 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Discussion About Hell, Scripture, Ambiguity, and Other Cool Stuff | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2005 10:48 PM (GMT -6) |   | Let me explain the lack of "fit" a bit more if I can. It might be that my problem with ECT arises out of entirely different assumptions that Mephi’s. Mephi seems to only have a problem with ECT + an omnibenevolent God. He thinks ECT is entirely compatible with a God who is 99% loving. I think God would have to be evil, or at least far less loving that we failing humans are before I’d say his consigning people to ECT is compatible with the sort of love he shows.
My objections to ECT do not arise from some highly sophisticated philosophical definition of ‘omnibenevolence’. In fact, they have far less to do with love than they have to do with justice, though both are involved. I believe my own objections are fundamental and intuitive and not the result of theological education. I don’t believe a very very very loving God could consign people to ECT. So attributing theological ignorance of this sort to Jesus doesn’t solve anything for me. More importantly, it’s my belief that God is ‘just’ that I think really grounds my objections to ECT. I think I’ve always had these objections but managed to silence them through indoctrination and the belief that since those spiritual leaders I respected seemed to make sense of it ECT my objections must stem from a poor understanding of the truth.
So I don’t think a 99% loving God (whatever that might mean) would be capable of consigning people to ECT. Sorry. I’m a pretty lousy lover and I wouldn’t consign people to ECT. And God is surely a bit more loving and just than I am.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2005 10:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: So I'm wondering what do we know NOW, philosophically, that gives us more insight into God's PERFECT love that Christ could not have known?
Tom: Excellent question. I don't see any reason, and I mean ANY, to suppose that we understand 'God as loving' MORE accurately than Jesus did. What's different? Add all the stuff Mephi wants to add--evolution and so no literal Adam and Eve, no literal 6 day creation (Jesus was wrong on these), no historical Jonah, no Esther, no ax head, no bear maulling the kids; add our technological advances, political achievements, philosophical progress, pile it on higher and higher into a new Bable--whatever--you have nothing in all of this upon which to claim WE moderns who know the truth about these things as opposed to the first century Jesus who did not, understand LOVE and JUSTICE better than Jesus.
I'm not buying this camel.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/11/2005 9:59:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/12/2005 12:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me say this. I agree with you, Tom. I don't believe that a incredibly loving God would do ECT either...but that's because I believe that an incredibly loving God would...
1) love EACH and EVERY sentient being totally and unconditionally
2) REALLY, REALLY want ALL sentient beings to experience loving interaction and totally "trinify" all of Creation
3) do everything in God's power to see #2 happen.
So, we are not disagreeing on that score. What we are disagreeing about is whether or not it is possible the Jesus (and Paul) had a concept of God such that God's triumph over God's enemies could entail said enemies being punished for eternity without reprieve.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/12/2005 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | |
This talk about Jesus and the Ancients being "wrong" about what they believed...
I contend that the issue back in Jesus' day isn't an issue of right or wrong; it's a matter of time-framed cultural communication. Remember the stuff Meph brought up about what first-century Jews believed about Adam, Eve and creation? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that they didn't actually believe it exactly as they talked and wrote about it. It was the point, the theology, the story. Such, I think, was the case in a lot of the Old Testament. It's not, "Well, they were sure were wrong about their scientific concept of creation, weren't they; anyone knows the world couldn't have been created in six days."
Earlier in this thread, I asked the following question: Is there any research suggesting or demonstrating that the concept of ECP in the scripture for the Hebraic mind turns out to be a way of merely saying, "One will get his/her just deserts"? Could the concept of ECP have been included in the mutable expression of doctrines such as women to be in equal standing, the Sabbath "Day" kept as an eternal Sabbath in Christ, etc? Corey responded that the concept of ECT is something that was imported from the outside. Judgement, yes, Hell, no. (And Hades, yes. But I'm after a bit more here.
Taking the cultural manner in which those old folks communicated—often times very clearly not to be literally taken as reality (hence a big problem in interpreting the book of Revelation; some things seem real, some do not, but where does one draw the line?)—the idea of worms (that dies not) and such in the lake of fire wiggling around in bodies is rather unrealistic. Supposedly there's an eternal consumption, which, as Tom pointed out in debating Humphry Bogart, is nonsense; one can't be eternally consumed. Further, is the place an outer darkness or lit up with fire. Finally (though I could continue on with more references), people on fire will hardly have the capacity to gnash with their teeth—they won't have an ability to do much at all but scream—, and there are no references in scripture that demons, either now or in the future, torment people in hades or the lake of fire.
There are many, many issues here that just do not ring true as literal reality, but they make perfect sense if the "story" is to make it's point. I'm still wondering, therefore, if the ancient manner of communicating punishment within everlasting language is, first, not literal but "story" (though, as we know, the Jew wouldn't have given this concept second thought); and second, is viably transfered over to our modern cultural communicated message "you'll get your just deserts," which does not contain everlasting language, since we moderns do give this thought?
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/12/2005 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: WTF? Tom...what is your PROBLEM, dude?
Tom: Yeah. I’m just PO’d at the whole subject, not at you.
Mephi: I'm ONLY trying to make the point that Jesus was HUMAN and that this means that it is very possible that Jesus' understanding of things was contextualized by his cultural milieu.
Tom: I don’t have any problem with this. But you have to demonstrate that a Jew in first century Palestine could not have put 2 + 2 together to get four, namely, didn’t have enough in their religious tradition and scriptures together with a working brain to believe that God loves each and every human being. I see no reason to suppose Jesus was incapable of such a belief and good reason to assume he in fact did believe God’s love was unconditional and universal.
Mephi: That Jesus (and Paul) MAY have seen ECT as being consonant with God's loving, just activity in restoring creation and triumphing over God's enemies.
Tom: I have a REAL hard time seeing how Jesus or Paul could have thought ECT was consonant with God’s love and its ultimate triumph in creation. Like I said, there’s no reason to suppose first century Jews were incapable of conceiving of ‘universal and unconditional love’ and good reason to assume that their understanding of such love was far more profound than our own. I think this is in fact the essential revelation of Jesus’ life and teachings, which is why I’m more inclined to think something’s wrong with the biblical arguments for ECT, even though I admit the exegetical arguments seem pretty tight FOR it. So I’m screwed.
Mephi: Here's something. Did Jesus most likely believe that even Satan--the most hardened evil being...Jesus' mortal enemy supposedly... would be invited into the Father's love in the end?
Tom: I don’t know. He never explicitly addressed the question.
Mephi: And this is what gets me, Tom. You act like it's not possible for God to have done what he did in Jesus...while allowing for ECT.
Tom: That’s pretty close. But its Jesus’ connecting the two that seems impossible to me. Jesus himself choosing to love THAT much, reasoning his way through to THAT kind of love—for everyone—while also believing that the vast majority of humans will spend eternity in conscious torment. I literally cannot fathom Jesus entertaining both beliefs.
Mephi: Show me how this is logical.
Tom: Well, it’s certainly logical for somebody to mistakenly believe in incompatible beliefs. There’s nothing logically contradictory about Jesus being ignorant about some things. The question is a) are there cultural/contextual reasons to suppose Jesus was likely to have been wrong on this score? b) is there reason to suppose that Jesus’ beliefs on supremely important matters such as these were thoughtful, reflective, and consistent? It seems highly unlikely (more unlikely than ECT’s being unbiblical) given Jesus’ insight into God’s purposes, his understanding of his mission, and the universal scope of his loving/saving act, that Jesus would not have felt the same revulsion to ECT that we now do. He understood love more profoundly than we do, suffered for it more intensely than we ever will, reflected on it more extensively than we do, and expounded on the universal scope of God’s love and the significance of the Cross so clearly that I find it absolutely inconceivable to suppose he thought all this while also believing people roast for ever and ever and ever. Is it logically possible that a human being mistakenly hold to incompatible beliefs? Yeah. Is it likely that Jesus help to THESE incompatible beliefs? I don’t think so.
Mephi: Don't you recall 1 Corinthians 13…Just because a person does self-sacrificial activity does NOT mean that it was done from perfectly (or even mainly) loving intentions.
Tom: And when it’s not done from loving motives the sacrifice is worthless in God’s eyes.
Mephi: For your ideas to make any sense you'd have to show how it is completely IMPOSSIBLE for God to do what God did in Jesus while at the same time allowing for ECT. I don't think you can do that.
Tom: I’m not trying to do that. That is, I’m not trying to show that God could have only saved the world through an omniscient savior and that therefore Jesus must have know all truth. I’m arguing that there’s no justification for the particular ignorance you want to attribute to Jesus in THIS case and every reason for suppose Jesus really did, in this instance, comprehend the truth about love, mercy, and justice.
Mephi: What you CAN do is define some terms and then go from there. Like so...
I don't see how a God who...
1) loves EACH and EVERY sentient being totally and unconditionally
2) REALLY, REALLY wants ALL sentient beings to experience loving interaction and totally "trinify" all of Creation
3) has the power and genuine ability to construct Creation such that there is a OVERWHELMING probability that all will commune with God at the Consummation of All Things
...would knowingly create a state of ECT like that described in the Bible.
Tom: I don’t know how to deny Jesus belief in (1), (2), and (3). I have no first century cultural reason to suppose he was incapable of believing these and every other reason to assume he did believe in them.
Mephi: Let me say this. I agree with you, Tom. I don't believe that a incredibly loving God would do ECT either...but that's because I believe that an incredibly loving God would...
1) love EACH and EVERY sentient being totally and unconditionally…
Tom: What reason do you have for thinking Jesus did not agree? And “Jesus wasn’t omniscient” can’t be a reason. It’s a necessary requirement for Jesus’ being ignorant about some aspects of God’s love, but it’s not a sufficient requirement. What sufficient reason do you have for believing Jesus did not believe in the universal and unconditional nature of God’s love?
Mephi: 2) REALLY, REALLY want ALL sentient beings to experience loving interaction and totally "trinify" all of Creation
Tom: This would follow from (1). Yeah, I think Jesus believed this. What reason do you have for supposing otherwise?
Mephi: 3) do everything in God's power to see #2 happen.
Tom: I think Jesus would have agreed.
So, we are not disagreeing on that score. What we are disagreeing about is whether or not it is possible the Jesus (and Paul) had a concept of God such that God's triumph over God's enemies could entail said enemies being punished for eternity without reprieve.
Tom: Right. And I’m saying a) you can’t argue their understanding of divine love was lacking simply because they weren’t omniscient, and b) it’s next to impossible to conclude Jesus didn’t understand love this well given his life and teachings.
Tom
Selah, you know I was just joking back there about the testosterone thread, right? Just wanna make sure.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/12/2005 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's work backwards...
Tom:
And I’m saying a) you can’t argue their understanding of divine love was lacking simply because they weren’t omniscient, and b) it’s next to impossible to conclude Jesus didn’t understand love this well given his life and teachings.
First, I need you to understand WHY I'm spending so much energy on the "lack of omniscience" thing. Many evangelicals (including Doc, to a serious extent!) try to say that its Jesus' divinity that guarantees the absolute verity of His teachings in scripture. They use the overused idea that if Jesus IS God, and God cannot lie, that Jesus, in his teachings about scripture and theology, must always have been telling the absolute truth about things. I'm disputing that argument wholesale by placing serious concern on Jesus' humanity and what that may entail! Once we open the door to say that it is genuinely in the realm of possibility that Jesus' full humanity may entail that Jesus' beliefs could actually have been heavily affected by (if not a significant product of) His cultural context...such that his cosmogony, theology, and eschatology were affected. This is HUGE for this discussion...and very important to establish as a genuine possibility.
Next, it seems that you keep painting Jesus such that he is the ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE thinking, ponderer, expositor, and example of the idea of perfect love. And that there is genuinely NO REASON to assume that Jesus' view of omnibenevolence was different from ours. But the very reason I asked the question about Satan earlier is simple: perfect love, as we've been talking about it, would NOT hardcore reject anyone. It would always be open to more people being saved, right? And it would NEVER withhold forgiveness, right? Tom, when's the last time you've read the book of Matthew? Or the other Gospels? Do you see Jesus' statements? Isn't Jesus the one who introduces us to the concept of the "unforgivable sin"? Isn't Jesus the one who talks about exclusion (the whole "depart from me, I never knew you"?) Isn't Jesus the one who, in talking about prayer, flatly says that if we don't forgive others, the Father WON'T forgive us?? Isn't Jesus the one who talked about the sheep and the goats? Actually, who is the one who told us the Lazarus parable with the fire and torment in the first friggin place?
There are HIS statements, Tom. Not mine. Not yours. His statements.
What do we do with those? See, you don't seem to understand that if it weren't for these statements by Jesus, the whole ECT thing would not be as hard to negotiate! It's the statements by Jesus that gives the whole ECT argumentation it's major thrust! We cannot just over look this.
To me, it makes much more sense to say that Jesus understood the universality of God's love for HUMAN BEINGS (both Jews and Gentiles...but not all sentient beings like demons!) as being displayed in his reversal of Adam's sin and fallen Creation by saving Israel from it's sins (which, as NT Wright well argues, Jesus KNEW only God could do!) In His ressurrection, Jesus in principle defeated death, the handmaiden of sin and the devil. And one day, Jesus believed (as did Paul), ALL enemies would be placed under the heel of God's triumph. This, I would argue, how Jesus saw himself and the context of God's covenant love for His people (Israel) and the whole world.
But...
This belief is DISTINCT from saying that God unconditionally loves ALL beings and wants all beings to experience his love forever including all demons and Satan himself And this belief is distinct from saying that God, in all times and all places, does the absolute most that God can do to minimize evil and maximize the good. Surely you see this, Tom.
This is why, I would argue, WE have some moral repugnance issue with God killing 42 kids via 2 she bears just because they called Elisha "baldy"...whereas Jesus may NOT have. Nor Paul.
See, this is what you've gotta get, Tom. No one is denying that Jesus didn't show the love of God in His life, death and resurrection. No one is denying that Jesus was a counter-cultural force in his world with respect to displaying the universal, reconciling love of God (Samaritan woman, dining with publicans and sinners, etc). No one is denying that Jesus embodied the highest form of love, given Jesus' background, time and knowledge. What we are saying is that it should be recognized that MAYBE that context may have influenced Jesus to seeing some things as "ok" that we don't necessarily see. Perhaps Jesus understood things such that he didn't fulfill the more militaristic hopes of the people for a Messiah, nor did he bring immediate judgment (like John the Baptist perhaps thought he would)...he had a different plan....BUT he did hold that the satanic/demonic forces and all that aligned with them would suffer harsh, everlasting divine punishment for their insurrection against God's order and purposes. And he saw this as ok...just like some other apocalyptic-type people of that time may have!
Just think it through, Tom. This makes sense, doesn't it?
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 12/12/2005 11:46:39 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/12/2005 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | Starkman, I think we're on the same page. We both want to deny that ECT, as traditionally conceived, is what Jesus had in mind. So how do we deal with the apparent ECT references in the Bible? Tom and Meph, who are in a better position to know that I am, are pretty convinced it's quite difficult to get there exegetically.
You and I (and others) are still trying out different ways to get there exegetically anyway. Meph's abandoned that project for now and suspects that it's possible that Jesus was just wrong about ECT and that's okay. Tom's also given up hope on an exegetically way out but neither can he follow Meph's route and so says basically punts.  If we've got to choose between believing that Jesus was wrong and our exegesis being wrong, of course we'll want to pursue the latter. As Meph has pointed out, the slope is just too slippery otherwise. Post Edited (Corey) : 12/12/2005 12:18:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]First, I need you to understand WHY I'm spending so much energy on the "lack of omniscience" thing. Many evangelicals (including Doc, to a serious extent!) try to say that its Jesus' divinity that guarantees the absolute verity of His teachings in scripture. They use the overused idea that if Jesus IS God, and God cannot lie, that Jesus, in his teachings about scripture and theology, must always have been telling the absolute truth about things. I'm disputing that argument wholesale by placing serious concern on Jesus' humanity and what that may entail! Once we open the door to say that it is genuinely in the realm of possibility that Jesus' full humanity may entail that Jesus' beliefs could actually have been heavily affected by (if not a significant product of) His cultural context...such that his cosmogony, theology, and eschatology were affected. This is HUGE for this discussion...and very important to establish as a genuine possibility.
Again, are there cultural/contextual reasons to suppose Jesus was likely to have been wrong on this score as Tom keeps POINTING OUT? I think you are reading too much of the tradionalist view into this and then using points about Christ humanity to back your objections. D, THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! 
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: First, I need you to understand WHY I'm spending so much energy on the "lack of omniscience" thing. Many evangelicals (including Doc, to a serious extent!) try to say that its Jesus' divinity that guarantees the absolute verity of His teachings in scripture. They use the overused idea that if Jesus IS God, and God cannot lie, that Jesus, in his teachings about scripture and theology, must always have been telling the absolute truth about things. I'm disputing that argument wholesale by placing serious concern on Jesus' humanity and what that may entail! Once we open the door to say that it is genuinely in the realm of possibility that Jesus' full humanity may entail that Jesus' beliefs could actually have been heavily affected by (if not a significant product of) His cultural context...such that his cosmogony, theology, and eschatology were affected. This is HUGE for this discussion...and very important to establish as a genuine possibility.
Tom: I’m granting that for the sake of argument. I’m not arguing Jesus HAS to be theologically accurate in all ways. But conceding this doesn’t get you what you want. You have to then argue why Jesus should be thought of as ignorant on the point under consideration, and you’ve offered no reasons all these lines. You just jump from “Jesus could be wrong theologically” to “Jesus WAS wrong theologically on THIS point.” That’s not at all a valid argument.
Mephi: Next, it seems that you keep painting Jesus such that he is the ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE thinking, ponderer, expositor, and example of the idea of perfect love.
Tom: I’d say it’s safe to assume Jesus was AT LEAST as thoughtfully reflective and concerned about these issues as you and I are. But you seem to assume that “first century” means “lacking, ignorant, unsophisticated, and unreflective” when it comes to love, mercy, and justice. On what basis? I’m like…where does he get THAT? Besides, you and I have no new information (theological or philosophical) that would ground the claim that WE understand divine love more fully or profoundly than did Jesus. Again, I think we understand love, mercy, and justice less than Jesus did. If you disagree, then put on the table the first century facts of the matter (cultural, philosophical, whatever) for believing Jesus to have been ignorant on this score. The ‘possibility’ that Jesus could have been theologically “off” doesn’t count. It may be generally true that Jesus could have been theologically off here or there, but very nearly impossible given what we do know about his beliefs that he was off on some specific issue. You have to take them one by one.
Mephi: And that there is genuinely NO REASON to assume that Jesus' view of omnibenevolence was different from ours.
Tom: If there is a reason to assume Jesus’ view on love was different, then produce it. You’re arguing that Jesus believed in ECT and therefore must have lacked a bit in his understanding of perfect love (since we agree the two are incompatible to a thinking caring person). But that’s assuming the point of debate. Why should this not suggest Jesus did not believe in ECT?
Mephi: But the very reason I asked the question about Satan earlier is simple: perfect love, as we've been talking about it, would NOT hardcore reject anyone.
Tom: If Satan must be believed to eventually come around and that’s implied in what I believe, then I’ll have to grant it. But can we stick to human beings for the moment? Satan’s offense seems different enough from our own as to at least warrant a separate conversation of the issue. But I’m open.
Mephi: It would always be open to more people being saved, right? And it would NEVER withhold forgiveness, right?
Tom: It would never withhold it from the repentant, correct.
Mephi: Tom, when's the last time you've read the book of Matthew? Or the other Gospels? Do you see Jesus' statements? Isn't Jesus the one who introduces us to the concept of the "unforgivable sin"? Isn't Jesus the one who talks about exclusion (the whole "depart from me, I never knew you"?) Isn't Jesus the one who, in talking about prayer, flatly says that if we don't forgive others, the Father WON'T forgive us? Isn't Jesus the one who talked about the sheep and the goats? Actually, who is the one who told us the Lazarus parable with the fire and torment in the first friggin place?
Tom: I’m not sure any of these entails the E of ECT.
Gotta run.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Meph Man, on the other hand, takes the literalistic images WAY to serious (exaggerations and hyperbole are normal in terms of public discourse) but I also think that he is going TOTALLY off on a tangent about Christ's omniscience to question God's love for us, biblical authority and so forth. It's not necessary. I'll have more to say over the next day or two, hopefully showing that Meph Man hasn't taken into consideration all the scriptural or extra-biblical data as he seriously needs to do.
Oh, this will be lovely. Really can't wait.
********************
Brandon:
In my opinion hell is about justice. Reaping what you sow. Reciprocal effect. Setting the record straight. THIS is ALL THROUGH OUT scripture. My view would STILL go along with Greg's for the most part.
Er...um...who's even disagreeing with that? Not me. Isn't divine justice and the defeat of evil part and parcel of what apocalyptic material addresses?
And HOW would you view go along with Greg's? (And which view do you mean? Greg's SATPOE view?)
Don't make us wait too long for this. I'm anxious.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: (emphasis mine)
If Satan must be believed to eventually come around and that’s implied in what I believe, then I’ll have to grant it. But can we stick to human beings for the moment? Satan’s offense seems different enough from our own as to at least warrant a separate conversation of the issue. But I’m open.
What???
ECT would occur if even ONE BEING was eternally tormented, without repreive! This would include Satan or any other sentient being (coporeal or otherwise)
If being an all-loving God precludes the idea of completely retributive, eternal torment for any being or group of beings...then the discussion is very important.
More later...
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | The idea that hell is punishment is one thing. That it is forever and that there is little in the descriptions of ancient Jewish thinking on hell that merrit a literal reality is what's at stake here.
Again, I ask, is the concept of ECP in the Bible a ANE concept of saying nothing more than "you will get what is justly coming to you"? If so, then the concept of burning in flames forever goes right out the door (which is already in question if we are not succumbed to taking the "lake of fire" as a literal fire). It isn't burning, having worms in wriggling around in you, or anything like that which will take place. It is fair and just judgement. The issue of duration, however, is still a stickler.
Yo, Corey, dude!
Yeah, we're probably on the same path, but I just want to be sure that we understand that it's not a matter of whether Jesus, Paul or the NT was right or wrong. They simply didn't think that way. To tell the story was more important. I suppose some of them must have given thought to the absurdity of some of the story material being thought of as literal and real, but this apparently wasn't an issue in the majority. Making the point theologically that God ruled was accomplished by story. That's not a right-or-wrong issue.
Anyway...it's lunch time! Time to down a few cups of Caribou coffee!
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | ECT would occur if Satan suffers for ever. But if Satan's offense qualifies as an infinite offense (where our's clearly doesn't) then it doesn't bother me that he'd suffering infinitely. It would bother me if he didn't. The offense has to warrant the punishment. NO human offense can possibly warrant ETERNAL punishment. But I just don't know about angelic offenses of the sort Satan is guilty off. That's why Satan has to be considered separately.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/12/2005 12:30:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | How 'bout this--
1) In order to save humanity (and fallen creation with it) God assumes human nature. God must do this. What is not assumed can't be redeemed, you know, blah blah blah. God becomes a man.
2) Jesus is the God-man ONTOLOGICALLY. That guarantees that humanity is assumed by God, and it guarantees that this partiuclar assumed human nature makes it through life without sinning, so that in the end a guiltless human can hang on the cross and provide salvaiton. That's ALL that's needed in order for Jesus, the God-man, to save us.
3) The conscious Jesus was basically just another run-o-the-mill Jew in intellectual terms and was wrong (it now looks like, if Mephi is right) most of the time on theological matters. But he had a great heart and loved people more sincerely and perfectly than any human had done before or after, even though his understanding of love and the value of human beings was consistent with his believing that most people would fry forever. He teachings aren't infallible or especially insightful really. He said a few insightful things, but for the most part his theological understanding lagged behind our own. But who cares? TRUTH was not part of his mission. Just getting to the Cross without sinning WAS. And that's it.
4) The Bible is just a human endeavor, no more inspired than Shakespear or The Cantebury Tales, which narrates Israel's history and tells the story of Jesus's death and resurrection. It only manages to be as often true as any other history. It's littered with historical and theological error, but it manages (without God's help) to accurately tell ONE NECESSARY BIT OF INFO--Jesus was the God-man who died for us and rose again. If that's ALL that was historically true (which is more likely to be the case than not) in the Bible we'd have enough.
5) We should stop worshipping a book and start trying to love like Jesus did; just look for the cross in every situation. If we did that reasonably well for a generation the whole world would basically be won.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/12/2005 12:52:28 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/12/2005 1:54 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
How 'bout this--
5) . . .just look for the cross in every situation.
Tom
Hope this isn't a "long" quote:
The Cross is God's "thing." The Cross is God's thing in the midst of the earth.
God has worked salvation in the midst of the earth -- the working salvation in the midst of the earth is when he is lifted on the cross.
When he is crucified. . . . THAT is the
ultimate,
definative,
absolute,
total perfect ,
unsurpassable act, word, manifestation of God.
Beyond the cross... there's nothing God can do
Beyond the cross... there's nothing God can say
Beyond the cross... there's nothing more to be revealed
nothing more that can be known -- at least within the context of this world...
The Cross tells it all.
And if we can't understand the deepest mysteries of God and our life in the Cross we are not going to see it anywhere. There is no 'where' we are going to see it.The fool says in his heart there is no God.Because if you can't see God crucified you ain't gonna see him anywhere.
When Jesus hanging on the cross says "it is fulfilled" it doesn't mean simply that it is the end of the story. It means that it is the total accomplishment of everything. Everything now is done. Nothing more can be done.
……………………………………………………….
(from sermon by Fr. T. H. on "The Cross") Post Edited (rj1) : 12/12/2005 12:58:52 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/12/2005 2:58 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. Starkman, Corey, Tom? Can I post a link? (MP3 online talk -- P.H. Reardon)
While some point out the theory that Hell is "a prison locked from the inside" (God's love being intolerable to those who do not recieve it)... Others say that God gives hell because it is wanted (by those who would prefer to be away--by degrees--from God's presence). C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce perhaps draws from both of these. The PM3 is of the later.
Both of these have some things in common. In both man is part of the problem. And in both God's love is involved. 2. Being clear, I don't know these things, and have no way of knowing... 3. "God's wrath" can be identified, linguistically, as God's military zeal. In this view of present and past wrath and love are two sides of the same coin, except WE are a contingent element, and very much so God is free to do whatever and whenever God wants. The OT shows that we and our views are not in charge -- God is to out eyes merciful when God chooses and wrathful when he chooses. Its beyond our understanding. Similarly, God is never the God of only one place or of one people. Our fences do not contain God. God is ever surprising. And ever sovereign. Post Edited (rj1) : 12/12/2005 2:04:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 705 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:09 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|