POW: Yep, Tom, as long as we say one thing.

Tom: Indeed I do! Fancy that, a post on which you and I entirely agree! Wow.

Tom 

http://www.byzantines.net/liturgy/presanctified.htm

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/26/2006 5:54:04 PM (GMT-5)

Selah,

As much as I would like to believe Tom, I don’t find his statement holding much weight.  The major premise of Mephy’s goulash is God is love, his main ingredient is an emotional feeling he defines as love.  Check out the first five posts of the seven hundred a five posts exhausted here on this one thread: http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=10&m=60393    Pleading to emotion has been a ongoing motif in the UR argument.  The UR camp has written graphic pictures of suffering in hell and then uses implore tactics that feed on emotions and appeals to our compassionate Christian hearts. What’s most ironic is how some folks that pride themselves as being students of logic can let such logic cease when it comes to the UR topic and instead resort and rely predominantly on the emotion of what ever feels good must be good.

Granted, God wants us to feel good, but in the right context. Think about it, 99% of evil comes from what sentient beings thinks feels good, which Scripture calls "living in the flesh".  Children of God are called to "live in the Spirit". It is by living in the Spirit we can take every thought captive, then things of the flesh become good, feelings are good, bodily sensations are good.  This is the three fold Trichotomy view of the human Constitution I humbly live and die by. 

I know "D" doesn’t want you to consider all this, but if his rap is true, then what does he fear?  Perfect love cast out all fear. 

Goulash?

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

In the Spirit of our Triune God,

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/26/2006 11:15:31 PM (GMT-5)

Marcus Aurelius!

What are you up to dude? Come on! I didn’t think it was possible to laugh and cry at the same time but I came REEALLY close when reading your last post.

For all your supposed praise of logical consistency, it’s entirely illogical to dismiss the case for UR on the basis of its making an emotional appeal. Ah-a-a, now! If ALL we did was rant on about emotions while offering NO philosophical/theological case whatsoever, then you might have a point. But that’s not what we do. There are good reasons for at least hoping that UR is true that are not merely projections of how we “feel.”

Now, I will admit to having my emotions nearby on this issue. “Verily verily yay” (someone chanted!). Is this a fault? I hope not. Does it weaken the case for UR? I don’t see why it should. It looks like you’re arguing it does, but your argument that it does appears to be an equally emotional one!

I don’t friggin want to consider hell without feeling it every step of the way. Dang it, now, that’s the problem. We’re anesthetized. You’re arguing part of my case for me, Mark, namely, that to embrace ECT and live with it, you have to turn your emotions off. You have to sterilize yourself to live with ECT. How much sense does that make? Why couldn’t I argue an opposite line than you're arguing, say, that “ECT must be wrong because it requires us to anesthetize our affections? It can’t really be embraced by the WHOLE person”?

But--and this is important for me--by "emotions" I don't mean (as you seem to think) just the touchy-feely aspect of things detached from reason. We're trying to appeal to the fundamental intuitions about what's 'just' and 'beautiful' and most 'inspiring' and 'captivating' given the belief that God as love is the most just, most beautiful, most inspiring and captivating person around. Shouldn't that all figure into what a person's ultimate/eschatological end is? So even if what we believe at this point (for or against) has an emotional component to it, it's not emotional-ISM.

I say embrace what you believe on every level. And if you can’t embrace it on the emotional level, well, at least question yourself. But as for ECT, even our good friend Laika admits that’s OUT the window. Bye-bye ECT. Good riddance! And I can’t believe Laika just ‘felt’ his way into rejecting that. So we agree that its either annihilation or UR, right? Well, I agree with that much! But where Laika leans to the former, I lean to the latter. Big deal. At this point I don’t really care. What’s important is that ECT is gone.

Is the major premise of UR God’s love (as you said was the case with Mephi’s goulash)? Absolutely, unabashedly, unapologetically, friggin shouting it all the way—yes. What would you offer as a more fundamental premise? I’m all ears. Was John just being emotional when he said “God is love”? Hmm.

Mark, I asked if your encouragment to Selah implied that you thought we believed you guys really did rejoice over those in hell in some sick way. It looks to me from your last post as if you HAVE thought we believed this about you. I'm just wondering if your post is more a response to that underlying issue. But bro, we don't think people who are reflectively committed to ECT actually rejoice about those in hell.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/27/2006 10:23:56 AM (GMT-5)

Mr. Tumnus Aquinas,

Rewind…. back all the way up to ground zero.   Lets theorize, philosophize conceptualize, lets just pretend for a moment I’m your good friend Mr. Atheist.   You can’t prove god exists and I can’t prove god doesn’t exist, well at least not without coming short of permanently silencing you.  After a few black eyes we agree, we’ve established the truth of a Creator by the evidence of creation and now move on and establish the possibility of a personal living god, I’ve now become Mr. Agnostic.  On the outside everything appears relatively fine to me, I’m no worse then most folks, I believe I’m a pretty good person in comparison.  Every so often my insides flare out. Turning inside out we discover I’m really a confused man, full of despair and wickedness.  I turn inwards toward self, I toss my emotions around, full of anger and self-pride. I often over indulge I don’t like it, but I’m too lazy to change.   My friends have declined and I greed for more things to fill the emptiness.   I envy all my other friends, they believe in a love goddess that longs in my heart to be mine and I lust after such love.  For much of my life I’ve been saving the courage and money and finally in the autumn days of my life I’ve raised enough necessary to perform the operation. I’m at the doorstep, Mr. Tumnus, ready to die with my new identity Mrs. Asherah Pole.

Step in Tom, what do you do, what’s your plan?   Please tell me what distinguishes your god from all other mythical gods? 

K.I.S.S.

Mrs. Asherah Pole

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/29/2006 2:20:13 PM (GMT-5)

Mark-

I read your Tumnus thing. Honestly Bro, I haven’t got the slightest idea what it is you want from me. You want to know what I’d do? I’d continue to witness, share, and love people; hold up Christ and tell his story. What distinguishes God from their mythical gods? Well, I don’t mind offering an answer, but first I want to say that I don’t understand what this has to do with this thread. Where are you going with it? Why bring it up? We’re talking about whether fallen angelic beings can or ought to be included within the scope of UR. Most recently we’re wondering whether you suspect that Mephi and I really believe you ‘rejoice over those in hell’ and want to use this as a ploy to drag Selah guilt-ridden into believe in the ultimate reconciliation of fallen angelic beings. I think you’re convinced we believe you get some pleasure from contemplating the sufferings of those in hell. For the record, Mark, we don’t. Really I don’t. I think there are ‘some’ people in the world who do. So I think it happens, yeah. But from what I know about you I wouldn’t think you’re one of them!

I thought that’s where we were. So now I’m at a loss to explain this most recent post about Mr. Tumnus. Does it have something to do with whether or not our arguments favoring UR are ‘purely emotional’ (which you seem to think)? Perhaps you’re convinced they are and this Mr. Tumnus scenario is designed to demonstrate that? I don’t get it.

If you could clear it up and relate your pretended scenario to the issue at hand, I’d be happy to try to answer. I think we ought to seriously consider just what does make our belief in God different from belief in purely mythical gods, like Zeus, if its true that we cannot ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ God. But apart from my interest in the subject, what’s it got to do with this thread?

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

Tom: Is the major premise of UR God’s love? Absolutely… What would you offer as a more fundamental premise? I’m all ears. Was John just being emotional when he said “God is love”?

Mark: In another John is the first premise and in one John is the conclusion.

Tom: I don’t understand. I mean, I can’t make heads or tails of your answer. In “another John” is the first premise? In “one John” is the conclusion? I’m completely lost.

I thought my question was pretty simple. You criticize UR for adopting as its most fundamental premise the belief that God is love, as if making it fundamental to anything is some kind of emotionalism. I agree ‘God is love’ is our fundamental premise, and I’m surprise you criticize such a premise. ‘God is love’ is clearly a biblical truth. It’s clearly not pure emotionalism (unless John was being purely emotional when he said it). And I can’t think of any more appropriate basis upon which to proceed with anything we want to say about God than ‘God is love’. But there might be good evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that “God is love” isn’t fundamental. That there’s another “God is ______” sort of claim in the Bible that’s more fundamental.

I’m all ears, Mark. If not ‘God is love’, then what would you suggest we adopt as the fundamental premise about God?

Tom

Tom,

As you know, I ‘m only a few blocks away from you and I offer to share all I have.  My food, my drink whatever you ask, I’m there for you and your family.  But, there are something’s I cannot give, for I’m not the giver of such things. I can only help you find what is not mine to give.

Are you familiar with the story, in what state is David’s theology?  Good or Bad?

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/30/2006 1:02:36 PM (GMT-5)

Selah,

What do you think about this, does Scripture communicate anything to you?

Shalom,

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 10/2/2006 12:30:10 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 10/4/2006 10:46:06 AM (GMT-5)

Tom,

Through your patience you have hit on the one unique intrinsic ingredient, the first premises of salvation through Christ. Yes, the one thing that distinguishes Christianity from the many fleeting mythological cosmic love genies.