of cake?
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
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".
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.
quote:
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).
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).
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Me too, which is why I found your link disappointing.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
On your amusing cake analogy, I see where you are coming from. However, we've already talked about how a wise Father knows when to pursue, and when to wait. Your caricature paints the universalist God as an unwise parent who doesn't know when to wait (and when not to pursue). Plus, I'm not sure how apt it is to use cake as an analogy of salvation. I think that salvation is more complicated than an offer of a one-off item; as I've said, it is a process.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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.
Would you like a piece of cake?
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.
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.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I see it more like the scene in the Simpsons Movie where Bart is sulking in a tree and Flanders offers him a mug of hot chocolate. Bart refuses because hot chocolate is for sissies, or something, and keeps sitting uncomfortably in the tree. Flanders makes him one (and a quite amazing one at that!) anyway, and walks away leaving it on the windowsill. After a while, Bart starts inching inquisitively towards it, and eventually he takes it, runs off and tries it with the (obviously impressed) exclamation "Oh my God!".
I guess what I'm saying is, salvation doesn't have to be constantly and annoyingly "offered" the way IngoB parodies with his cake scenario. It could just be there, on the windowsill, waiting for us to accept it. And I do think that, regardless of how hardened our hearts are against it and however reluctant we may be to begin with, eventually all of us will be curious or open enough to give it a try - and exclaim "My God!" when we finally realise how amazing it (He) really is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
