Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Der Alte]

It's a good question. Apart from the biblical and moral argument against ECT, there's also the logic argument that there is nothing that finite persons like us can ever do that could ever warrant an infinite punishment. And whether that's "torment" or "torture" is irrelevant if there's going to be an infinity of it. Absolutely no infinite suffering is acceptable to God and shouldn't be to us either.
And that's not to mention all the other things wrong with the ECT, for instance that an eternal punishment would have no purpose to it and God would never act purposelessly. In fact, there are so many things wrong with it that it's probably easier to ask the question the other way round. What's right about ECT? I can't think of anything but hopefully Team Hell can enlighten us.

Romans 9:18-21
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?​

I can't find where any scripture says we finite, fallible men get to tell God what is/is not moral etc.

 

[Lazarus Short]

God created the trees.
Norse mythology is irrelevant. Whatever name it is known by, I have posted a lengthy post numerous times documenting from three historical Jewish sources that among the Jews before and during the time of Jesus there was a place of fiery eternal, punishment which the Jews called both "Sheol" and "Ge Hinnom."
....."Sheol" and "Ge Hinnom." are written in the 225 BC LXX and the NT as "hades" and "Gehenna." What Jesus taught about "eternal punishment" etc. supported the then existing belief in what we call "hell." Anything that one says which is intended to contradict this is meaningless. And OBTW the Jewish belief in "hades/gehinnom" predated Dante by 14 centuries +/-.

I don't give a fig what most Christians believe on the subject on "hell," so why should I be concerned with ancient Jewish/Israelite beliefs? I have looked into "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom," and they do not match up with the "hell" of Dane, Milton and Baxter. Norse mythology is hardly irrelevant if we find "hel" there.

"Hel" is pagan

but

"Hell" is Christian.

Nuts.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's a good question. Apart from the biblical and moral argument against ECT, there's also the logic argument that there is nothing that finite persons like us can ever do that could ever warrant an infinite punishment. And whether that's "torment" or "torture" is irrelevant if there's going to be an infinity of it. Absolutely no infinite suffering is acceptable to God and shouldn't be to us either.

Yes, what is justified by Team Hell (wow, that is so funny - lol) as God's justice is an absolute farce. (may the farce be with ya laddies)

We were brainwashed from our earliest age to accept that heaven and hell were normal and true. No one ever questioned it. There was no debate.

It was essentially presented as a "necessary evil" within Christianity. To accept the good aspects of the faith meant accepting the bad aspects with it. Couldn't have one without the other. If you wanted heaven, you got hell. (so to speak)

And that's not to mention all the other things wrong with the ECT, for instance that an eternal punishment would have no purpose to it and God would never act purposelessly. In fact, there are so many things wrong with it that it's probably easier to ask the question the other way round. What's right about ECT? I can't think of anything but hopefully Team Hell can enlighten us.

Right. They should start their own topic. (won't happen)
Hell, what's not to like? - lol

 

[Der Alte]

I don't give a fig what most Christians believe on the subject on "hell," so why should I be concerned with ancient Jewish/Israelite beliefs? I have looked into "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom," and they do not match up with the "hell" of Dane, Milton and Baxter. Norse mythology is hardly irrelevant if we find "hel" there.
"Hel" is pagan
but
"Hell" is Christian.
Nuts.

Your opinion of "hel'" and "hell" and related subjects is irrelevant. What a word might have meant on another continent, another culture, another language a few 100 years ago is meaningless. I'm sure that the KJV scholars traveled to Norway Sweden etc. and deliberately chose a word from their language. If you believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona I want to sell you.
Many words in English are derived from German. "Hell" means bright in German. Even in English words change in meaning over time. When we see "truck" we think of a large, boxy, vehicle for hauling large, heavy loads. Originally "truck" meant vegetables. Then it came to mean the vehicle vegetables were transported in. It also came to mean to associate or have dealings with.
You should care what the Jews believed about hades and gehenna. Jesus was a Jew and He went to temple and synagogues for 25 years +/- before He began His ministry and He would have known what they believed. What Jesus taught about "eternal punishment" supported the then existing Jewish belief. If their belief was so terrible why didn't Jesus correct them? Why didn't Jesus teach the Jews that everybody was going to be saved no matter what? Jesus confronted the Jews on many of their practices but He never said anything about their belief in Hell.
ETA: What is more likely the KJV translators got "hell" from the 1522 Martin Luther Bible where "hades" is written Hölle which is pronounced something like helluh. Luther's bible was published 89 years before KJV. But you keep on propagating that false narrative.

 

[Hmm]

It was essentially presented as a "necessary evil" within Christianity. To accept the good aspects of the faith meant accepting the bad aspects with it. Couldn't have one without the other. If you wanted heaven, you got hell. (so to speak)

It's zero sum game thinking. Some can only go to heaven if there are others who go to hell. The problem with that is that it makes salvation dependent on other people as well as Christ: if your salvation requires others to go to hell, then your salvation is to that extent dependent on them.

Hell, what's not to like? - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

It's zero sum game thinking. Some can only go to heaven if there are others who go to hell. The problem with that is that it makes salvation dependent on other people as well as Christ: if your salvation requires others to go to hell, then your salvation is to that extent dependent on them.

Great points! Madness, really. Absolute madness.

As soon as we make our salvation dependent on ANYTHING other than the COMPLETED work of Christ, we are asking for trouble. IMHO

As soon as we lose that compass, how are such things measured? Anything else is incomplete. How many must go to hell so that I go to heaven? How much must I do to go to heaven? Did I do enough? Will it ever be enough? (who knows?)

 

[Hmm]

Great points! Madness, really. Absolute madness.

As soon as we make our salvation dependent on ANYTHING other than the COMPLETED work of Christ we are asking for trouble. IMHO

As soon as we lose that compass, how are such things measured? Anything else is incomplete. How many must go to hell so that I go to heaven? How much must I do to go to heaven? Did I do enough? Will it ever be enough? (who knows?)

What a tangled web Team Hell weaves!

 

[Der Alte]

It's zero sum game thinking. Some can only go to heaven if there are others who go to hell. The problem with that is that it makes salvation dependent on other people as well as Christ: if your salvation requires others to go to hell, then your salvation is to that extent dependent on them.

Rubbish. Do you have anything like credible support for this nonsense?

 

[Ceallaigh]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, Christ is raised first(as He is already raised) and those who belong to Him(those in Christ) will be raised after. This all ties back to the notion that the Corinthians do not believe in vain, because their belief puts them in Christ. Which is why the distinction/contrast between those "in Adam" and those "in Christ" is important.

So you're reading that as Christ being the firstfruits?

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don't give a fig what most Christians believe on the subject on "hell," so why should I be concerned with ancient Jewish/Israelite beliefs? I have looked into "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom," and they do not match up with the "hell" of Dane, Milton and Baxter. Norse mythology is hardly irrelevant if we find "hel" there.

I think the idea is that since the Jews might have had an unbiblical pagan belief in "Hell", Jesus confirmed it was a real place by telling the Rich Man and Lazarus parable and what he said in Matthew 10:28 etc.

Of course the idea that Jesus was referring to the impending destruction of Israel would seem to make more sense.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don't give a fig what most Christians believe on the subject on "hell," so why should I be concerned with ancient Jewish/Israelite beliefs? I have looked into "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom," and they do not match up with the "hell" of Dane, Milton and Baxter. Norse mythology is hardly irrelevant if we find "hel" there.

"Hel" is pagan

but

"Hell" is Christian.

Nuts.

You might not make it into Valhalla to meet Thor with that attitude. Instead you might wind up in Hell with Loki.

 

[Der Alte]

***

<quote=MMXX>I think the idea is that since the Jews might have had an unbiblical pagan belief in "Hell", Jesus confirmed it was a real place by telling the Rich Man and Lazarus parable and what he said in Matthew 10:28 etc.
Of course the idea that Jesus was referring to the impending destruction of Israel would make more sense. But that takes away "Hell" too much.</QUOTE>
I'll call your unsupported speculation and raise you a few ECF. Every ECF who quoted or referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual. No mention of a parable. Wonder why that is? Surely somebody before the 20th century considered it to be a parable. Although a parable has a specific structure which Lazarus et al. does not have. But it could be one of the other 200+ figures of speech used in the NT. See Bullinger's book.

 

[Der Alte]

***

Yes, what is justified by Team Hell (wow, that is so funny - lol) as God's justice is an absolute farce. (may the farce be with ya laddies) We were brainwashed from our earliest age to accept that heaven and hell were normal and true. No one ever questioned it. There was no debate.

It was essentially presented as a "necessary evil" within Christianity. To accept the good aspects of the faith meant accepting the bad aspects with it. Couldn't have one without the other. If you wanted heaven, you got hell. (so to speak) Right. They should start their own topic. (won't happen) Hell, what's not to like? - lol

This is a discussion forum not a UR-ite private venue to malign and insult Christians who believe that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said when he said "These shall go away into eternal punishment."
And I have shown, many times, conclusively that "aionios kolasis" does mean "eternal correction" not the silly, nonsensical "age during correction."
"Kolasis" is an adjective. "age" is a noun "during" is a preposition. The quasi UR scholars can't even find a decent adjective to replace "aionios" to make Matt 25:46 say what they want it to.

 

[Fervent]

So you're reading that as Christ being the firstfruits?

Yes, because of the grammar and context. In Greek it can't possibly be anything else since firstfruits is being used as an adjective.

 

[Fervent]

This is a discussion forum not a UR-ite private venue to malign and insult Christians who believe that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said when he said "These shall go away into eternal punishment."
And I have shown, many times, conclusively that "aionios kolasis" does mean "eternal correction" not the silly, nonsensical "age during correction."
"Kolasis" is an adjective. "age" is a noun "during" is a preposition. The quasi UR scholars can't even find a decent adjective to replace "aionios" to make Matt 25:46 say what they want it to.

"Kolasis" is a far more interesting candidate for word study than "aionios," at least.

 

[Fervent]

I don't give a fig what most Christians believe on the subject on "hell," so why should I be concerned with ancient Jewish/Israelite beliefs? I have looked into "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom," and they do not match up with the "hell" of Dane, Milton and Baxter. Norse mythology is hardly irrelevant if we find "hel" there.

"Hel" is pagan

but

"Hell" is Christian.

Nuts.

Yes, and I suppose calling Jesus "God" must also be pagan since it is derived from Wodan.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes, because of the grammar and context. In Greek it can't possibly be anything else since firstfruits is being used as an adjective.

Based on what I'm looking at so far ἀπαρχὴ (aparchē) is a noun.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Every ECF who quoted or referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual. No mention of a parable. Wonder why that is?

Probably because they're scratching around for anything to latch on to in support of their a priori position on ECT. Really, Matt 21:46 and a handful of other ambiguous proof texts cobbled together a hell doctrine does not make (except maybe a helluva bad doctrine). So looky here, we've found a description of the architecture of Hades, the two sectors, the chasm and on the far side the bosom of Abraham. It's self-evidently 'rubbish and nonsense' (and perhaps even 'bloviation') to literalise the story.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

When you're trying to market Jesus, sometimes there's a tendency to mute traditional Christian symbols. The realville truth is that Difficult doctrines are left by the wayside. Hell is a morally repugnant doctrine. People wonder why God would send people to eternal punishment when He is a loving God.

And what possible reason could He have, consistent with His love, faith, hope, truth, wisdom, holiness, perfection, justice, mercy, grace etc?

However......."Without wrath, there's no grace."

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (Jn 12:24)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

When I read your post I had this somewhat humorous mental image of everyone bowing the knee to Jesus in heaven and there we were next to the kneeling camels. - lol

And the (former) rich men (all of us) will have been stripped of our purple and scarlet robes on the way through the eye of the needle.