Universal reconciliation

[2KnowHim]

Whether or not they teach that it's cool to sin is not is not the point I was making. I made the point that the UR position can lead someone to sin all they want because if all are saved in the end why bother living a Holy life or repent from the sins man commits? Teach an atheist the UR position and they'll think that wow I can party harty and do whatever I want because in the end I'm going to the Kingdom of God regardless.

That's how dangerous the UR doctrine is. They may not teach that it's ok to sin but in the minds of many they'll see the doctrine as living whatever life they want to live because there is no final punishment for the unregenerate sinner.

Atheist already think that, they don't believe in God anyhow, so I'm not sure what your point was.
Ultimate Reconciliation is not taught by men, (not even us) it is Revealed by The Holy Spirit, through "The Revelation" of Jesus Christ.
And since we KNOW there is no such thing as "Free Will" it really doesn't matter what or who we speak to, it is God's decision to open the eyes or not, not the person.

Man can only follow God because He ‘causes’ them to do so…

Eze 36:27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause (Heb: make) you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Jer 24:7 And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.

Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

And if they do not see or hear his calling, it is because God “causes” them not to…

Rom. 11:7,8 God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear".

It is God who moves one to do this or that….

2 Pet 1:21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[2KnowHim]

That's what the Bible teaches so if there is a problem with that then your beef is not with me but with God Himself as it's His word that says it's infinite not me.

And I don't suppose you could be wrong on the way you understand those scriptures? I know I was at one time. And am never ashamed to admit it. Or to be humble by the Almighty.

 

[2KnowHim]

Well ironically, the mainstream traditional view is

Dr. why do you continually refer to "mainstream, traditional, or orthodox views.............Are they your thinkers, your teachers, the ones you believe in, your Savior?
We know very well what these are, because we have been made to come out of them.
Are you able to understand scripture without them, something to think about Dr.

 

[anonymouswho]

How odd to claim a creature is not free to choose, but can be led to choose correctly and that leading of that creature will demonstrate the creatures love for it's master when it finally makes the "correct" choice, ie learns it's lesson. And that demonstrated love somehow superior to a love born under true freedom. How exactly is your view of God "teaching us" that different from the subjects of the earthly king whom he gives no true freedom?

It's a bit more odd to believe that a man can just up and decide to love God. Are the Muslims who fear eternal fire in Jahannam stupid because they don't fear the eternal fire that the Bible talks about? Are Atheist stupid because they don't believe that out of the thousands of religions in the world, this one is true because somebody said so?

"Because the carnal mind is enmity (hatred) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7

What does this mean? If the carnal mind hates God, how can it decide upon itself to love Him? Why does Paul say that it cannot be?

God is different than an earthly king, because God gives us a reason to love Him. He doesn't just expect us to love Him, and then He will love us back. He loves us first, and that is why we love Him.

This goes to my point and CS Lewis's as well. There is no real love, joy or goodness worth having without our being free to choose it. With that freedom comes the possibility we will not do what we should, which explains how we do and why there is evil without my having to say God made me to do evil.

Actually, despite what you wrote below, I did read the article you provided. C.S. Lewis offered no Scripture, and he wrote:

"He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying."

So God took a risk which involved Him suffering absolutely nothing? This means the only risk He took was that most of His creation would end up in some eternal torture chamber. Does God play with our lives like this?

I see above you have an estimate that maybe "only" 1/3 of humanity will end up in hell. If you had a trillion dollars, and I asked you to bet it all for a 2/3 chance of winning unlimited money, would you do it? If losing meant that you would be tortured for eternity, would you do it?

This game is not worth playing, especially by those odds. There are 2 billion Christians in a world of 8 billion people right now. That's only 1/4 odds. Then we have the "heretics", which could be anyone in the church at anytime. There are 8 million Jehovah Witnesses and 14 million Mormans. That's 22 million people gone right there. And what about the Catholic Church? That's 1.2 billion people. If only Catholics are saved, 7/8 of the world goes to hell. If they are wrong, 7/8 of the people (not including the heretics) go to hell. That's 7 billion people burning for trillions and trillions and trillions of eternal years, and that only includes the year 2015. That is why I said I don't care what C.S. Lewis says.

This goes to my point and CS Lewis's as well. There is no real love, joy or goodness worth having without our being free to choose it. With that freedom comes the possibility we will not do what we should, which explains how we do and why there is evil without my having to say God made me to do evil.

So does רָע (rah) mean evil or does it mean "calamity"? Because אֵיד (ed) means calamity and destruction. The Scriptures do not say God "creates בָּרָא (bara) calamity אֵיד (ed)" it says He "creates בָּרָא (bara) evil רָע (rah)". There is also הֹוָה (hovah), and it means disaster. There is no reason to change this word from its clear meaning.

However, if we can just change the agreed meaning on words because they appear to contradict Scripture (even though Isaiah 45:7 doesn't contradict Scripture), then you should have no problem with aion and aionios "sometimes" meaning age or unto the age, right? Changing these two words to their "literal" meaning would get rid of A LOT of contradictions.

Also, no I don't agree that "free will" is the only way to truly love. Who told C.S. Lewis this? The Scriptures didn't. The Scriptures say we Love because God Loved us first. We didn't just up and decide to Love Him. Once we feel His Love, there is no going back, because His Love is perfect.

Do you really honestly think after thousands of years of defending the truth that there are no scripture references to support these orthodox positions?
Do really think God intended to become man and reveal not just Himself but impart truths (His Word) to us only to have that truth buried (let me guess by the Church) and then supposedly "rediscovered" thousands of years later in relatively modern times?

Yes, I absolutely believe that after thousands of years, there are no Scriptural references to defend these positions. Just like there were no Scriptural references to defend the position of the Jews during Yeshua's time. That's why He says "beware the leaven of the Pharisees".

As to scripture, since we will obviously not agree on meaning, am happy demonstrating the inconsistencies with the opposing view's understanding of scripture. If you want a full on scripture based explanation for orthodox positions then I would suggest that attempting to get that in a section labeled Controversial Theology is not the correct place. I can suggest some good reading, but I doubt you even go there. You know the Catechism is online for all to read and it is full of scripture references. If you insist I can give you links to go read but I seriously doubt you will do as I did in actually reading the article in your link.

Like I said before, I did read the article. C.S. Lewis also didn't provide any Scriptures to back up his "wisdom". I've also read through some of the Catechism. What does this mean?

"1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." 617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Eternal separation from God? If you believe Yeshua is God, then what does this verse mean?

"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:" Revelation 14:10

Did the "saints" accidentally skip this verse?

The above quote is supposed to come first. The wicked descend to "eternal fire". Then why does this happen next?

"1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust," 623 will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." 624 Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

I thought they were already in eternal fire? Do they get a few minutes break to go through some meaningless judgement that is going to put everyone right back where they were before? How? The first fire was eternal, so how can it stop to let the people be Judged right back to the fire?

I'm sorry my friend, but none of this makes any sense to me. Thank you.

 

[2KnowHim]

"Because the carnal mind is enmity (hatred) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7

I'm glad your here, I was just studying this word and another scripture to see "how" it came into being.
I was trying to use the link on bible hub that you gave and I'm lost on that site. Could you check it out for me and post what it's suppose to say?

Gen.3:15

 

[anonymouswho]

I'm glad your here, I was just studying this word and another scripture to see "how" it came into being.
I was trying to use the link on bible hub that you gave and I'm lost on that site. Could you check it out for me and post what it's suppose to say?

Gen.3:15

Of course my friend. Enmity in Genesis 3:15 is אֵיבָה. (Click on the Hebrew and it will bring you to the Strong's Concordance).

Word Origin
from ayab
Definition
enmity
NASB Translation
enmity (5).

Ayab אָיַב:

a prim. root
Definition
to be hostile to
NASB Translation
enemies (196), enemies' (2), enemy (79), enemy to your enemies (1), enemy's (1), foes (2).

"And enmity I will put between and between the woman and your offspring and between her offspring he bruise your head and you bruise his heel"

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-15.htm

I'll have to study this a but more, but it definitely looks like an interesting topic. Thanks for bringing this up.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for review and clean up

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread has had a clean up. Folks, you need to stay civil. It can be a heated topic.

reopening this - play nice

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dr. why do you continually refer to "mainstream, traditional, or orthodox views.............Are they your thinkers, your teachers, the ones you believe in, your Savior?
We know very well what these are, because we have been made to come out of them.
Are you able to understand scripture without them, something to think about Dr.

I repeat it for several reasons. One to remind everyone here that we are suppose to be asking people that hold NON-TRAIDTIONAL/CONTROVERSIAL beliefs how those beliefs make sense to them - not debating or asking the other way. It seems however you guys often seem unable to answer basic questions regarding your beliefs and so often just turn the questions around.

I also say it often to distinguish general beliefs held by most Christians as opposed to more specific or even unique teachings from the Church. I also recognize the majority of Christians hold many beliefs in common with Church teachings, since other people of those faiths are present in these forums too, it sounds better to include them than to just say "the Church teaches". I also often say it because for some reason a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about the Church for whatever reason, so it can be useful to avoid knocking that chip to indicate that a statement about a teaching is not something only the Church teaches.

I do not believe Scriptures were ever meant to be picked up and read by individuals for the purpose of each arriving at some notion of revealed truth. Not only does Scripture itself never make that claim, such a claim conflicts with Scripture itself. And the fruit of such thoughts over the last few hundred years is demonstrated in the proliferation of a wide range of teachings that often conflict with all being said to derive from the same Spirit led scripture reading. Jesus said go and teach. He did not tell them to go and hand out the Torah or the letters you write. Saint Peter tells his charges to remember what they HEARD (not read) and teach the same to good and faithful men (so they could pass it on).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It's a bit more odd to believe that a man can just up and decide to love God. Are the Muslims who fear eternal fire in Jahannam stupid because they don't fear the eternal fire that the Bible talks about? Are Atheist stupid because they don't believe that out of the thousands of religions in the world, this one is true because somebody said so?

"Because the carnal mind is enmity (hatred) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7

What does this mean? If the carnal mind hates God, how can it decide upon itself to love Him? Why does Paul say that it cannot be?

God is different than an earthly king, because God gives us a reason to love Him. He doesn't just expect us to love Him, and then He will love us back. He loves us first, and that is why we love Him.



Actually, despite what you wrote below, I did read the article you provided. C.S. Lewis offered no Scripture, and he wrote:

"He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying."

So God took a risk which involved Him suffering absolutely nothing? This means the only risk He took was that most of His creation would end up in some eternal torture chamber. Does God play with our lives like this?

I see above you have an estimate that maybe "only" 1/3 of humanity will end up in hell. If you had a trillion dollars, and I asked you to bet it all for a 2/3 chance of winning unlimited money, would you do it? If losing meant that you would be tortured for eternity, would you do it?

This game is not worth playing, especially by those odds. There are 2 billion Christians in a world of 8 billion people right now. That's only 1/4 odds. Then we have the "heretics", which could be anyone in the church at anytime. There are 8 million Jehovah Witnesses and 14 million Mormans. That's 22 million people gone right there. And what about the Catholic Church? That's 1.2 billion people. If only Catholics are saved, 7/8 of the world goes to hell. If they are wrong, 7/8 of the people (not including the heretics) go to hell. That's 7 billion people burning for trillions and trillions and trillions of eternal years, and that only includes the year 2015. That is why I said I don't care what C.S. Lewis says.



So does רָע (rah) mean evil or does it mean "calamity"? Because אֵיד (ed) means calamity and destruction. The Scriptures do not say God "creates בָּרָא (bara) calamity אֵיד (ed)" it says He "creates בָּרָא (bara) evil רָע (rah)". There is also הֹוָה (hovah), and it means disaster. There is no reason to change this word from its clear meaning.

However, if we can just change the agreed meaning on words because they appear to contradict Scripture (even though Isaiah 45:7 doesn't contradict Scripture), then you should have no problem with aion and aionios "sometimes" meaning age or unto the age, right? Changing these two words to their "literal" meaning would get rid of A LOT of contradictions.

Also, no I don't agree that "free will" is the only way to truly love. Who told C.S. Lewis this? The Scriptures didn't. The Scriptures say we Love because God Loved us first. We didn't just up and decide to Love Him. Once we feel His Love, there is no going back, because His Love is perfect.



Yes, I absolutely believe that after thousands of years, there are no Scriptural references to defend these positions. Just like there were no Scriptural references to defend the position of the Jews during Yeshua's time. That's why He says "beware the leaven of the Pharisees".



Like I said before, I did read the article. C.S. Lewis also didn't provide any Scriptures to back up his "wisdom". I've also read through some of the Catechism. What does this mean?

"1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." 617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Eternal separation from God? If you believe Yeshua is God, then what does this verse mean?

"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:" Revelation 14:10

Did the "saints" accidentally skip this verse?

The above quote is supposed to come first. The wicked descend to "eternal fire". Then why does this happen next?

"1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust," 623 will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." 624 Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

I thought they were already in eternal fire? Do they get a few minutes break to go through some meaningless judgement that is going to put everyone right back where they were before? How? The first fire was eternal, so how can it stop to let the people be Judged right back to the fire?

I'm sorry my friend, but none of this makes any sense to me. Thank you.

Why would it be odd for a creature that God has made to love, serve and know Him to be able to choose to do so if he was able to?
What is odd is believing God makes a creature that cannot choose to do good and then He holds that creature responsible for not doing what one claims it cannot do.

I think there is some confusion here regarding a distinction that needs to be made between my talking about the way God made Adam and the DEVASTATING change which occurred in Adam's nature when he sinned - and that change Adam passed on to us. In a very real sense what Adam was before "died" that very day. Adam was created infused with the Grace of God required to be Holy as He said He is Holy - which has to mean His Spirit was fully indwelling in Adam BEFORE he sinned. That indwelling cannot abide and must diminish as we sin - also why Adam is said to have to leave that Paradise. But Adam sin also corrupted his nature, and we inherit that corrupt nature from Adam, which is what Saint Paul talked so much about - the carnal mind and being at war with our members. Adam was not originally carnal minded, his body and soul were in perfect alignment with God, perfectly ordered. His first sin caused among many other things the opposite of that - disorder. The disorder created by Adam sin extended externally to creation, but also internally. The internal part we inherit from Adam and the external part (also caused by Adam) is why we have natural evil/suffering to deal with in this life. All things that were not part of Adam's existence prior to the Fall.

So after Adam sins he would need that Grace he had before restored, just like we do now. It is only the hope of having that Grace which makes possible for Adam (and for us all) a restoration with God. For Adam to the way he once was, and for us to the way we should be - just like Adam was.

As for who is in Hell, am not the one here making assumptions about what religions/who must be going in order to make a weak attempt to defend that no one stays there. And btw neither does the Church make such assumptions. One of the first questions a nun asked my RICA class was what if Hilter greeted us in Heaven. Am unclear why I should think there would be any greater percentage of one religion over another populating Hell. Given the angels percentages, am also unclear why I must believe God fairs far worse with mankind as far as how many make it.

And if you really knew what the Church or people like CS Lewis taught, I suspect you would be ashamed of what you just said. It might also help to ponder more on what people that also obviously believe God is Omnipresent mean when they say Eternal Separation from God - and that said by people way smarter than me and I suspect by anyone present in these threads. Dismissing them all as just stupid or deceived is a position of extreme weakness.

 

[2KnowHim]

I do not believe Scriptures were ever meant to be picked up and read by individuals for the purpose of each arriving at some notion of revealed truth.

Well that explains a lot. So, your Priest is the one who reads and interprets the scriptures for you, therefore you "are" taught by man. No wonder you never use scripture, and no wonder you believe what you do.

I repeat it for several reasons. One to remind everyone here that we are suppose to be asking people that hold NON-TRAIDTIONAL/CONTROVERSIAL beliefs how those beliefs make sense to them - not debating or asking the other way. It seems however you guys often seem unable to answer basic questions regarding your beliefs and so often just turn the questions around.

We have answered every question you've asked us to the best of our ability. Because you don't read our responses and when it comes right down to it, you really don't want to know why we believe what we do, (and even if you did read them, you would not accept any answer we give you) because you are so indoctrinated by the church.
But you know something, there are plenty of people out there who are, (reading) and that's why we continue to engage in conversation with you, for them. Because we have been in those same doctrines and were so confused because of it, that what The Holy Spirit was teaching us, and the church was teaching us, were two different things, and became so overwhelming, that we had to come out of it.

God is Love, Life, and Light.......And EVERYTHING He does, Has a Redemptive Purpose.......This is The Good News!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well that explains a lot. So, your Priest is the one who reads and interprets the scriptures for you, therefore you "are" taught by man. No wonder you never use scripture, and no wonder you believe what you do.



We have answered every question you've asked us to the best of our ability. Because you don't read our responses and when it comes right down to it, you really don't want to know why we believe what we do, (and even if you did read them, you would not accept any answer we give you) because you are so indoctrinated by the church.
But you know something, there are plenty of people out there who are, (reading) and that's why we continue to engage in conversation with you, for them. Because we have been in those same doctrines and were so confused because of it, that what The Holy Spirit was teaching us, and the church was teaching us, were two different things, and became so overwhelming, that we had to come out of it.

God is Love, Life, and Light.......And EVERYTHING He does, Has a Redemptive Purpose.......This is The Good News!

Ok, first off you do not reply but do as you have just done here, attack me, attack my beliefs, attack the Church. Which BTW is a violation of the rules here. But I do not really care about that.

I did not ask why you think our opposing view to UR is wrong or for an explanation of why you believe the way you do in UR or about God's Nature or about the Creation Story, or for what Scripture you base any of your beliefs on. If you think I did that then I guess I understand why you think you have answered. Let me be clear again (I have to add "again" as I am pretty sure I was clear before).

What I asked and no one has yet to answer is; given your belief (which includes your why for believing it - scripture refs...etc) how does that belief and the implications of it make sense to you. I present why it makes no sense to me and ask for explanation for how it makes sense to you. Your replying something like I believe it because Scripture says it, that does not answer that question. It would answer it if you added something like it does not make sense to me either but you believe it anyway. I can accept that - and actually details of the Trinity Doctrine defy our sensibilities but I believe that to be true anyway. What I cannot accept is that your beliefs in UR and so the implications of it (like God creates evil) makes sense to you. By now am guessing too that because you have not been able to articulate a response to how it makes sense, that like me, it does not make sense to you either. And that is ok, just say so.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

mistake

 

[2KnowHim]

I did not ask why you think our opposing view to UR is wrong or for an explanation of why you believe the way you do in UR or about God's Nature or about the Creation Story, or for what Scripture you base any of your beliefs on.

What I asked and no one has yet to answer is; given your belief (which includes your why for believing it - scripture refs...etc) how does that belief and the implications of it make sense to you.

Dr. there are over 870 post on this thread, and over half of them are probably mine. And you still don't know why UR makes sense to me? Why not? And if you don't know by now, then there is nothing more that I can say.
If you are wanting to know in just one little sentence of why it makes sense to me, that would be impossible to do.
It's taken 18 yrs. for me to grow into this understanding.

From Gen.1 to Rev.22 I see ONLY Redemption in Christ, no matter where I read, no matter what story I'm reading He is there, and I SEE HIM and what He has done and how much He Loves Us. That's why UR makes sense to me.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dr. there are over 870 post on this thread, and over half of them are probably mine. And you still don't know why UR makes sense to me? Why not? And if you doon't know by now, then there is nothing more that I can say.
If you are wanting to know in just one little sentence of why it makes sense to me, that would be impossible to do.
It's taken 18 yrs. for me to grow into this understanding.

From Gen.1 to Rev.22 I see ONLY Redemption in Christ, no matter where I read, no matter what story I'm reading He is there, and I SEE HIM and what He has done and how much He Loves Us. That's why UR makes sense to me.

Sorry, did not think it was all that hard to logically explain a position. The orthodox answer is rather simple - God is All Good which makes it impossible to say God creates evil. Creation is also logically "doing" something. So in believing those things the orthodox do not have God doing evil by falsely claiming He makes it and puts no doubt that He is All Good. Adam and Eve are created perfect humans, just as the man Jesus was born perfect, with the only difference being that Adam and Eve did not remain that way and Jesus did.

So either any verse thought to state otherwise regarding God creating evil must be misunderstood or God is not All Good. I do not recall in any of the 870 posts anyone explaining How God can create evil and still be All Good. I certainly do recall you and others claiming it must be so because you claim to understand verses like Isa 45:7 reveal that God creates evil. However that claim does not explain the illogic of having to say God is All Good but at same time creates evil. Nor does the claim explain the very odd logic of suggesting creating is not "doing". How can something be made which is evil without saying one is doing evil by making it?

So either one can explain how these two declarations about God are NOT logically exclusive - He creates evil vs He is All Good - or one cannot. And yes, after 870 pages I am still waiting - which is also another reason I started a thread on it since this had become the major discussion here hijacking the OP theme of UR support.

 

[lutherangerman]

For a good understanding of UR I think you have to accept a fallible and yet mysteriously weighty and important understanding of scripture. This book does not only contain factual information but also myth, legend and story. For example, science has REALLY proven that there never was a global flood like Noah's. Yet the story is in the book and I believe it is there for a reason. The reason is, WE are supposed to turn the entire world into an Ark so it can get through the waters of fate unharmed.

About Adam and Eve, I am persuaded by history studies that I have read that Adam and Eve stand for tribes in the eastern regions of Turkey who came to have a solid and deep understanding of God. They had a paradisic life with him that consisted of freedom at every place and corner they lived at. They could eat from all trees of knowledge. But then they discovered the concept of morality - that there are things which are good, and that there are things which are evil. Their priests said, let that slide, do not go down that route, it is knowledge that looks good but it distances us from God. But because the knowledge at first tasted so well to those who tried it, as they realized the power of having both the good and the evil means of life at their disposal, they succumbed to eating it against God's advice to have knowledge that gives power. And then later on this played back on them and while they gained morality they lost their freedom and paradisic ways of life.

So by this a new tohuwabohu had formed which was the world then and people did not know what to think and mankind lived under such conditions for thousands of years. There were attempts to regulate the chaos with laws and commandments and with putting kings in charge of people. This is reiterated to us in the stories of the Old Testament, the jewish story. Then Jesus came who fulfilled (completed) the law books and instituted, as opposed to laws of good and evil or right and wrong, a law of love and freedom.

And because this is the mind of Christ, we must put aside our moralities and dogmas and renounce the paradise sins of ourselves, ie living in strict systems of good and evil and not living for love and freedom. There is evil happening on this world, but we should not eat this evil, live by it, use the good only to have power over others, use evil when it helps our agendas. We need to have a new understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, a washed, a cleansed understanding.

Jesus came and died for our sins. What does that mean? He carried the law and the sin on the cross, and fashioned a new man there. The law does not judge us anymore because it has been fulfilled, completed, and then abolished. Instead of the old mosaic law we are now under a new covenant and love is to be our rule. When love is our rule, there cannot be judgment to condemnation anymore and indeed we are told that we shall forgive men their sins, and that our forgiveness draws God's forgiveness to us. And we have Jesus who, still on the cross, forgives his own murderers. That is how we must learn to think of God, that He easily forgives all sin and only desires to love us.

He had tried to go the route of exercising justice. Read Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel. Did it work out? No, after just some years the Jews became nasty again. Christ needed to come and He made a covenant with mankind in His own blood and flesh, because the covenant was instituted with the Cross and the Cross counts for the sins of the whole world. He told us that God was not just our king or lord but instead our Father. We can live now with God daily, and because He calls Himself our Father we do not have to fear Him, because which child fears his daddy? That is how we learn anew who God is, who His son Jesus is, who the gentle Holy Spirit of love and truth is.

And that is Universal Reconciliation then, today still hindered to manifest fully in the world by the evil chaos we live in, but tomorrow the reality of life. And if we look through history, sometimes we already had it. In the 70's, in the 90's, in the 1920's, and earlier. Just remember to discard knowledge systems based on a corrupted understanding of good and evil. Genuinely embrace all good things, and genuinely renounce all evil things. What is good is to love men and share with those who suffer, what is evil is to hate men and to wish bad for them. Love your enemies. Remember Jesus who did this par excellence and who forgave His murderers, and who was rewarded with the Resurrection from the dead!

 

[anonymouswho]

What is odd is believing God makes a creature that cannot choose to do good and then He holds that creature responsible for not doing what one claims it cannot do.

You literally asked the same question that Paul brings up:

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" Romans 9:19

This is a very good question, because Paul even felt it necessary to ask. Could you please answer this?

In a very real sense what Adam was before "died" that very day. Adam was created infused with the Grace of God required to be Holy as He said He is Holy - which has to mean His Spirit was fully indwelling in Adam BEFORE he sinned. That indwelling cannot abide and must diminish as we sin - also why Adam is said to have to leave that Paradise. But Adam sin also corrupted his nature, and we inherit that corrupt nature from Adam, which is what Saint Paul talked so much about - the carnal mind and being at war with our members. Adam was not originally carnal minded, his body and soul were in perfect alignment with God, perfectly ordered. His first sin caused among many other things the opposite of that - disorder. The disorder created by Adam sin extended externally to creation, but also internally. The internal part we inherit from Adam and the external part (also caused by Adam) is why we have natural evil/suffering to deal with in this life. All things that were not part of Adam's existence prior to the Fall.

I have never read any of this in Genesis or any other part of Scripture.

As for who is in Hell, am not the one here making assumptions about what religions/who must be going in order to make a weak attempt to defend that no one stays there. And btw neither does the Church make such assumptions. One of the first questions a nun asked my RICA class was what if Hilter greeted us in Heaven. Am unclear why I should think there would be any greater percentage of one religion over another populating Hell. Given the angels percentages, am also unclear why I must believe God fairs far worse with mankind as far as how many make it.

What if Hitler greeted you in heaven? What about Aleister Crowley? Or Marilyn Manson? Or Ghandi? Or Muhammad?

And if you really knew what the Church or people like CS Lewis taught, I suspect you would be ashamed of what you just said. It might also help to ponder more on what people that also obviously believe God is Omnipresent mean when they say Eternal Separation from God - and that said by people way smarter than me and I suspect by anyone present in these threads. Dismissing them all as just stupid or deceived is a position of extreme weakness.

I am not ashamed about what I say about the church nor C.S. Lewis. I have not said anything offensive about either. C.S. Lewis really didn't have the slightest clue what the Scriptures are about, nor does the Catholic church; nor did Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, Augustine of Hippo, ect. I've read plenty from all of these men. They are like the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's day. You claim that I should trust the Catholic Church, because they have studied the Scriptures for 2000 years.

What about the Jews? Have they not studied their own Scriptures for over 3500 years now? The Jews studied the Scriptures everyday from childhood. Yet they don't accept Yeshua as their Messiah. They don't understand the Scriptures now, just as they didn't in Yeshua's day:

"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free.]
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Mark 7:5

God bless.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You literally asked the same question that Paul brings up:

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" Romans 9:19

This is a very good question, because Paul even felt it necessary to ask. Could you please answer this?



I have never read any of this in Genesis or any other part of Scripture.



What if Hitler greeted you in heaven? What about Aleister Crowley? Or Marilyn Manson? Or Ghandi? Or Muhammad?



I am not ashamed about what I say about the church nor C.S. Lewis. I have not said anything offensive about either. C.S. Lewis really didn't have the slightest clue what the Scriptures are about, nor does the Catholic church; nor did Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, Augustine of Hippo, ect. I've read plenty from all of these men. They are like the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's day. You claim that I should trust the Catholic Church, because they have studied the Scriptures for 2000 years.

What about the Jews? Have they not studied their own Scriptures for over 3500 years now? The Jews studied the Scriptures everyday from childhood. Yet they don't accept Yeshua as their Messiah. They don't understand the Scriptures now, just as they didn't in Yeshua's day:

"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free.]
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Mark 7:5

God bless.

Most would say pride comes before a fall. Good luck with these boastful thoughts and your boastful lack of shame at knocking what you obviously have not made an effort to even read.

The point about Hilter was to totally refute your prior attempted to grossly assume about me, the Church and most Christians in regards to what you mistakenly think most Christians believe about who will be in hell. I see you did not get that. Since my short post was obviously not understood and if one has actually read any CS Lewis or any notable Christian theologian, am not sure why I should trust your opinion of those writers.

Am not sure which part you think you have not read in the Creation stories unless you are assuming Satan did not lie about death and instead God lied about it. But then I guess someone proudly boasting a belief that God creates evil in the face of thousands of years of Christian writers to the contrary, it should not surprise us that the idea of UR requires a smallness about God (that He would lie) like no other belief held by Christians. A reoccurring theme here. God does not create evil and does not lie. Just like He said would happen, the Adam that existed prior to this event died that very day, both spiritually and physically.

But then if someone is going to imagine God lying and creating evil, and Satan telling the truth ("come on you are not really going to die, the big guy just doesn't want you to have that because then you will be like Him" - which he did to spark envy in their minds) I can guess I can see how such a person could read the creation story and claim they had never heard anyone say death came that day in order to see that in the story.

Also kind of obvious (and sad) that a person boasting they do not care what thousands of years of Christian writers have said, that this person has not bothered to read much of those writings to be able to say they had never understood how someone could see that death really did come that very day in the story before they had read that in my post. I cannot take credit for any of this as my original thoughts. Had they actually read what they claim not to care about they would know that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

For a good understanding of UR I think you have to accept a fallible and yet mysteriously weighty and important understanding of scripture. This book does not only contain factual information but also myth, legend and story. For example, science has REALLY proven that there never was a global flood like Noah's. Yet the story is in the book and I believe it is there for a reason. The reason is, WE are supposed to turn the entire world into an Ark so it can get through the waters of fate unharmed.

About Adam and Eve, I am persuaded by history studies that I have read that Adam and Eve stand for tribes in the eastern regions of Turkey who came to have a solid and deep understanding of God. They had a paradisic life with him that consisted of freedom at every place and corner they lived at. They could eat from all trees of knowledge. But then they discovered the concept of morality - that there are things which are good, and that there are things which are evil. Their priests said, let that slide, do not go down that route, it is knowledge that looks good but it distances us from God. But because the knowledge at first tasted so well to those who tried it, as they realized the power of having both the good and the evil means of life at their disposal, they succumbed to eating it against God's advice to have knowledge that gives power. And then later on this played back on them and while they gained morality they lost their freedom and paradisic ways of life.

So by this a new tohuwabohu had formed which was the world then and people did not know what to think and mankind lived under such conditions for thousands of years. There were attempts to regulate the chaos with laws and commandments and with putting kings in charge of people. This is reiterated to us in the stories of the Old Testament, the jewish story. Then Jesus came who fulfilled (completed) the law books and instituted, as opposed to laws of good and evil or right and wrong, a law of love and freedom.

And because this is the mind of Christ, we must put aside our moralities and dogmas and renounce the paradise sins of ourselves, ie living in strict systems of good and evil and not living for love and freedom. There is evil happening on this world, but we should not eat this evil, live by it, use the good only to have power over others, use evil when it helps our agendas. We need to have a new understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, a washed, a cleansed understanding.

Jesus came and died for our sins. What does that mean? He carried the law and the sin on the cross, and fashioned a new man there. The law does not judge us anymore because it has been fulfilled, completed, and then abolished. Instead of the old mosaic law we are now under a new covenant and love is to be our rule. When love is our rule, there cannot be judgment to condemnation anymore and indeed we are told that we shall forgive men their sins, and that our forgiveness draws God's forgiveness to us. And we have Jesus who, still on the cross, forgives his own murderers. That is how we must learn to think of God, that He easily forgives all sin and only desires to love us.

He had tried to go the route of exercising justice. Read Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel. Did it work out? No, after just some years the Jews became nasty again. Christ needed to come and He made a covenant with mankind in His own blood and flesh, because the covenant was instituted with the Cross and the Cross counts for the sins of the whole world. He told us that God was not just our king or lord but instead our Father. We can live now with God daily, and because He calls Himself our Father we do not have to fear Him, because which child fears his daddy? That is how we learn anew who God is, who His son Jesus is, who the gentle Holy Spirit of love and truth is.

And that is Universal Reconciliation then, today still hindered to manifest fully in the world by the evil chaos we live in, but tomorrow the reality of life. And if we look through history, sometimes we already had it. In the 70's, in the 90's, in the 1920's, and earlier. Just remember to discard knowledge systems based on a corrupted understanding of good and evil. Genuinely embrace all good things, and genuinely renounce all evil things. What is good is to love men and share with those who suffer, what is evil is to hate men and to wish bad for them. Love your enemies. Remember Jesus who did this par excellence and who forgave His murderers, and who was rewarded with the Resurrection from the dead!

While this all sounds nice and reasoned, though many would disagree a flood, either global or local, or regional has been proven false; I fail to see how it addresses God creating evil - which apparently is sort of necessary in order to maintain a belief in UR. I started this thread to discuss whether Scripture or reason can support the claim that God creates evil. And as an aside I fail to see the distinction being made between creating and doing, as the idea of only indirect cause (as in first cause) has never been invoked as most Christians do to excuse God from making creatures that themselves could choose evil to make/bring it into reality. But they really cannot make that claim anyway when it is said God made Adam imperfect - which no matter if that is said to be slightly imperfect - it must mean less good - which is another way of saying a little evil. So they clearly have God directly causing that evil by making Adam that way. Most odd to then hold Adam accountable for doing what He made him to do.

And I do not mean natural evils, so please stay on topic. Care to take a stab out how one has God creating/doing evil but still claim He is All Good?

 

[jugghead]

.
And I do not mean natural evils, so please stay on topic. Care to take a stab out how one has God creating/doing evil but still claim He is All Good?

This last statement is where you are in error, we do not say God does evil, which you say we do by combining creating and doing as the same thing .... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME .... just because God created evil ... that IN NO WAY means that He does evil .... just because I can create a spear out of a piece of wood does not mean I am going to DO evil with it .... I'm going fishing because the fishing pole hasn't been invented yet ...