Why Easter is s...

245678

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    ... There are millions and millions of people who reject Christ, theology and any concept of an afterlife - yet are selfless, giving people and always put others first. ...
    I can't say 'nobody' because I don't know everybody, but I think there is virtually nobody, whether believing or unbelieving who always puts others first, or, for that matter, is totally selfless and giving.

    Allowing for some poetic licence, the point still stands.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    ... There are millions and millions of people who reject Christ, theology and any concept of an afterlife - yet are selfless, giving people and always put others first. ...
    I can't say 'nobody' because I don't know everybody, but I think there is virtually nobody, whether believing or unbelieving who always puts others first, or, for that matter, is totally selfless and giving.

    Allowing for some poetic licence, the point still stands.

    But I think somebody like that would be highly unpleasant and unreal. It's human to be a little selfish, and somebody who denies that ain't no friend of mine. But yes, the point still stands.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    ... There are millions and millions of people who reject Christ, theology and any concept of an afterlife - yet are selfless, giving people and always put others first. ...
    I can't say 'nobody' because I don't know everybody, but I think there is virtually nobody, whether believing or unbelieving who always puts others first, or, for that matter, is totally selfless and giving.

    I can. Nobody. It's meaningless. Inhuman.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    When Boogie says 'always' it might mean that it seems to others that it is 'always' when it may be 'generally' which is still pretty good.
    I can't speak for all Christian communities, but I can say that the RC Church teaches that all are beloved children of God and will be welcomed into His kingdom, if they have tried (not necessarily with total success) to love what they see as God and love their neighbour. It is not necessary to have a knowledge or firm grasp or complete understanding of Christ and Christianity.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My parents and my grandparents never professed to be believers and neither have the vast majority of my friends. It would be very nice to believe in this universal salvation, but is it true ?

    Well, the alternative is you get to sit in Heaven knowing they're sweating it out in Hell, or at best have ceased to exist.

    Will it still be heaven if that's the case? Is heaven actually impossible if there's also a Hell?

    But that's allowing for the assumption that salvation, if not universal, depends on belief.

    Exactly @KarlLB, Luther's ignorant shadow is half a millennium long. Salvation has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with faithfulness: Jesus'.

    We can have no idea of what faithfulness is unless we have faith. "Seek first the kingdom of God" is qualified/defined by "... and His righteousness".

    If all are saved then why bother with sacrifice, giving and blessing in this life?
    Gratitude?

    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My parents and my grandparents never professed to be believers and neither have the vast majority of my friends. It would be very nice to believe in this universal salvation, but is it true ?

    Of course it's true. Or it's all bollocks. Or worse. God is an incompetent nasty bastard.

    I am impressed that you are certain of these things
    Why? Why wouldn't I know them? They're self evident. And the first is completely orthodox. You're no liberal but what astounds me is the vast majority of liberals here don't know these things, especially the first.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My parents and my grandparents never professed to be believers and neither have the vast majority of my friends. It would be very nice to believe in this universal salvation, but is it true ?

    Well, the alternative is you get to sit in Heaven knowing they're sweating it out in Hell, or at best have ceased to exist.

    Will it still be heaven if that's the case? Is heaven actually impossible if there's also a Hell?

    But that's allowing for the assumption that salvation, if not universal, depends on belief.
    Ceasing to exist would be my best bet as Jesus said that if you are not saved, you perish.

    You're all right then.
    I don't know anything for sure
    Is your best bet the result of a full phenomenological hermeneutic and transformation? And that Jesus was talking about the after life?
    I had to look this up and I still don't know what it means
    Aye, it takes a while. 66 years in my case. There are no shortcuts to losing smothering apostasy accumulated over 2000 years.
    Not understanding what you posted has nothing to do with losing any smothering apostasy accumulated over 2000 years. It’s about your continued reluctance to say things in plain English instead of stringing 10 cent words together.

  • To be fair, people who've come to really be inspired by the Jesus story will want to do good works. Except that this isn't the majority view nor majority behaviour.

    McChristianity is the ticket to heaven version. You've been saved, washed in the healing blood, slate clean etc, you've got the "Grace Guarantee". Which allows you to screw over your neighbour because all's forgiven in the end. Sure, you're not supposed to do that, but most do. The question we should really ask is not "is there life after death" for me but "is there life after birth" for others - our neighbours - whom allegedly Christian society tells us to love and be kind to, but isn't really at all.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My parents and my grandparents never professed to be believers and neither have the vast majority of my friends. It would be very nice to believe in this universal salvation, but is it true ?

    Of course it's true. Or it's all bollocks. Or worse. God is an incompetent nasty bastard.

    I am impressed that you are certain of these things
    Why? Why wouldn't I know them? They're self evident. And the first is completely orthodox. You're no liberal but what astounds me is the vast majority of liberals here don't know these things, especially the first.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My parents and my grandparents never professed to be believers and neither have the vast majority of my friends. It would be very nice to believe in this universal salvation, but is it true ?

    Well, the alternative is you get to sit in Heaven knowing they're sweating it out in Hell, or at best have ceased to exist.

    Will it still be heaven if that's the case? Is heaven actually impossible if there's also a Hell?

    But that's allowing for the assumption that salvation, if not universal, depends on belief.
    Ceasing to exist would be my best bet as Jesus said that if you are not saved, you perish.

    You're all right then.
    I don't know anything for sure
    Is your best bet the result of a full phenomenological hermeneutic and transformation? And that Jesus was talking about the after life?
    I had to look this up and I still don't know what it means
    Aye, it takes a while. 66 years in my case. There are no shortcuts to losing smothering apostasy accumulated over 2000 years.
    Not understanding what you posted has nothing to do with losing any smothering apostasy accumulated over 2000 years. It’s about your continued reluctance to say things in plain English instead of stringing 10 cent words together.

    OK Nick, just for you. Christianity became overwhelmingly apostatic - lost its way, over its institutionalization - you get the picture. Every cul-de-sac it could go down, it has. And it's stayed down many. Patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, fundamentalism, schism, fissiparity, placism, cultism, imperialism, colonialism, militarism, etcism, ad nauseamism. You know the drill. In all that helpless morass, underpinning it, are the failures of epistemology - how we know stuff, etymology - the truth of words, hermeneutics - interpretation (including translation), phenomenology - all of that and more resulting in self understanding.

    In all that it's got wrong and kept, down its fissiparous cul-de-sacs, the risible apostatic, anti-Christian (adjectival of anti-Christ) errors of Augustine and above all Luther are irreversible to such a degree that they are unquestionable.

    The plain truth of universal salvation is denied even here by liberals for a start and then it gets worse as you can see on this thread.

    It's that bad.
  • I think you ought to start your own church, Martin - how about 'the plain truth non-apostatic church of universal salvation'. There are one or two Caribbean / African (not sure which) outfits around here with longer titles, so you might need to lengthen it a bit for maximum impact.

    (Googling that word, I see that 'apostatic selection' is a thing. "It describes the survival of individual prey animals that are different from their species in a way that makes it more likely for them to be ignored by their predators." Sounds like a good thing in the corporate environment, to me).
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Every cul-de-sac it could go down, it has. And it's stayed down many. Patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, fundamentalism, schism, fissiparity, placism, cultism, imperialism, colonialism, militarism, etcism, ad nauseamism....

    ...and - you know what is wrong, what God is not, and you can list it. So your tag line could be

    'we turn the apostatic, into the apophatic' :thumbs up:
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The plain truth

    Uh-huh. Uh-oh.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The plain truth

    Uh-huh. Uh-oh.
    Indeed.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 6
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The plain truth

    Uh-huh. Uh-oh.
    Indeed.

    Ah well.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    @Arethosemyfeet said -
    If the threat of eternal damnation is all that prevents you from being the latter then you have bigger problems than theology.

    If it’s only the threat of damnation which causes you to care you need help.

    That's not what I said. Whoever is saved is not my choice but God's. I would say, though, that for all to be saved negates the message and work of the cross.

    I've never understood this. For all to be saved requires the cross. It doesn't negate it. It presupposes it.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well, the alternative is you get to sit in Heaven knowing they're sweating it out in Hell, or at best have ceased to exist.

    Will it still be heaven if that's the case? Is heaven actually impossible if there's also a Hell?

    Isn't there something in the gospels about Jesus only wanting those who are prepared to give up family for the sake of being with Him ?

    Anyone here done that? Anyone know anyone who's done that? How's it worked out? Being with Him?

    I believe convents and monasteries are where such folk may be found. Though humanity wouldn't have much of a future if everyone followed that path.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 7
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well, the alternative is you get to sit in Heaven knowing they're sweating it out in Hell, or at best have ceased to exist.

    Will it still be heaven if that's the case? Is heaven actually impossible if there's also a Hell?

    Isn't there something in the gospels about Jesus only wanting those who are prepared to give up family for the sake of being with Him ?

    Anyone here done that? Anyone know anyone who's done that? How's it worked out? Being with Him?

    I believe convents and monasteries are where such folk may be found. Though humanity wouldn't have much of a future if everyone followed that path.

    I watched the beautiful Outside the City last week. How I envy those old men and their delusions in paradise.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited April 8
    The Mauritanian is a remarkable movie, Martin54. One of the best I've seen for some time.

    I think it identified quite a few deserving goats myself. Like Rumsfeld for example. But Mohamedou Slahi seemed to be a lot more forgiving than me. An obvious sheep.

    Not sure what the movie does for the universal salvation case, however. But I do think it makes a very good case for neither second guessing God nor judging human books by their covers.

    A good job it's God's job to look on the heart. I wouldn't want it.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    It doesn't bear thinking about what God has to deal with in looking into us.
    I remember an Arthur C Clark story which postulated the end of humanity in forming a world-wide group shared mind. He really did not think about the implications of that.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved. If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved. If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?

    Do their own families want them to be in Hell?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved.
    Both of those are parables whose teaching application is addressed to this life. Their surface literal meaning is not their primary meaning. Nobody believes that the saved will first be transformed into agricultural livestock. They also neither of them mention the cross or salvation by faith.
    If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?
    Are you saying those people should not be saved if they come to Jesus in this life? If it's good for them to be saved if they come to Jesus in this life why is it unacceptable for them to come to Jesus in the next life?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved.
    Both of those are parables whose teaching application is addressed to this life. Their surface literal meaning is not their primary meaning. Nobody believes that the saved will first be transformed into agricultural livestock. They also neither of them mention the cross or salvation by faith.
    If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?
    Are you saying those people should not be saved if they come to Jesus in this life? If it's good for them to be saved if they come to Jesus in this life why is it unacceptable for them to come to Jesus in the next life?

    Is the real issue the old post modern concern that there is no "wrong?" Is it less a matter than being uncomfortable with people going to hell than telling someone they are wrong per se?
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited April 8
    Dafyd wrote: »
    If it's good for them to be saved if they come to Jesus in this life why is it unacceptable for them to come to Jesus in the next life?
    How do you "come" to Jesus in the next life if you don't in this?

    Corrected quote attribution. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved. If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?

    Do their own families want them to be in Hell?

    Probably not. Their families didn't commit the crimes/atrocities though.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved.
    Both of those are parables whose teaching application is addressed to this life. Their surface literal meaning is not their primary meaning. Nobody believes that the saved will first be transformed into agricultural livestock. They also neither of them mention the cross or salvation by faith.
    If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?
    Are you saying those people should not be saved if they come to Jesus in this life? If it's good for them to be saved if they come to Jesus in this life why is it unacceptable for them to come to Jesus in the next life?

    Is the real issue the old post modern concern that there is no "wrong?" Is it less a matter than being uncomfortable with people going to hell than telling someone they are wrong per se?

    No, not really. Hell's definitely the pain point (ha ha) for me. I have no problem with things being wrong. I could write lists of things that are wrong.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved. If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?

    Do their own families want them to be in Hell?

    It doesn't actually matter what anyone wants--well, except for the person concerned and God. My wants haven't really affected reality up to now, so why should they start with the afterlife?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited April 8
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved.
    Both of those are parables whose teaching application is addressed to this life. Their surface literal meaning is not their primary meaning. Nobody believes that the saved will first be transformed into agricultural livestock. They also neither of them mention the cross or salvation by faith.
    If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?
    Are you saying those people should not be saved if they come to Jesus in this life? If it's good for them to be saved if they come to Jesus in this life why is it unacceptable for them to come to Jesus in the next life?

    Is the real issue the old post modern concern that there is no "wrong?" Is it less a matter than being uncomfortable with people going to hell than telling someone they are wrong per se?

    Or is the real issue a vindictive need to see "those people" suffer? As St. Clive noted, Bulverism is a game both sides can play.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    If it's good for them to be saved if they come to Jesus in this life why is it unacceptable for them to come to Jesus in the next life?
    How do you "come" to Jesus in the next life if you don't in this?
    I have no reliable information on the next life to offer.
    However, if it is so different from this life as to make it impossible to come to Jesus in it, it's difficult to see how it can be called life even by analogy.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Is the real issue the old post modern concern that there is no "wrong?" Is it less a matter than being uncomfortable with people going to hell than telling someone they are wrong per se?
    I don't know where you get that from. You appear to have completely ignored what I said.
    The real issue is that we're told God doesn't want any sinner to perish, and that we're told not to be more vindictive than God. God gave his only Son to redeem the world: as Christian's we are supposed to see that as a good thing.

    It's also a longstanding principle that punishment should be proportional to the offence. Unending punishment is therefore in an entirely traditional sense wrong.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    The Rich Man and Lazerous indicate a heaven and hell. The Sheep and the Goats as mentioned also indicates that all will not be saved. If salvation is universal what about those leaders who murdered there own people? What about serial murders and robbers. What about those who do not repent of their terrible deeds. Do the families of their victims want them to be in heaven?

    ? They indicate an allegory that has nothing to do with the reality of life after death and everything to do with life before it.

    And where will the victims be?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    All saved is a two edged sword. In some ways sin is sin and some one lying to us can feel massive, but it is generally regarded as less than mass murder. Person A wants their family to be saved but if a member of person A’s family is a murdering dictator where is the justice in all saved. If there are no consequences to our actions this side of heaven in the next life, why do we see throughout the the Bible people having their sin cleared? Why not just let people do what they want? If it has no relation to how we will be in the next life. Why bother? This life is short compared to the eternity we are going to spend with God.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    All saved is a two edged sword. In some ways sin is sin and some one lying to us can feel massive, but it is generally regarded as less than mass murder. Person A wants their family to be saved but if a member of person A’s family is a murdering dictator where is the justice in all saved. If there are no consequences to our actions this side of heaven in the next life, why do we see throughout the the Bible people having their sin cleared? Why not just let people do what they want? If it has no relation to how we will be in the next life. Why bother? This life is short compared to the eternity we are going to spend with God.

    Where are the victims again?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Where's the justice in eternal damnation for finite sin? You yourself have said our time on earth is short compared with eternity?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 8
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where's the justice in eternal damnation for finite sin? You yourself have said our time on earth is short compared with eternity?

    Infinitesimal in fact Karl. Easter is shit, Christianity is shit, because most, as in just about all Christians, even smart liberals here, and all of the rest, believe such shit.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    If there are no consequences to our actions this side of heaven in the next life, why do we see throughout the the Bible people having their sin cleared?
    There are "no consequences" because people have their sin cleared.

    Actually it's not a matter of having no consequences at all: there is the possibility of Purgatory (see the board we're posting on). Paul speaks of some people being saved directly and others only as if through fire.

    As for why one should be good if there are no consequences in the next life: even leaving Purgatory aside, we should love for its own sake not just to avoid punishment.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It seems to me that modern Evangelical thought is all over the shop on this.

    On the one hand, we are given this consequences for our actions in this life, justice, narrative (leaving aside the question of how infinite and eternal punishment is justice), but on the other we have the classic Evangelical narrative that all have sinned, all are in need of salvation. In classic Evangelical thought everyone is lost until they become saved.

    The problem is that, therefore, in Evangelical thought, what actually determines an individual's eternal destination is whether they do what is necessary to be saved - which, again, in Evangelical thought, is believing in Jesus and trusting him for Salvation, etc. etc., we've all seen the tracts.

    These two narratives contradict. And I think this is what Martin's driving at* with his question about where the victims are - in Evangelical thought if a man murders a non-believer his victim goes to Hell and the murderer, if he later repents and "becomes a Christian" goes to Heaven. Evangelicalism is all about the avoidance of justice. In Evangelical thought, Justice puts everyone in Hell, but the grace of God allows believers to escape Justice.

    Evangelicalism wasn't always this disjointed. The "all are deserving of Hell" narrative is the older one. I would go as far as to say the "you'd not want Hitler in Heaven!" narrative is a reaction to non-Evangelical complaints against the repugnancy of Hell. It's a bit of a bait and switch - it invokes mass murderers, Stalin and all our human bogey-men to justify Hell, when most people's more immediate problems with the doctrine are perfectly good people who die unbelievers, and the obvious blatent injustice in classic Evangelical thought there.

    *As far as one can tell.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 9
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It seems to me that modern Evangelical thought is all over the shop on this.

    On the one hand, we are given this consequences for our actions in this life, justice, narrative (leaving aside the question of how infinite and eternal punishment is justice), but on the other we have the classic Evangelical narrative that all have sinned, all are in need of salvation. In classic Evangelical thought everyone is lost until they become saved.

    The problem is that, therefore, in Evangelical thought, what actually determines an individual's eternal destination is whether they do what is necessary to be saved - which, again, in Evangelical thought, is believing in Jesus and trusting him for Salvation, etc. etc., we've all seen the tracts.

    These two narratives contradict. And I think this is what Martin's driving at* with his question about where the victims are - in Evangelical thought if a man murders a non-believer his victim goes to Hell and the murderer, if he later repents and "becomes a Christian" goes to Heaven. Evangelicalism is all about the avoidance of justice. In Evangelical thought, Justice puts everyone in Hell, but the grace of God allows believers to escape Justice.

    Evangelicalism wasn't always this disjointed. The "all are deserving of Hell" narrative is the older one. I would go as far as to say the "you'd not want Hitler in Heaven!" narrative is a reaction to non-Evangelical complaints against the repugnancy of Hell. It's a bit of a bait and switch - it invokes mass murderers, Stalin and all our human bogey-men to justify Hell, when most people's more immediate problems with the doctrine are perfectly good people who die unbelievers, and the obvious blatent injustice in classic Evangelical thought there.

    *As far as one can tell.

    Superb. Apart from the one blatant spelling. Not only superb, but you realign where I'm coming from. I was asking where are the victims, which you answered according to Satanic anti-Christ evangelical faith, on the premiss of the orthodoxy of universalism. In my framework the six million Holocaust victims don't burn twice, the second time conscious and forever, for the crime against God of being born Jewish in an overwhelmingly Christian culture. At least the first time round they were (very mainly, exceptions were made) burned dead, by Christians. Hitler's victims, including twenty three million Godless communists, will actually all be in paradise. Will they all be baying for Hitler's blood? Will God appease them like Meatfucker by torturing Hitler reliving each of their suffering at his hands? Or is Love actually competent?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The standard Evangelical stance was s heaven cannot admit sin as it is totally sinless. We can sort it out now. Those who accept Jesus as saviour are not subject to grace not law. Jesus fulfilled the law he did not destroy it.
    As to where are the victims. That is a separate argument. We can go there if you want but seeing the Mussolini’s of this world going to heaven offends a lot of people.
    Purgatory? Going through fire could mean all sorts. Again I he Rich Man and Lazerous indicates nothing between Heaven and Hell.
    God sees the heart so knows genuine cases. If conversion doesn’t lead to change at some point God can tell.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    @KarlLB where does Richard Taylor sit on your scale?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @KarlLB where does Richard Taylor sit on your scale?

    And what scale would that be?

    Aren't complete arseholes who happen to be Christian in belief more of an evangical damnationalist problem than a universalist one?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    What I find puzzling is that you appear to be condemning evangelicals for being damnationist whilst being damnatory in respect of certain arseholes.

    As I said upthread, I often find the prevailing ethos of the Ship to be very universalist and inclusive until it isn't, and when it isn't, well, it really isn't.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    The standard Evangelical stance was s heaven cannot admit sin as it is totally sinless. We can sort it out now. Those who accept Jesus as saviour are not subject to grace not law. Jesus fulfilled the law he did not destroy it.
    As to where are the victims. That is a separate argument. We can go there if you want but seeing the Mussolini’s of this world going to heaven offends a lot of people.
    Purgatory? Going through fire could mean all sorts. Again I he Rich Man and Lazerous indicates nothing between Heaven and Hell.
    God sees the heart so knows genuine cases. If conversion doesn’t lead to change at some point God can tell.

    Don't worry, it will happen even to you. He is actually competent.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Martin54:. Ah, but what about the redemption of St. Paul among liberals?

    KarlLB:........we have the classic Evangelical narrative that all have sinned, all are in need of salvation. In classic Evangelical thought everyone is lost until they become saved.

    I think a major part of the problem influencing both 'Evangelicals' and Liberals is a misunderstand of what Paul was about, particularly in Romans.

    To my mind Paul was addressing the problem of a multi-ethnic Christian community of Jews and Gentiles and their religious status in the eyes of God, and sought to resolve the issue in an egalitarian and inclusive manner. In the first place he resurrected Adam as the common ancestor of all people, replacing the exclusive Abraham, and secondly, by denying that anyone or group has a more favoured religious status or condition than any other- "all have fallen short of the glory of God". That, however, is not the end point or purpose of the apostle's argument, still less an intended threat, because his position is that Christ has already fundamentally reversed the consequences of Adam's sin: all humanity has been made alive. Paul tells the Corinthians that God does not keep a record of wrongs, and it's their duty to inform other of the fact. On a personal level, Paul suggest that if he, the chief of sinners had been saved by God's abounding grace, then who else is left to damn. Both the Liberals and Evangelicals get it wrong, I suggest, because they can't get away from first base- the former can't stand his description of the human condition and the latter don't really want to leave it, furled as they are to salvation by works and unable to abide the hint of universal salvation.

    My anger with evangelicals is that they have traduced the evangelical revival of the eighteenth century, rejecting the wideness of its belief in sovereign grace. I give you four stanzas of one of Charles Wesley's hymns;

    What shall I do, my God to love,
    My loving God to praise!
    The length, and breadth, and height to prove
    And depth of sovereign grace?

    Thy sovereign grace to all extends,
    Immense and unconfined;
    From age to age it never ends,
    It reaches all mankind.

    Throughout the world its breadth is known,
    Wide as infinity,
    So wide it never passed by one;
    Or it had passed by me.

    Come quickly gracious Lord, and take
    Possession of Thine own;
    My longing heart vouchsafe to make
    Thine everlasting throne.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What I find puzzling is that you appear to be condemning evangelicals for being damnationist whilst being damnatory in respect of certain arseholes.

    As I said upthread, I often find the prevailing ethos of the Ship to be very universalist and inclusive until it isn't, and when it isn't, well, it really isn't.

    I'm amazed you can draw any kind of parallel between calling out arseholery and discussing eternal perdition, but there you are.

    I'm also rather bemused by the comparison of rejection of a theological position with God's alleged condemnation of a person to eternal punishment. That you can make the English word "condemnation" serve for both does not actually make them remotely comparable.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Is the essential difference between the idea of divine condemnation which you are, er, condemning, and your condemnation of Taylor in a recent Hell thread one of degree?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Is the essential difference between the idea of divine condemnation which you are, er, condemning, and your condemnation of Taylor in a recent Hell thread one of degree?

    No. It is a difference of kind. Really, I'm surprised you think this line of argument has any legs.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I'm not sure. Thinking out loud here, if we assume our moral compass is in some way a reflection of divine morality, on the one hand it makes sense to assume that if we can have a sense of moral indignation, then God can too. And on the other hand, if we expect God's perspective to be one of ultimately redeeming everyone and everything, then we ought to be trying to embrace that perspective ourselves.

    My observation about the ire generally reserved here for right-wing politicians and paedophiles was a serious one. For me, it jars with the oft-expressed insistence on universalism as the only possible reasonable stance.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    That's always been the main liberal failing; failure to truly love ones enemies. It's where Richard Dawkins comes unstuck. And the rest of us. But what's that got to do with being assured of Hitler's salvation exactly? And embracing his constituents? Even Churchill did that.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That's always been the main liberal failing; failure to truly love ones enemies.
    I think the reverse might also be true: many conservatives might actually more accommodating in practice than their stated beliefs might imply. That's worth acknowledging, I think.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That's always been the main liberal failing; failure to truly love ones enemies.
    I think the reverse might also be true: many conservatives might actually more accommodating in practice than their stated beliefs might imply. That's worth acknowledging, I think.

    Definitely. Tinged with noblesse oblige, privilege can afford to be polite, regretful, draw a veil. Damnationists will suffer in this life at the loss of their loved ones, until their minds are wiped with joy in the next.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I'm not sure. Thinking out loud here, if we assume our moral compass is in some way a reflection of divine morality, on the one hand it makes sense to assume that if we can have a sense of moral indignation, then God can too. And on the other hand, if we expect God's perspective to be one of ultimately redeeming everyone and everything, then we ought to be trying to embrace that perspective ourselves.

    My observation about the ire generally reserved here for right-wing politicians and paedophiles was a serious one. For me, it jars with the oft-expressed insistence on universalism as the only possible reasonable stance.

    Nothing in universalism denies God can have a sense of moral indignation; we are still saved from and despite our sins.

    The difference in kind I refer to is that with Hell we are talking about a condemnation not just of an action, a thought or an attitude, but of an entire person, permanently and irreversibly. Of course we don't imagine that paedophilia or racism can be redeemed, but I think we'd be in agreement that racists and paedophiles can be.

    Universalism does not imply the ignoring, overlooking, excusing or minimalising of wrong. It does however state that God's redeeming work does not fail and can and will ultimately save all of creation from and despite what is destroying it.
Sign In or Register to comment.