quote:

---

It is necessary, however, to distinguish between eternal and everlasting. Eternity as a quality of divine life cannot be attributed to a being which is condemned and separated from divine life. Where the divine love ends, being ends; condemnation can only meant that the creature is left to the nonbeing it has chosen....If, however, one speaks of everlasting or endless condemnation, one affirms a temporal duration which is not temporal. Such a concept is contradictory by nature.

---

quote:

---

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

---

I’m writing a paper on this very thing (It is 41 days and 6 hours late). The cross is proving hazardous to the health of my metaphysic… Oh well, I suck at metaphysics anyway. I would love to talk to you about this sometime, Meph—Later! pia

p.s. In spite of my sunny disposition, I do not find humanism persuasive at all. Good people nailed Jesus to the cross. The process metaphysic has been employed by humanists and empiricists (perspectives I don’t find particularly relational), but if I hang on to it, I plan to do so misanthropically.

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Peace to the one who wrote and to the one who reads and to those who love the Lord in simplicity of heart.” § Melito of Sardis

Edited by - pia†desideria on 01/28/2002 11:36:38 AM

quote:

---

Equally if not more important in undermining coherent thought about God's providence in our time, however, have been the collective experiences that have thrust us into the postmodern era. Perhaps it is enough to say that for millions of people, the God of modern theology began to die in the gas-filled trenches and bloody battlefields of World War I and was radically called into question by the Holocaust.

---

Going further down:

quote:

---

It is important to ask, "Who is the God who is dying in late modernity?" What visions of God's presence and activit in history no longer seem credible or important? This is a highly complex question, and one cannot begin to address adequately here. But it seems clear that for many the dying God includes at least the following:

*the God who symbolized the hope and assurance of inevitable human progress;

*the impassible, sovereign God of classical theism, with His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence;

*the God tied to a shaming doctrine of the Fall, in which humans are destined to inevitable sin, due to the disobedience of Adam and Eve, an yet held responsible for that sin;

*the moralistic God whose chief role lay in the reinforcement of the commands of parental superegos;

*the God who legitimated the collusion between thrones and altars and blessed the accompanying patterns of economic power and social class systems, in the variety of monarchical, socialist-democratic, or capitalist-democratic forms;

*the God with the 'invisible hand' who could be counted on to manage everything benignly, from the 'free market economy' and the avoidance of nuclear war, to the preservation and healing of nature.

*the God of nationalistic doctrines of 'manifest destiny' and world imperialism

*the God of the gospel of wealth; and

*the male gendered God.

---

I think that he's dead on. And he's not the only person talking like this, as you probably know. And not surprisingly, the idea of God as any type of "Lord", "King" or anything like that is kicked out of the mix. The view of God Fowler paints later is basically the type that I had described above. As he would put it, religions are expressions under the broad umbrella of the HUMAN vocation. God is the big creative unity in diversity/source of unconditional love in the sky. That's about it.

___________________________________________

I still believe this today, to be honest.




Edited by - mephi2K on 01/28/2002 10:41:28 AM

quote:

---

Miss E, I want to thank you for being SO REAL with this.

---

Thanks Meph. I appreciate that you noticed!

quote:

---

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.

---

Just to reprint this verse:

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.

Okay...here's some thoughts...

1. Revelation is a book of the Bible that MANY scholars do not advice we read literally, nor do I believe it was meant to be. It is a specific type of genre called "apocalyptic literature"...the western world has no known equivalent. I believe the POINT of these texts was to comfort and encourage Christians who lived in difficult times under persecution...to know that God will ultimately triumph over sin and evil.

Revelation is highly SYMBOLLIC throughout. It is filled with numbers, strange beasts, and countless "unkown" references...things none of us can decipher or understand with any certainty.

Revelation was likely written under the persecution of Emperor Domitian and the author purposely couches his teaching in mysterious figures and extraordinary metaphors to prevent further persecution. To think that we, as modern Christians, can pick this book up and read it literally and apply DOCTRINES of our faith from it, seems at best, ridiculous.

2. If I were to take this verse as a literal doctrine of the faith, I stil have a number of observations to make. This verse speaks solely of the "false prophet" (who appears to be some kind of demon-man anti-Christ), the "beast" (another demonic creature who "ascended from the bottomless pit"!?), and Satan himself. My version of Universalism does not teach that Satan and his demons themselves will be saved. God seems to deal with angels differently than humans. The verse DOES NOT explicitly say that humans will meet such a fate.

And how the false prophet, beast, and Satan differ or are the same is an interesting question....is this some kind of Satanic Trinity!?? Hmmmm.....

And while we're at it, what's the difference between "Death," "Hades," and the "Lake of Fire"? Hades looks like some kind of "nasty spiritul holding place"... I wonder if we could get a doctrine of Purgatory from that!!

Hey, would could formulate all sorts of doctrines from this book!!

Wait...what am I saying? Roman Catholics get the doctrine of Mary's Assumption and Coronation as the Queen of Heaven from Revelation...it's right there folks...read it for yourself! (Rev. 12:1-17).



Okay...I'm just pointing out the problem of formulating doctrine from Revelation. It's ALL speculative.

quote:

---

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.

---

1. Jesus' parable of Lazurus and Abraham poses NO CHALLENGE to my view of Universalism. I interpret it to mean that while people are in the temporary state of "hell"....they suffer and apparently it's separated by a chasm from heaven that other -people- can't croos.

2. Matt. 25:46: The word here used is again, "aionios," also, this story is in the context of Jesus' parables which seem to lend themselves to gaining the "spirit of truth" rather than explicit doctrines. Additionally, this verse sits there rather conspicously at the end of the story...it seems quite plausibly a scribe's "add on commentary" as a conclusion to such a story. I believe...correct me if I'm wrong, that this chapter of Matthew is the ONLY place where refers to any type of "eternal punishment" in the Gospels.

However...

Here's the thing...people play "Bible war" with these texts and doctrines. And I don't believe we can ABSOLUTELY prove one teaching over another when there's such variety in Scripture itself....the verses seem to contradict one another. I don't find the texts used for "eternal punishment" to be clearly doctrinal...whereas the verses which are "Universalist" are pivotal and are clearly doctrinal in their context. I find the overall "position" of Scripture to be Universalist in tone. But then again, I hold to Universalism for a variety of reasons.

Thanks for the dialogue!

-----------------------------------------

Maybe I'll respond to your "one world religion" fears in another thread...I think I'm still a bit baffled by it.

Peace,
Miss E

Edited by - Empiress on 01/29/2002 12:28:37 AM

quote:

---

Back to the subject of universalism, if I was a God I would not allow a culture or societies morals (which affect the morals of the people within those societies) to affect my judgement of the people within in, all judgement would have to be considerate to their circumstances.

---

quote:

---

As a result of our "unclear" perception (no-one is perfect), we cannot see reality completely clearly, there are always things we don't know. I don't see how these things-we-don't-know can be allowed to be our downfall; therefore an all-loving God will show us the things we do not know: He will show us truth and reality after we die if we are missing the knowledge that is required for us to accept God.

I think.

---

quote:

---

My experience of God is one of LIMITLESS love who would not create creatures only to see them later suffer forever or be annhialated. I believe God WILL win the TOTAL victory, not a PARTIAL victory in which only "some" are reconciled to God...that is the God of my experience.

---

My dear, how could you only extend this logic to HUMANS and not angelic beings? How could someone who is so adamant about God's total victory, put up with ANY type of dualism where eternal suffering of any type takes place? Just wondering.

________________________________

Just my opinion, but I find your take unpersuasive (just as you probably think mine) As amazing as it may sound, I AGREE with Doc in that, biblically speaking, it seems that annihilationism is much more viable than universalism. It doesn't cease to amaze me how universalists will talk about the "clear" nature of the "all" texts, but someone don't see the clarity of the PARALLEL uses of aionas for LIFE and PUNISHMENT. I think you far too easily dismiss Mat 25:46 and it's implications.



You say:

quote:

---

Here's the thing...people play "Bible war" with these texts and doctrines. And I don't believe we can ABSOLUTELY prove one teaching over another when there's such variety in Scripture itself....the verses seem to contradict one another.

---

I would agree. And this is where understanding of BIASES, presuppositions, and moral dispositions come into play. Big time.



You said:

quote:

---

Maybe I'll respond to your "one world religion" fears in another thread...I think I'm still a bit baffled by it.

---

If you need me to explain anything, I will


Love ya,


Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

The main point that I wanted to bring out is that that section of Revelations seems to indicate an ETERNAL DUALISM between evil and good where the evil is judged and punished and the good is eternally rewarded.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry and I hope you guys are tough because, as I said in my introduction, I've got HUGE issues with the Church which will come out here...and a lot of these doctrines feed right into the ugliness I've seen in the Church. My frustration is not aimed at any of you as individuals as I respond to these threads, but it is a board from which to spring my thoughts.

Don't take it personally. Be strong. Don't get offended. And...let's none of us take ourselves too seriously in all this. We're all blind men trying to feel up an elephant. This is as much a reminder for myself than anyone.

---

Check it, boo. I think we've got some thick-skinned people here. Personally, I'd rather someone speak forcefully and unpretentiously, than to try to be so accommodating that they are not being real. You cool with me.

and about what you said here:

quote:

---

Basically, it all comes down to this for me:

I'd rather die having hoped too much in LOVE, then live having hoped too little.

Me personally, I'm just trying to survive and hoping God is REALLY merciful. If not, I'm screwed...and I mean REALLY screwed.

---

I'm of this mind. Every tub has to sit on its own bottom, as it were. And I think people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Because in the end, everyone's gonna have to ante up for their decisions. I've come to this conclusion. Bottom line: there are just some people who NEED a certain view of God to get by. They couldn't be theists if they didn't. If they were to lose their view of God, to call them disappointed would be an understatement. For those people, I say "do yer thing" Cause THEY have to live with that, not me. Perhaps I'm more existentialist along those lines. I have my beliefs and I'm willing to deal with the consequences of them, both now AND post-mortem. Wherever I'm wrong, I'll face up to it. Just like everyone else. I have enough faith in reality to believe that everyone will get what's coming to them. So why worry?

Now, granted, I sometimes wish that people were more rational, exhaustive and consistent with their thinking, but hey, we are dealing with HUMAN BEINGS. Moreover, it's possible for people of good faith and intelligence to come to opposite positions using some of the same information. So epistemological humility is always a must.


Again, everything's cool.



PS: I don't particularly like feelin up elephants. Skin's too rough and they stink. Hehe.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

We're all blind men trying to feel up an elephant.

---

I giggled a little and thought, that's probably not what you mean to say...
But when Mephi said this:

quote:

---

PS: I don't particularly like feelin up elephants. Skin's too rough and they stink. Hehe.

---

I laughed so hard that I cried. And then I laughed some more. I missed quite a bit of the President's speech as a result. Maybe I need to get out more, but that was REALLY funny!!!

Anyway, great thread. I've found your arguments on Universalism very persuasive, although I still wonder if people might choose to turn away from God. I mean, we know what people did when they met God incarnate: they crucified him.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard