|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Universalism: The case against
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Steady MTM, he FEEDS off that. Unless you're a masochist of course.
And anteater, you are so right. NO ONE goes to heaven. It's here and gets more apparent.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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 what
"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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Those shards are facets of love.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you can't deal with that, then in my book you do not stand in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Fortunately, it's not your book that matters.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Deano: quote:
When we die we will all go to Heaven.
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?
No, not really.
The fact is that Biblical proof-texting is pretty pointless unless you are a Sola Scriptura protestant and I’m not. I’m an Affirming-Catholic Church of England feller. I like having my cake and eating it as well. I don't care.
I could post some Bible passages backing up my argument and you would post some to counter it and back up your arguments and then I would… and so on. It’s boring just writing out what will happen.
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.
So posting passages from the Bible is in my opinion a worthless, useless exercise and I can more profitably use my time in other activities.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fortunately, it's not your book that matters.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
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.
Get thee to the quotes file...
deano, I disagree with you on almost everything, but this pays for all! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
agree
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fortunately, it's not your book that matters.
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Me. John Wesley. Samuel Johnson. Origen. Athanasius.
And I can't imagine that hell is beyond the reach of God's love. (Though it seems ingob does).
[code]
[ 21. March 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Ken: quote:
And I can't imagine that hell is beyond the reach of God's love.
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.
From what I gather from the circles I move in, this is a very widely held belief in the CoE, outside the con evo wing which typically does believe that if you are not saved in this life, then your fate is fixed thereafter.
It appears to be getting some traction in the RCC.
I do not easily see how this works, and I can well imagine you saying that you don't either. But the majority of those who are totally godless, when faced with the conclusive proof that God is real and that the stuff that Christians were saying is rather close to the truth, will do as Richard Dawkins says he would, which is to humbly repent and merely state that if God is making it clear now, then maybe he could have done this earlier.
I just don't get your obviously deeply rooted dislike of annihilationism, though I do not claim to be able to establish it. I tend to agree with Keith Ward in that even if there is no life after death for anyone, the current life we have is intensely worthwhile and to be received with gratitude. And this is also the belief of Buddhists who aren't that bad.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Gildas 1 IngoB 0
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Christians however are obliged to believe in fair love, and loving fairness,.
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? quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Perhaps the kindest thing God can do for some people is to let them slip quietly into oblivion.
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.
It's an interesting view, but not one I find convincing. quote:
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
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?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I don't particularly care if the Protestant theologian Karl Barth had issues with hell. Heresy begets heresy. As for Hans Urs von Balthasar, he was too clever a Roman Catholic theologian to be caught in explicit heresy. But I doubt that God was particularly impressed by his sophistries concerning hell.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I can't imagine that hell is beyond the reach of God's love. (Though it seems ingob does).
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.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah, that's using logic in the wrong arena. Predicated on wooden, psychotic, arbitrary, 'mysterious' assumptions.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
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.
'Soul' is a Greek notion.
Life after death in biblical terms is recreation - 1 Corinthians 15 - so God might choose not to recreate those who are not 'in Christ'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Leo's right there. The Bible has no notion of an immortal soul. Its about resurrection, which is in the gift of God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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.
'Soul' is a Greek notion.
Life after death in biblical terms is recreation - 1 Corinthians 15 - so God might choose not to recreate those who are not 'in Christ'.
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.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why would He do that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
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)
My dogs don't have anything like the cognitive problems regarding love that some of you guys on here have. Something to do with not having to spout bollocks trying to convince themselves that a torturer God is also the gold standard of love, I suppose.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit. Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fulness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Psalm 16:10-11
Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd; straight to the grave they descend, and their form shall waste away; Sheol shall be their home. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. Psalm 49:14-15
Thou dost guide me with thy counsel, and afterward thou wilt receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever. For lo, those who are far from thee shall perish; thou dost put an end to those who are false to thee. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all thy works. Psalm 73:24-28
The Lord preserves the simple; when I was brought low, he saved me. Return, O my soul, to your rest; for the Lord has dealt bountifully with you. For thou hast delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling; I walk before the Lord in the land of the living. Psalm 116:6-9
Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol, that thou wouldest conceal me until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come. Thou wouldest call, and I would answer thee; thou wouldest long for the work of thy hands. For then thou wouldest number my steps, thou wouldest not keep watch over my sin; my transgression would be sealed up in a bag, and thou wouldest cover over my iniquity. Job 14:13-17
On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken. It will be said on that day, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the Lord; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation." Isaiah 25:6-9
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's all speculation. That's ALL. Upon speculation. By pre-modern people. Who knew NOTHING. Including analytical thinking.
We are FULLY entitled to start again. And it's obvious that when you're dead, you're dead.
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.
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!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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!
So do I! How would the Ship cope with multiple Martin PCs? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
What if there is no afterlife at all; neither reward nor punishment? Would Christianity fail if there is nothing to look forward to after suffering life?
Would this also invalidate those references in all the Gospels about an afterlife attributed to Jesus? Would this mean Jesus wasn’t God incarnate?
So, what I am asking is, can you be a Christian if you don’t believe in an afterlife; AKA, a Universalist?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all speculation. That's ALL. Upon speculation.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And it's obvious that when you're dead, you're dead.
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.
quote:
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.
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).
quote:
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!
No, God cannot do that. Just as He cannot construct an (Euclidean) square circle.
--------------------
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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all speculation. That's ALL. Upon speculation.
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.
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.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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.
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.
John Hick deals with the clone idea.
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
1. I don't do false dichotomies.
2. It's equality with the ancestors.
3. He died. He was resurrected.
4. I can't differentiate continuous 10ths of a second, I can 5ths.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
It's going on five years since I last posted anything here, although I have been 'lurking' about (on and off), following many of the discussions as a way of gaining some insights into issues that concern me.... Now I'm 'de-lurking' (which is probably a huge mistake).
I find this latest "universalism" discussion quite interesting (as have been past discussions along the same lines), because it deals directly with why I'm having a rough time staying a Christian. I appreciate the cold, blunt clarity of IngoB's arguments, which seem to indicate that I'm already not a Christian. I'm tending to think he's right.
So, I suppose I'm de-lurking so that I can 'process' 'out loud' my disconnection from Christianity....
For what they're worth, here are some observations....
To my eyes, "damnationism" and "annihilationism" are really just variations on a theme. Both positions assume that there are people (probably the large majority of human beings who have ever lived) who won't experience "eternal life" in the John 3:16 sense.
Both approaches stand over against "universalism," which posits that every human being, without exception, will experience John 3:16-style "eternal life." (As an 'aside', I'm puzzled by IconiumBound's apparent assertion that universalists don't believe in an afterlife--belief in an afterlife is fundamental for the claims of universalism. But maybe I've just misunderstood the point!)
"Traditional" Christians, whether "damnationists" or "annihilationists" seem to fall into two basic "camps" over how much of a role human choice plays in gaining "eternal life."
One one side, there are the Christians who assert absolute divine sovereignty. They believe in a God who could give every human being eternal life, but won't.
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.
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.
So, insofar as one or the other of these two versions of "God" is an accurate expression of the God Jesus and his disciples believed in, I have to conclude that Christianity is a false religion, because it presents a false god.
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.
Of course, I'm going out on a limb here 'judging' the Christian god. Probably I'm either showing my unwillingness to submit to him, the way someone submits to a person holding a loaded gun on them (and so thwarting his infinite power with my finite decision) or I'm simply manifesting the fact that he'd decided on my damnation/annihilation before I was even conceived. Either way, I'm screwed. But, to quote Huck Finn, "All right then, I'll go to hell!"
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
originally posted by Martin PC:
It's all speculation. That's ALL. Upon speculation. By pre-modern people. Who knew NOTHING. Including analytical thinking.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
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.
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?
BTW, I'm glad you de-lurked: your post appeals to me as a simple and honest expression of something you've thought a lot about and is important to you. I am genuinely interested in any response you care to share.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
All very true, but as with most vague generalities, pretty useless for the practical discussion at hand.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
John Hick deals with the clone idea.
No, he doesn't. (Unsupported and unreferenced assertion can be fairly dealt with by unsupported and unreferenced counter-assertion...)
quote:
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.
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.
I do not think that these thoughts are at odds with 1 Cor 15. They are explanatory and complementary. But if St Paul were to speak against this, then St Paul would be dead to me - metaphorically, as well as literally.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Dubious Thomas. The answer is staring you in the face.
And IngoB, me old chum with at least two brains, "It's Divine revelation, absolute truth we have access to as humans in conceptual form.", if that covers the viscerally human, psychologically compelling Psalms and the beautiful delirium of Isaiah, bronze age savages touched by Love (me, I'm a post-fundamentalist postmodern savage touched by Love, what kind of savage are you?), if it covers the four thousand year STORY of the encounter with God by Abraham at the terebinth trees of Mamre in which transcendence shines through the looming mushroom cloud, if it includes the little boy called by the voice of God who faithfully interpreted His will as genocide when an old man, yes, of course.
I love the absolute truth of Eden, The Flood, Babel, The Exodus, Jonah.
If you are making some other claim, been there. (You'll grow out of it. I have every faith in that. There's nothing you can do about it. The hand of God is upon you. You'll suffer terribly first.) That will NEVER work again for me or virtually anyone else here or that you know in your fellowship.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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.
All very true, but as with most vague generalities, pretty useless for the practical discussion at hand.
It is relevant if it stops you triumphantly tossing Divine Revelation down on the table as if it were the ace of trumps.
[ 22. March 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: QLib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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. Now that claim may not be true, in which case we have no basis for this discussion at all, and we are all pissing in the wind. Or it may be true, in which case some of the things we are trying to say may be worth saying, if and only if they can be proved against Scripture. But there is nothing else.
And as for the continuity/cloning business, IngoB is right that it is important, but wrong that it requires a belief in some inherently immortal soul. (Or, more properly, spirit rather than soul) Still less a soul or spirit separate from our bodies, as if our minds were mere passengers in our brains rather than a product of our brains. The Bible is clear that we are not inherently immortal. We grow from this earth and are part of it and die like the other creatures of earth. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Don't Catholics go to church on Ash Wednesday any more? Have they scrapped their old funeral rites for some new-age sentimentalism?
But God is eternal, and God sustains us in life and through death. The continuity is in God, not in the world.
And yes, just as the Bible is not clear on universalism against hell against annihilation - you can find passages to defend all three; so it is also not explicit on the state of the recently dead in Christ. Some sort of separate heaven? The earthly paradise? The eternal presence of God? Immediate fast-forward to the general resurrection? Its all in there somewhere, and there are no clinching arguments from Scripture to exclude any of them. The least Scripturally defensible common belief is probably purgatory, but even that is not positively excluded.
And as for John Hicks, to be blunt, I don't give a rats arse what he thought about it. I'm sure he was a nice man, but I can only think of one or two Anglican theologians I'd trust less.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Yes - this is the God I continue to worship.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Postmodern people Beeswax Altar, know that whatever else is shining through the cracked, shitty, bloody, smoky, human story carved on a pot, despite it, it's a cracked, shitty, bloody, smoky, human story carved on a pot.
We can't not. It's not our fault. It's inexorable. Cumulative. We stand on the shoulders of giants. And whatever is shining through shines brighter, more clearly, less tainted. In the seeing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Stories are the only authority postmodernism recognize. The Christian story including the part directly about Jesus tells us about the possibility of judgment and damnation. If your story doesn't include those possibilities, it's really a different one than Christians have always told. Appeals to analytical reasoning are sooo modern and when talking about life after death just plain silly.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Analytical reasoning about what Jesus meant and what He'll do in the light of how He was are too I'm sure. Which have nothing to do with life after death do they? Just carry on using analytical reasoning predicated on Bronze age assumptions. That's REALLY helpful.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The New Testament wasn't written in the Bronze Age. Why you want to use new atheist talking points while claiming to still be a Christian is beyond me. All we know about Jesus comes from the gospels. The gospels mention the possibility of judgment and examination. Therefore any view of who Jesus is that doesn't include those possibilities is not an accurate view of Jesus as presented in the gospels. A rational narrative must be coherent.
Modern assumptions about the afterlife are no more rational than ancient assumptions. In fact, seeing as how the Church has been teaching the possibility of damnation from the beginning it is more likely to be true from a Christian perspective. Why would I discount scripture and tradition because of a couple of pop theology bestsellers written a couple of years ago. I'm not a fan of fads.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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!
Which merely proves that proof by proof-texting is no proof at all. I think?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
ken's post of 18:08 on 22 March pretty much sums up how I feel about the subject, with the trifling disagreement that I have found Hicks helpful in allowing me to clarify my thoughts on the subject - an author who allows you to lucidly disagree with him can be more helpful than one who shares all your prejudices!
I suppose that I would add that it is entirely legitimate, IMV, to hope that all may be saved, scripture tells us that God desires that all may be saved so when we pray and hope for this we are clearly on the same page as the Almighty. 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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
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.
There is. It's called chronological snobbery.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
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.
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!
I guess I could try to debate the philosophical issues you have raised about the relationship between the existence of God and the nature of God and the role of reason, etc. But, given the tone of your post, I don't get the sense you're really interested in such a debate, at least with me.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
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.
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?
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.
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."
Finally, I find myself thinking about human analogies. What would I do if I encountered a desperately unhappy person who was about to commit suicide? Would I respect his/her personal autonomy and choice and let them carry out the act, or would I stop them? Depending on my choice, how would I be judged? Christianity seems to teach that all human beings are desperately unhappy and about to commit suicide. So, what do we say about a Christian "God" who either can't or won't act to stop them? In "Dubio-Thomism" (Thanks, Beeswax Altar!), such a "God" is not "God."
Thanks for the welcome out of my 'lurking'.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well, Dubious Thomas, if you really want to get there the long way round, and see the elephant, sorry I mean read a lot of theological and scriptural arguments, you could do worse than read Karl Barth's commentary on Romans. Which I hope is easier going in the original German than in English, though I fear it probably isn't. It sort of constructs a sort of Calvinist universalism based on a sort of close reading of the New Testament. Sort of.
Or if you wanted to see an ancient argument reconciling human free will with the omnipotence of God, there is always the amazing fifth part of Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy. Which is worth an hour of anyone's time, even if it is the theological equivalent of the last few scenes of 2001 a space oddessy (Personally I think the arguments are persuasive, as well as being very shiny)
Nuts. I'm meant to be preaching tomorrow morning. On a text from Romans. (Its in the lectionary). And its nearly 3am and I'm not asleep yet. And now I want to read the Barth book.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
