 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Universalism: An Explanation and Justification | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/29/2002 5:10 PM (GMT -6) |   |
quote:
Empiress said: We're all blind men trying to feel up an elephant.
Semeia said: I giggled a little and thought, that's probably not what you mean to say...
*blushes*
Umm...errrr...yeah, I meant to say something a little less "friendly."
*finally gets Mephi's comment*
*giggles*
~Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/29/2002 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | "We're all blind men trying to feel up an elephant"
It's a quote from somewhere about how we can never find the whole truth, we can each only "feel" part of it.
I agree; our minds and brains are not capable of learning the whole truth, our very senses and thought processes do not allow it. Each of us specializes in the knowledge we each know, and we try to form world views from that.
As long we admit and know that we don't know everything - not even about ourselves - then we can hope to limit this.
A blind man feeling up an elephent is foolish if he judges all of reality by the small part he feels: But if he knows that the truth of the matter is much bigger than he is, then at least he's thinking in the right direction and will make less severe errors.
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/30/2002 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | These are some miscellaneous ramblings about problems I see CONSTANTLY occurring in the Church (and all religions that hold such beliefs) arising out of the concept that we are "redeemed and headed for eternal bliss" whilst others are "lost and headed for eternal punishment." (I see the remedy as Universalism.)
Problems that arise from anti-Universalist ideology:
1. It creates an "us" and "them" mentality, an "insider" vs. "outsider" mentality. We find ourselves always dividing ourselves from those who are inside and outside the "walls"....we see ourselves in competition, and this competition, if Revelation is at all accurate, is very "REAL" and will culminate in a huge war. It is divisive to the most ultimate extreme.
In Gnosticism the "insiders" and "outsiders" were determined by who had particular "knowledge." In modern day Christianity it is determined by those who "accept" our beliefs and those who don't. Even if we don't know who ultimately will or won't accept, people are not "on our side" until they do.
2. It creates a sense of pride and elitism. The "redeemed" are in a special category...they alone are "saved." And unfortunately, some kind of judgment and decision must be made to explain why they are saved and others aren't.
We are either: On our way to a blissful heaven and reunion with God, or on our way to eternal punishment and separation from God! This is a HUGE difference in destination! How do we explain this?
Why are we saved and other's lost? What is your answer?
Is it because:
1. God chose us and not them?
2. We are more "moral" or "good'?
3. We are more obedient or submissive?
4. God loves us more and tried harder with us?
5. Our 'free wills' are somehow more "pure," malleable, or aligned with God's?
6. We're more receptive to grace, love, etc.?
And notice that no matter how we answer...we are somehow, in some way, SUPERIOR, better, etc., even if we say it's a "mystery." Even if we try consciously to resist such an idea, subconsciously this concept creeps in. How can it not!? This feeds the egos of Christians and all religious "elite."
3. It leads to de-humanization. In the book of Revelation Christians are competing on the side of "righteousness" and others on the side of "evil." Christians see themselves on the "winning and good team" over and against others. But how do we deal with the fact that millions of people are going to be killed and "burn forever"? If we take each life seriously and see it as precious and sacred, it is overwhelming!! As a solution, we DE-HUMANIZE people.
This is what occurs historically with members of the first world looking at members of the third world. People cannot effectively endure and accept the travesties, devastation of famine, and natural disasters that occur in the third world...they find it too overwhelming. Historically the remedy is that we de-humanize them...it is a subconscious reaction. This helps us "cope" but in the end, everyone loses because once people are de-humanized, they are exploited! The same thing happens with those of other races in racism and it occurs in sexism, etc. The ultimate example of de-humanization is the holocaust. But how can we avoid de-humanizing the "lost" when in the end, we see the "lost" ultimately as "fodder for the eternal fire"!??
I assert that anti-Universalist ideas encourage de-humanization to radical degrees. And I see it done all the time in the Church. If you want examples, I can provide many.
4. The idea of being "eternally damned" or "lost" causes Christians to be totally pre-occupied with FEAR throughout their lives and to keep major DISTANCE in their relationships with unbelievers. What happens in religious families when a child rejects their parent's faith? The parents either spend their lives trying to convince the child to convert and live in fear, or they have to emotionally distance themselves from their child to help "ease" their pain. I see many Christian parents "disown" their children after a certain point out of desperation.
The same thing happens in friendships. One of the main reasons Christians stay inside their Christian ghettos is because they don't want to get too close to someone who will only end up "dead" or "lost" for eternity. Why risk deep love with the unsaved? What if all of your efforts to convert them are not fruitful? Can you REALLY keep loving them? It's very painful, that's why most Christians won't do it. Just as people naturally avoid getting involved intimately with the terminally ill, Christians don't get too 'close' to the 'lost.' You want proof? Just look at your churches! Talk to the majority of Christians...who are they are close to? Christians surround and insulate themselves with fellow Christians, rarely going outside those walls except to "evangelize."
How many of us have had friends who were "unsaved" and we felt tortured and continually fearful over their eternal destination? I recall crying every night for weeks for some of my friends as a child! What is the solution? I've seen it occur hundreds of times. Initially the Christian tries their darndest to convert their "lost" friend. When attempts fail, they eventually "give up" and distance themselves...either that or the friend leaves first feeling hurt. It's VERY hard to be friends with Christians because there are ALWAYS strings attached.
Do you honestly think God desires that we live in such fear? How can we avoid it? Apathy? Emotional distancing? Is that what Jesus calls us to?
And this fear carries over into puritanical ideals. If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard, "do not be yoked with unbelievers" or told that I would be somehow stained or sullied by non-believers, I'd be rich! It's no coincidence that non-believers have a hard time feeling accepted by Christians. Christians look at unbelievers as having the potential to "taint" them...like a disease....maybe even the power to lead them down the path of eternal destruction. No wonder they keep their distance!!!
Here's a question: If you had a longtime friend who converted to be a conservative Muslim and then wanted you to convert to their religion because they lived in constant fear that you would go to hell if you didn't, could you honestly still be their friend? Could you confide in them? Could you feel safe and trusting and open? What would that do to your friendship?
What does this mentality do? And how we can we ever effectively love and minister to people when we carry all this baggage both consciously and unconsciously??
Now...people will want to disagree with me and call for "exceptions" to the rule. (And some may happily agree!) Granted there are exceptions. But for every person who says that "Universalism leads to apathy" or some other negative effect, I posit that anti-Universalism leads to far greater evils...and we need not look past our own backyards to see that this is the case.
Just throwing out my thoughts for others to think about if they want....
~Miss E
Edited by - Empiress on 01/30/2002 5:34:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 1/30/2002 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Miss E: you truly may be right about anti-universalism, but I am more interested in whether a thing is true, rather than what the results of a belief might be. If the belief is true, then a person needs to work to correct the misperceptions of that belief. I do not know the mind of God, but I do know how to live because scripture tells us how to live. Should there be an element of fear in our preaching of the gospel? But of course. Fear can be healthy, for instance, one should fear an electric wire flapping near a person. By the same token, one should fear death, if one is not prepared for it. I think, many times, fear gets a bad rap. Regardless, a belief needs to be weighed first by the truth of it. All beliefs have people who misuse them. That, alone, does not prove it is a wrong belief.
Finally, a person who is "lost" and knows the truth, in my opinion, should be preoccupied with the fear of going to hell. I have no problem with that. If Hell is true and one is not right with God, one should truly fear going there.
Actually, my standpoint I have seen hell do the opposite of everything you have stated. It has made people who would never give another person the time of day love them more. It has caused people to serve their family in a loving way, it has made those around them MORE human not less and has caused many of my friends to thank God for the precious gift of life, knowing where they had been destined. I guess we each have our experiences, but, by and large, I have not seen the effects that you have. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/30/2002 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Writerdad said:
quote:
Miss E: you truly may be right about anti-universalism, but I am more interested in whether a thing is true, rather than what the results of a belief might be.
Yes, I agree, we ought to be primarily concerned with whether a belief is true or not. And I have tried to show why I believe Universalism to be true at the beginning of my thread.
But what I am trying to do here is show the pitfalls (that seem unavoidable), in this line of thinking. It seems ideas should be critiqued, at least in part, by what type of fruit they ultimately bear. If a belief leads to sin and evil perpetually, does that not give us a reason to question it and analyze it further?
I'm asking us to look at the results our beliefs have as a alternative way to analyze our beliefs.
Thanks for your input, I appreciate it.
Peace,
Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/30/2002 7:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Excellent post, Empiress (your long one), I am impressed!
It seems arguing for Universalism is Empiress' and I's common ground, then :-)
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/31/2002 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a thought, milady. You know that a good portion of your problems could arise (and seemingly HAVE ARISEN) from the very idea of being an ELECT people! Think about the Sons of Israel who knew of their heritage. Think about the Jewish religious leaders who were around in Jesus' day? All of your potential problems could have occured. BUT DID THAT CHANGE THE FACT OF THEIR ELECTION? Given Scripture, I would think not.
What's my point? Partly that just that outlining the potential problems of a belief doesn't state the fact of the matter about it's veracity (Writerdad already said something along these lines) And partly that in recognizing the potential pitfalls of a belief, we should NOT throw the baby out with the bath water. Unless we are going to take a significantly PRAGMATIC approach to religious belief, where theological worldview are judged on how much their applications can benefit the current world order (David Ray Griffin is UNASHAMEDLY in this vein of thought), what needs to happen is that we should honestly FACE the potential pitfalls and do our best to correct them or adjust for them WITHOUT compromising the belief. Indeed, we can use the outcomes of a certain belief to question said belief...BUT if we come to the conclusion that the belief is a NON-NEGOTIABLE, then remedy rather than REMOVAL is the key.
Thanks,
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 1/31/2002 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Miss E: I understand where you are coming from and I respect that. I emphasize with the universalism perspective and, must admit, that many times it is hard to believe in the concept of hell, let alone reconcil it with a loving God.
But, from my perspective the Bible does teach the concept and,as such, I do trust God and his grace to be just and righteous in this area. I think Lewis, in The Great Divorce, give a good picture of how I feel hell will be. I would like to add that I want to thank each of you for the excellant discussion. I have learned much from all of you. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/1/2002 9:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi said:
quote:
You know that a good portion of your problems could arise (and seemingly HAVE ARISEN) from the very idea of being an ELECT people!
I disagree. I think free will opens up a much greater can of worms because it leaves even more room for PRIDE. People are not merely "chosen" out of grace, but because they've DONE SOMETHING that other's haven't done. Granted, I think both have their own set of problems.
quote:
What's my point? Partly that just that outlining the potential problems of a belief doesn't state the fact of the matter about it's veracity (Writerdad already said something along these lines)
First, I agree that merely outlining potential problems of belief does not disprove the truth of a belief. I'm asking however, when a belief seems to continually lead to such pitfalls, isn't it encumbent upon us to critique such a belief and seriously question it? I'm simply raising other issues. People feel free to attack Universalism using such methods of argumentation; I'm turning the tables and asking people to consider the other side. I think it's something we MUST look at! Should we not examine the fruits of our beliefs?!
quote:
And partly that in recognizing the potential pitfalls of a belief, we should NOT throw the baby out with the bath water. Unless we are going to take a significantly PRAGMATIC approach to religious belief
I'm actually advocating the OPPOSITE. My argument is not one MERELY of pragmatism...my main issue is the fact that belief in a place of "eternal torment" does not square witht the concept of an "all loving God." The very heart of our conception of God, our deepest theology is at stake here!
Peace,
Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/3/2002 2:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I am sympathetic to your universalistic wishes, Empiress, but I honestly cannot see the grounds for arguing for it on the basis that God is all loving.
If God can't be assured of getting his way NOW with people, on what basis do you arrive at the conviction that he certainly will get his way LATER? Does it seem apparent to you that the longer a person resists God, the LESS likely it is that they will continue to resist God? Doesn't experience teach us the opposite? Didn't Christ teach the opposite (e.g. Lazerus in Lk 16)? If God lets people go their own way now, why think he won't later?
I can see how one would argue that God should eventually put people who will not open up to him out of their misery (annihilationism). But I honestly can't see the confidence that all people (and rebell spirits) will eventually open up to him as anything more than wishful thinking.
Its not about God's love. Its about the will of created beings.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 2/3/2002 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't believe God can create a living being that is destined (due it's own personality, character and essence) to fail to see "the truth" and therefore accept God.
Free will isn't the issue; the will that we feel to accept God is the issue. If we are born with a will to reject God then it's no more an issue of free will than if we were born with an ability to see God.
If God is the truth, then people will know that when they see it. If people are born with a nature that fails to see this, it must be only temporary (whilst alive); it doesn't possible a loving god (or even a good parent) would ever _let_ their children make a choice that condemns them to hell (or any equivalent). It is more moral to stop them (forcefully, if needed) from making that choice; assuming God cannot, for some reason, create us with an ability to see truth after our lives, if not during them.
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2002 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Vexen, I only read this last post of your 1-1/2 times. But I can't disagree with anything I read. Actually I'd agree energetically.
You DID try to put God on trial with your last paragraph. But that is fair; if you are fair.
Christianity knows mankind to be created in God's image. That image remains true even after the "fall." But that image is obscured--like dirt on a mirror, or like flexing a metal mirror to distort the reflection into something different. But the image remains. But the "likeness", or the reflection of God in us and out for all to see is another part of the issue.
But as to the matter of "anthropology", it sounded like you got it right. Please, I'll invite you to read an essay called:ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL. See where John Romanides goes with it!
quote:
ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Fallen Creation
2. The Justice of God and Law
3. The Destiny of Man and Anthropology
...a...The Destiny of Man
...b...Anthropology of St. Paul
....Synthetic Observations
....Concluding Remarks
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/3/2002 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Vexen: I don't believe God can create a living being that is destined (due it's own personality, character and essence) to fail to see "the truth" and therefore accept God.
Doc: Well, he COULD. But I don't see any reason to think he does.
Vexen: Free will isn't the issue; the will that we feel to accept God is the issue.
Doc: Is there a choice in the matter?
Vexen: If we are born with a will to reject God then it's no more an issue of free will than if we were born with an ability to see God.
Doc: Agree. But, Calvinist aside, who hodls that anyone is BORN with "a will to reject God." What we are rather saying is that people are born with a will that CAN accept OR reject God... the will is free.
Vexen: If God is the truth, then people will know that when they see it.
Doc: Why think this, Vexen? Doesn't you're own experience tell you that people often DON'T accept truth when they see it?
Vexen: If people are born with a nature that fails to see this, it must be only temporary (whilst alive);
Doc: No one on this born is saying anyone "fails to see" truth because of a nature their born with. Unless you believe people are determined, you can't exhaustively explain their behavior by appealing to the natures they're born with.
Vexen: it doesn't [seem?] possible a loving god (or even a good parent) would ever _let_ their children make a choice that condemns them to hell (or any equivalent).
Doc: Sometimes reality collides with our presuppositions. I have more reasons to think that Jesus is the Son of God and is right about this than that any of our presuppositions about what a loving God would or would not do are correct. But this aside, parents bring children into the world knowing that, given their freedom, they may do terrible terrible things. Why think things are entirely different with God?
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/4/2002 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | So is Universalism a strange form of determinism? No matter how hard I reject God's will, and no matter my intent, in the end I end up with God for eternity? I could see this if annihilism was thrown into the argument, but for a universalist, annihilism isnt an option. For most Christians it isnt either. So is universalism a form of determinism just with a seemingly happier ending for everyone?
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 2/4/2002 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | I cannot possibly speak on behalf of Christians; but the way I see it is that Universalism and Annihilation would still upkeep free will, so it seems a valid belief to me; but it is not strictly "Universalism", so I call this "Christian Universalism" for want of a better term.
I think if a persons chooses an eternity of suffering, then it is much more moral for God to step in, ovverride their choice, show them they were wrong, and if necessary change their character (as little as possible?) so that they don't choose that. Free will just doesn't seem to cut it when compared to an eternity of suffering.
A good parent *will* override their child, if they have patience and resolve, if they make the gravest possible choices; one that results in death, effectively.
Vexen: If God is the truth, then people will know that when they see it.
Doc
"Doesn't your own experience tell you that people often DON'T accept truth when they see it?"
Very much so, more than anything else people often reject the truth because it doesn't accord with what they already believe. People tend to browse philosophers, religions and science books endlessly looking for things to reaffirm what they already believe, choosing quotes and passages to note for later, but not ever actually looking for the truth.
I believe that without doubt, any knowledge is self destructive; without constantly reminding yourself that you do not know for sure what is true you're basically as insane as... well, everyone else!
Likewise, I doubt that a Loving God can refrain from carring someone at their hardest points in life; and even more so, when that point in life is when they are making a decision that affects their eternal destiny. In fact, that would seem to be the most compelling moment for God to step in.
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 2/4/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | This thread is much more accesible to me than the "Mephi2k shares his heart" thread... it's evolved into a thread where both groups of people are digging up and quoting and arguing over large amounts of things quoted from the Bible, and involving historical and Christian traditions that are way above my level of knowledge! Some of the words, references and terminology are so seemingly random!
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/5/2002 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said:
quote:
If God can't be assured of getting his way NOW with people, on what basis do you arrive at the conviction that he certainly will get his way LATER?
Because God has the power to soften the hardest of hearts...eventually, although it may take a lot of time and persuasion, people will "choose" God. I think it's a default aspect of creation that all will choose God...so in that sense, we're ultimately "determined" even though we exercise free will otherwise. Just as God has determined some events in history regardless of human will, so God has determined the "universal salvation of all" event.
Doc said: quote:
Does it seem apparent to you that the longer a person resists God, the LESS likely it is that they will continue to resist God? Doesn't experience teach us the opposite? Didn't Christ teach the opposite (e.g. Lazerus in Lk 16)?
I think the passage in Luke 16 teaches the OPPOSITE of your position! My take on it: The rich man, who is suffering in a (temporary) state of hell due to the evil he committed on earth is already crying for mercy and regrets his decision and life. Now that he has seen and knows the truth, he hopes others will be spared such a fate and change their mind as he has, before death. The problem is, as Abraham explains, they won't be convinced till after death, just like him.
quote:
I can see how one would argue that God should eventually put people who will not open up to him out of their misery (annihilationism). But I honestly can't see the confidence that all people (and rebell spirits) will eventually open up to him as anything more than wishful thinking.
Annihilationism is the only anit-universalist concept I could accept...but I tend to choose to trust in God's power, grace, and love...and much less in the power of sin. I believe the love of God conquers ULTIMATELY. I do not think this is unbiblical of me, but surely some will call it 'wishful thinking' in the same way that some call heaven itself wishful thinking.
Kyle said: quote:
So is Universalism a strange form of determinism? No matter how hard I reject God's will, and no matter my intent, in the end I end up with God for eternity? I could see this if annihilism was thrown into the argument, but for a universalist, annihilism isnt an option. For most Christians it isnt either. So is universalism a form of determinism just with a seemingly happier ending for everyone?
There is a deterministic element to Universalism, yes. Free-will is not negated entirely, but just as some events are determined, so the ultimate redemption of all God's creation is determined. That doesn't mean that pain and suffering are removed however... hell and punishment still exist, they're simply temporary.
Peace,
Miss E
Edited by - Empiress on 02/05/2002 12:58:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/6/2002 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | I asked: If God can't be assured of getting his way NOW with people, on what basis do you arrive at the conviction that he certainly will get his way LATER?
Empiress: Because God has the power to soften the hardest of hearts...eventually, although it may take a lot of time and persuasion, people will "choose" God.
Doc: That is circular. Why think God has the power LATER when he clearly DOESN’T NOW?
Empiress: My take on [Lk 16]: The rich man, who is suffering in a (temporary) state of hell due to the evil he committed on earth is already crying for mercy and regrets his decision and life. Now that he has seen and knows the truth, he hopes others will be spared such a fate and change their mind as he has, before death.
Doc: If THAT is the point of the passage, why isn’t the man "saved"? Why is he still in torment? Why does "the gulf" between him and Abraham remain? Interestingly, the man doesn’t repent. He just complains.
Peace
Greg
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/6/2002 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Empiress: Because God has the power to soften the hardest of hearts...eventually, although it may take a lot of time and persuasion, people will "choose" God.
Doc: That is circular. Why think God has the power LATER when he clearly DOESN’T NOW?
I simply have to say it is because God has determined this to be the case. HOW that works is not entirely clear, but God is in the business of reconciling ALL OF CREATION to himself. I would in turn ask you: how does God have the power to determine ANY event?
quote:
Empiress: My take on [Lk 16]: The rich man, who is suffering in a (temporary) state of hell due to the evil he committed on earth is already crying for mercy and regrets his decision and life. Now that he has seen and knows the truth, he hopes others will be spared such a fate and change their mind as he has, before death.
Doc: If THAT is the point of the passage, why isn’t the man "saved"? Why is he still in torment? Why does "the gulf" between him and Abraham remain? Interestingly, the man doesn’t repent. He just complains.
I believe he is still in torment because he is actually suffering Divine retribution for his evil life. The text demonstrates clearly that he now sees the error of his ways...whether that constitutes repentance is another question.
The point of the passage: Get right with God before you die so you don't have to after death when it's much more difficult and painful!
Peace,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 02/06/2002 12:49:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 2/6/2002 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress said
"The point of the passage: Get right with God before you die so you don't have to after death when it's much more difficult and painful!"
Empiress opened this thread in her second full paragraph with:
"I actually believe in some form of "temporary hell" or "spiritual imprisonment" for those who, upon death, have thus far chosen separation from God. The doors are always open in hell and God continues to seek and persuade people, through persistent love, to accept God. There are likely trials and suffering (like earth but of a different type, ie of the soul, not physical) [... It] functions as the context for divine retribution to right the injustices committed on earth."
I didn't fully understand that opening statement, but now it is much clearer. Thought I'd tie those quotes in with each other.
If I believe in a good God, then I would still prefer an instant liberation upon death, an instant enlightenment that rights all the wrongs surrounding that person during their life. If I believe in the Christian god, though, I would most likely believe in this "temporary Hell" that I've just realized Empiress has been telling me about for quite some time!
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/6/2002 10:45 PM (GMT -6) | | The founder of Shin Buddhism, Shinran Shonen gave up his disciplines as a Buddhist monk to embrace "salvation by faith" in the Amida Buddha. It was said of him:
"He never consigned anyone to damnation simply because they did not agree with him. The only person he believed worthy of hell was himself as a passion-ridden being, totally incapable of the necessary purification for enlightenment."
I thought that fitting for this thread on so many levels.
Pax,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 9/13/2006 9:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
Mephi2K said...
An exegetical take for Miss E.
NIV Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Two things. First of all, this deals with TORMENT. The word used is from the Greek word "basanidzo", a word that deals with affliction, pain and torment. The "forever and ever" phrase is "eis tous aionas ton aionas" The lexicons that I consult tell me that whenever aionas is preceded by eis tous, the since of longetivity is INTENSIFIED, which leads it to mean ETERNAL or ALWAYS. Taken together, this passage seems to affirm that there were ETERNALLY be suffering and judgment going on, even after the Consummation.
Now, you may want to disagree with this saying that aionas only refers to a LONG TIME or an age. But here's something else.
NIV Revelation 22:1-5
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
No surprise what I'm going to say, right? The "for ever and ever" clause is EXACTLY the same as in Rev 20:10. Which seems to indicate that the terms are meaning the same thing, but in relation to different subjects. NOW, if you want to deny that God's servants will be with Him and reign with Him FOREVER, then you can also deny the eternality of the suffering going on. Otherwise, it seems that you may be stuck out, Miss E. Just maybe.
This is a SIGNIFICANT passage that, taken together with 1)Jesus' parable of Lazarus and Abraham and 2) Matt 25:46, CANNOT be ignored. If you can give a suitable answer for these, it would be very helpful.
Mephi2K, did Miss E ever give you a suitable answer?
inquiring minds want to know....
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night eis tous aionas ton aionon," (Rev. 20:10)
will God be honor and glory and dominion eis tous aionas ton aionon
Phil. 4:20, 1 Tim. 1:17, 2 Tim. 4:18, Heb. 13:21, 1 Peter 4:11, Rev. 1:6, Rev. 5:13, Rev. 7:12, Rev. 11:15, Rev. 22:5
will the Lamb live eis tous aionas ton aionon
Rev. 1:18, Rev. 4:9, Rev. 4:10, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 15:7
never say you're bitter, jack
bitter makes the worst things
come back
Post Edited (Laika) : 9/13/2006 10:00:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 9/13/2006 9:45 PM (GMT -6) | |
GregBoyd said...
I am sympathetic to your universalistic wishes, Empiress, but I honestly cannot see the grounds for arguing for it on the basis that God is all loving.
If God can't be assured of getting his way NOW with people, on what basis do you arrive at the conviction that he certainly will get his way LATER? Does it seem apparent to you that the longer a person resists God, the LESS likely it is that they will continue to resist God? Doesn't experience teach us the opposite? Didn't Christ teach the opposite (e.g. Lazerus in Lk 16)? If God lets people go their own way now, why think he won't later?
I can see how one would argue that God should eventually put people who will not open up to him out of their misery (annihilationism). But I honestly can't see the confidence that all people (and rebell spirits) will eventually open up to him as anything more than wishful thinking.
Its not about God's love. Its about the will of created beings.
It's not about God's love? He doesn't determine it? It's about people's free will..... hmm.
Evidently, free will is incompatible with universalism. Good call.
never say you're bitter, jack
bitter makes the worst things
come back
Post Edited (Laika) : 9/13/2006 9:55:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/13/2006 11:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Actually...from this thread...my own words...
------------------
Confession Time.
Truthfully, if I didn't believe in Jesus (and consequently, believe in the events of the Bible), I would be a universalist PROCESS THEIST in a heartbeat. Heck, LESS than a heartbeat. There was a chance where this may not have been the case...EXCEPT for Doc's reconstruction of Hartshorne's process view. I wouldn't have to postulate a TRINITY, just a MULTIPLICITY. Taken with those reconstructions, process theology is UTTERLY rational, benevolent, and existentially satisying. It can accept universalism well and give good importance to the fundamental truths seen in all religions. It leads to a thoroughly MELIORISTIC view, rather than the rampant utopianism of earlier liberal theology or the deteriorism and escapism of many Christians.
In short, I'd be the best friends of Suchoki, Cobb, and Griffin!
But "alas",
1) the acute PARTICULARITY Jesus amid the universality of the Christ Work
2) The truth of the Scriptures (along with the veracity of the speech and actions in those Scriptures)
3) the existence of angels and demons
...and these three things just will not allow me to be the good ol universalist process theist I could be.
-----------------------------------
Note well what some of my problems were.
1) How to reconcile the PARTICULARITY of Christ's work in this whole thing. (Solved by application of the Glorification Principle)
2) Scriptural validation (Solved by changes on biblical interpretations. Various reasons)
3) Angelic damnation (Solved by the "rock-bottom"/dispositional hardwiring idea)
So...uh...I guess I've followed my prediction. I'm a good ol trinitarian universalist process theist.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
| 52 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 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 |
|
|