Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

I don't have this backwards if I just cited the issue as not pertaining to English, but to the translation process that is undertaken in order to extract the meanings of ideas that are embedded in the words of ancient Hebrew and Greek.

You do have it backwards IMO. To the universalist, these are well established translation errors and that's it. Solution: correct the errors in the next translations and move on. To the infernalist however it goes to the heart of how they see God. They do not want universal salvation to be true and so they will not accept academic guidance on this. How many times in these threads have we heard infernalists saying What's the point of being a Christian if everyone is saved? What a beautiful faith.

But it seems to me that the reality is that the "Bible" is really an ancient document that needs to be handled comprehensively rather than piecemealed through personal eisegesis via English.

Translation errors where they are known simply need to be corrected. This is not taking a "piecemeal" approach. If you spot a typo in one of your posts, would you correct it or would you not be so piecemeal and look for a more comprehensive solution?

 

[Saint Steven]

What is "justice"?

Justice, or what we think of as justice, comes from a dark place in the human mind. A place occupied by evil. We even have laws to prevent us from going too far with it. Why does it need to be controlled if it is not dangerous?

God says, "Do not take revenge, I will repay." (from memory)
We assume that means God will punish them more severely than we ever could. So, we can be satisfied with that. Knowing that God will punish them. But will he? Or might they be forgiven? What if they repent? Will God forgive them? (yes) But will we get our justice? (no) What we expect from justice is evil. (revenge) God has other ideas. If we don't see the revenge we want, we are enraged. What is "justice"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You do have it backwards. To the universalist, these are well established translation errors and that's it. Solution: correct the errors in the next translations and move on. To the infernalist however it goes to the heart of how they see God. They do not want universal salvation to be true and so they will not accept academic guidance on this. How many times in these threads have we heard infernalists saying What's the point of being a Christian if everyone is saved? What a beautiful faith.

So, by persisting in saying that I have it backwards, I'm kind of thinking that you're thinking that I think the way I do because you might think that issues of interpretation rise or fall, or hinge, upon simply looking at what individual words 'mean' in the original biblical languages? Surely you don't think that, right? There's a whole lot more to the linguistic act of deciphering meaning when single words aren't merely decided upon by using lexical references, but by considering the semantic ranges they have as they carry meaning and further connotionations on and through sentences and paragraphs and entire extensive prose and narrative.

You almost make it sound like even where English is concerned, the Webster's dictionary 'determines' what a meaning for a word is. Surely, you don't think this, too, right?

Translation errors where they are known simply need to be corrected. This is not taking a "piecemeal" approach. If you spot a typo in one of your posts, would you correct it or would you not be so piecemeal and look for a more comprehensive solution?

How do I know that YOUR scholars are fully capable and as qualified as any scholars I may rely on?

It could be, but how do we prove which of who's scholars have the bigger banana?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Justice, or what we think of as justice, comes from a dark place in the human mind. A place occupied by evil. We even have laws to prevent us from going too far with it. Why does it need to be controlled if it is not dangerous?

Says who?

God says, "Do not take revenge, I will repay." (from memory)
We assume that means God will punish them more severely than we ever could. So, we can be satisfied with that. Knowing that God will punish them. But will he? Or might they be forgiven? What if they repent? Will God forgive them? (yes) But will we get our justice? (no) What we expect from justice is evil. (revenge) God has other ideas. If we don't see the revenge we want, we are enraged. What is "justice"?

So, when Paul says that the governent does not bear the sword in vain (on this side of the grave, obviously), what does that mean God is authorizing here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Justice, or what we think of as justice, comes from a dark place in the human mind. A place occupied by evil. We even have laws to prevent us from going too far with it. Why does it need to be controlled if it is not dangerous?

God says, "Do not take revenge, I will repay." (from memory)
We assume that means God will punish them more severely than we ever could. So, we can be satisfied with that. Knowing that God will punish them. But will he? Or might they be forgiven? What if they repent? Will God forgive them? (yes) But will we get our justice? (no) What we expect from justice is evil. (revenge) God has other ideas. If we don't see the revenge we want, we are enraged. What is "justice"?

And no, I'm not enraged, but you do sound like you get mighty tiffed when folks simply don't agree with you, Steven.

 

[Saint Steven]

So, when Paul says that the governent does not bear the sword in vain (on this side of the grave, obviously), what does that mean God is authorizing here?

Law and order.
The alternative is vigilante "justice".

We have laws in place to keep us from taking it too far. And oftentimes the "victims" feel that justice (their revenge) was not satisfied.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Justice, or what we think of as justice, comes from a dark place in the human mind. A place occupied by evil. We even have laws to prevent us from going too far with it. Why does it need to be controlled if it is not dangerous?

God says, "Do not take revenge, I will repay." (from memory)
We assume that means God will punish them more severely than we ever could. So, we can be satisfied with that. Knowing that God will punish them. But will he? Or might they be forgiven? What if they repent? Will God forgive them? (yes) But will we get our justice? (no) What we expect from justice is evil. (revenge) God has other ideas. If we don't see the revenge we want, we are enraged. What is "justice"?

 

[Saint Steven]

And no, I'm not enraged, but you do sound like you get mighty tiffed when folks simply don't agree with you, Steven.

So, I'm guilty of having a POV? And making a form presentation of it? That makes me "tiffed"? - lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Law and order.
The alternative is vigilante "justice".

We have laws in place to keep us from taking it too far. And oftentimes the "victims" feel that justice (their revenge) was not satisfied.

Yes, I get all of that, but your reply here doesn't really answer my previous question. My question didn't pertain to what our modern day minds might "think" is right and wrong on the legal front. My question was an exegetical one: "When Paul says that the governent does not bear the sword in vain (on this side of the grave, obviously), what does that mean God is authorizing here [in that passage]?"

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, I get all of that, but your reply here doesn't really answer my previous question. My question didn't pertain to what our modern day minds might "think" is right and wrong on the legal front. My question was an exegetical one: "When Paul says that the governent does not bear the sword in vain (on this side of the grave, obviously), what does that mean God is authorizing here [in that passage]?"

Limited human justice. As I already wrote, law and order.

Does limited human justice allow us to incinerate living humans?
If not, why would God's "justice" be inferior to ours?
Why would God operate without the same moral restraints as humankind?

When burning heretics at the stake was originally instituted by the Church, it was seen as delivering "God's justice". Was that a correct understanding of God's justice in your view? Did the Church have the God-given authority to do that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Limited human justice. As I already wrote, law and order.

Does limited human justice allow us to incinerate living humans?
If not, why would God's "justice" be inferior to ours?
Why would God operate without the same moral restraints as humankind?

When burning heretics at the stake was originally instituted by the Church, it was seen as delivering "God's justice". Was that a correct understanding of God's justice in your view? Did the Church have the God-given authority to do that?

No, I'm thinking that Paul was connoting more than just Law and Order: he was also implying that the death penaly is also (sometimes) in order.

 

[Saint Steven]

No, I'm thinking that Paul was connoting more than just Law and Order: he was also implying that the death penaly is also (sometimes) in order.

What is your point in reference to UR then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is your point in reference to UR then?

My point is just that we want to be careful that we honestly discern and separate our assertions about modern, current notions on Human Rights and morality from what we see expressed in the Bible in relation to God's justice. They're not the same thing and, for us Christians, we have to be careful that we don't just assume our modern ethical intuitions trump where the Bible is concerned (especially since there really is a lot of moral relativism that goes about today, pandering to special political interests that don't always have a Biblical, let alone a Christian, sense of morality in tow).

 

[Saint Steven]

My point is just that we want to be careful that we honestly discern and separate our assertions about modern, current notions on Human Rights and morality from what we see expressed in the Bible in relation to God's justice. They're not the same thing and, for us Christians, we have to be careful that we don't just assume our modern ethical intuitions trump where the Bible is concerned (especially since there really is a lot of moral relativism that goes about today, pandering to special political interests that don't always have a Biblical, let alone a Christian, sense of morality in tow).

Our "current notions on Human Rights and morality"?
Like tolerance and anti-discrimination?

 

[Hmm]

My point is just that we want to be careful that we honestly discern and separate our assertions about modern, current notions on Human Rights and morality from what we see expressed in the Bible in relation to God's justice. They're not the same thing and, for us Christians, we have to be careful that we don't just assume our modern ethical intuitions trump where the Bible is concerned (especially since there really is a lot of moral relativism that goes about today, pandering to special political interests that don't always have a Biblical, let alone a Christian, sense of morality in tow).

A Christian can still be "honest" and disagree with your interpretation. Your main point, as far as I can make it out, is that the modern sense of morality is something completely different from that of earlier times and something that is somehow fraudulent or inauthentic. This is simply not the case. Morality has been the subject of intense debate throughout church history and even in the Bible itself - read Job or Paul for a very sophisticated analysis of moral issues that matches much of modern thinking.

Again, I get the feeling that you are unable to stick to the topic of the thread. The topic is universalism, not your pet views on what constitutes truth or valid analysis.

Please stay on topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our "current notions on Human Rights and morality"?
Like tolerance and anti-discrimination?

Yes, but not ONLY those concepts. And in keeping with my own area of interests and educational attainment, I've posted somewhat extensively on these sorts of topics here on CF over the years.

 

[Fervent]

You are making a category mistake. Universalism means universal redemption. To say that the historic universalist views support the idea of an eternal hell is a contradiction in terms.

If that is your definition of universalism, then historic positions were not universalist precisely because of their support for an eternal judgment. Which is why I said they weren't close to modern universalist positions that try to exclude such a thing.

 

[Hmm]

What is your point in reference to UR then?

Exactly. As with your thread, this is simply a derailing effort.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A Christian can still be "honest" and disagree with your interpretation. Your main point, as far as I can make it out, is that the modern sense of morality is something completely different from that of earlier times and something that is somehow fraudulent or inauthentic. This is simply not the case.

Oh really? And you've studied all of this in depth, then? At the university level, even?

Morality has been the subject of intense debate throughout church history and even in the Bible itself - read Job or Paul for a very sophisticated analysis of moral issues.

Yes, I'm already quite aware of this. I'm not sure why it is you think I wouldn't be.

Again, I get the feeling that you are unable to stick to the topic of the thread. The topic is universalism, not your pet views on what constitutes truth or valid analysis.

I am sticking to the topic, and I'm insisting that you guys have a few moral and/or ethical axioms in place that are existentially drawn up from personal rationalizing via modern moral notions. I could be wrong, but unless you can incorporate all of the apprarent paradoxical statements in the Bible regarding 'justice' into a coherent system of thought and study, I'd have to surmise that you're cherry-picking and contributing to your own form of Confirmation Bias in order to buttress Universalism.

Furthermore, it seems like you guys somehow have removed any criticism of Universalism "off" of the discussion table in asserting what it would be to be relevant to the topic. For me, any connective tissue is a part of the whole (wholism); for you guys, certain principles seem to be dissected 'out' and held up as dominant axioms that trump every other consideration or issue.

Am I wrong? Am I wrong to say that you guys don't seem to be able to stomach any criticism? Man, if I did that, I'd have to take Cosmic Pepto-Bismol every single day.

 

[Fervent]

The Bible is a Damnationist text. All we have to work with is what fell through the cracks. That which the translation scribes preserved and the editors missed.

No-one in this discussion as far as I'm aware has ever suggested that the Bible has been edited into a damnationist text. On the contrary, the point that has been made over and over again in this and other threads is that the Bible is not a damnationist text but that it is widely perceived as such that because of very basic mistranslations, in particular the mistranslation of "anionios kolasis" to "eternal punishment" instead of its true meaning of something like "corrective punishment lasting for an age". You can keep repeating that universalists "denigrate" the Bible but they are actually honouring the Bible and trying to regain it by pointing these facts out.

Right, no one has accused the Bible of being edited to be a damnationalist text...

 

[Hmm]

If that is your definition of universalism, then historic positions were not universalist precisely because of their support for an eternal judgment.

It's not my definition of Christian universalism. It's what Christian universalism is.

Which is why I said they weren't close to modern universalist positions that try to exclude such a thing.

Of course, because they weren't universalist positions. This is becoming very silly.