Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

[Servus]

My pointed question is not based on his conclusions, it is from twisting like:

This is clear editorializing to minimize the flood account, as it assumes the flood is out of character rather than part of the data set in establishing what God's character is.

So as I repeatedly have said, my objection is not to universalism but the repeated abuses I see by self-proclaimed universalists.

I don't see what the beef is. Those are age old conundrums. At times like that one pretty much has to weigh out what makes the most sense.

 

[Fervent]

I don't see what the beef is. Those are age old conundrums. At times like that one pretty much has to weigh out what makes the most sense.

It is not our job to edit Scripture and set it against itself. The God that became incarnate in Christ and died for our sins is the God of the flood, and if the narratives about Christ can tell us about His character so too do the narratives of His severity in the OT tell us of His character. If the person's view of God cannot accomodate both, then they are worshiping a god of their own creation. So the issue is a faulty hermeneutic in which an idol built on a partial picture of God is then used to dismiss Scripture that is not in agreement with the picture of the idol.

 

[Saint Steven]

Steven, I've read quite a few posts of yours now and one thing I've noticed you've mentioned quite a few times is the aspect of the fire of hell. Is this the problem?
Or are you okay with a God who lets some be tormented for an 'age', rather than an eternity?

Wow, that's a great question, thanks.

No. Torture (torment) can take many forms. Fire is not the issue; "problem" as you put it .
We have laws against torturing humans because it is wrong. Inhumane treatment at its worst.
To accept the idea that God INVENTED a form of torture that cannot even be fathomed in human terms, is...
what can I say? Horrific in itself?

The age that I anticipate is not an age of torment with no purpose but punishment.
I see an age of restorative correction that will be as difficult as needs be. More emotional than physical.
Weeping and gnashing of teeth, as each one is individually required to answer for their life.
And God will lovingly restore each one.

 

[Saint Steven]

God does not send to hell and annihilate anyone to help them (He has already done all He can for them), God is annihilating these, to help others to go on and humbly accept His Love as pure undeserved charity. Some people like myself need the threat of hell knowing God will go through with His threat to both understand the significance of my sins and to move quickly in accepting His charitable forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

If a belief in ECT helps keep you in a right relationship with God, then I recommend it for you. I want what is best for you.

 

[Saint Steven]

It would not be love to allow those unrepentant in harming others (those in 'unrepentant sin') into heaven, where they would continue to harm others (as they don't even want to change for the better...).

When individuals reject the only possible good way for people to live together in peace and bliss -- with love/forgiveness/mercy/kindness -- then having rejected God (since "God is Love"), the only possible good eternal outcome for that refusal to live in love with others is they be mercifully allowed to cease existing, when they 'perish' in the 'second death' which 'destroys body and soul'.

You seem to be responding more to my UR position than stating your position on the topic title question.
Could you weigh in on that? Thanks.

Your post makes some assumptions about UR and ECT that need more thought. Not everyone has had the same opportunity you claim. And it is not the position of UR proponents that unrepentant sinners go directly to heaven.

 

[Servus]

It is not our job to edit Scripture and set it against itself. The God that became incarnate in Christ and died for our sins is the God of the flood, and if the narratives about Christ can tell us about His character so too do the narratives of His severity in the OT tell us of His character. If the person's view of God cannot accomodate both, then they are worshiping a god of their own creation. So the issue is a faulty hermeneutic in which an idol built on a partial picture of God is then used to dismiss Scripture that is not in agreement with the picture of the idol.

Well in the quote you used I didn't see any of that happening. What specifically is being said that bothers you. You've gone though a series of textbook accusations, but I don't get what exactly is bothering you.

 

[Fervent]

Well in the quote you used I didn't see any of that happening. What specifically is being said that bothers you. You've gone though a series of textbook accusations, but I don't get what exactly is bothering you.

If you don't see how declaring it "more narrative than informative" and then proceeding to simply muddy the issue with supposed theological problems that are clearly designed to attack the credibility of the text is problematic to pursuing the most text-accurate position then I'm not sure I can make what I'm objecting to clearer.

 

[bling]

If a belief in ECT helps keep you in a right relationship with God, then I recommend it for you. I want what is best for you.

I do not believe in ECT

 

[Servus]

If you don't see how declaring it "more narrative than informative" and then proceeding to simply muddy the issue with supposed theological problems that are clearly designed to attack the credibility of the text is problematic to pursuing the most text-accurate position then I'm not sure I can make what I'm objecting to clearer.

I've been hearing most of my life and have experienced for myself that the first six chapters of Genesis is pretty much a synopsis that leaves one with many questions and creates a lot of conjecture. Whole books have been written on what is and isn't said. Not to mention a myriad of lengthy debates. I don't see how it's not problematic. Why not address the questions brought up? Seeing that God is omniscient, how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out? How could he regret creating mankind as if he didn't know how it was going to turn out? It's common for us to start a project and then scrap it and start over because we didn't see how it was going to turn out. But God actually has 20/20 hindsight, so how could that have happened? I don't see how these aren't legitimate questions. And as usual, the problem is probably in how we interpret the text, or are unable to satisfactorily interpret the text, rather than in the text itself. The only way I can see to avoid all of that is to establish a dogmatic narrative and then insist that everyone stick to it and absolutely not question it.

 

[Fervent]

I've been hearing most of my life and have experienced for myself that the first six chapters of Genesis is pretty much a synopsis that leaves one with many questions and creates a lot of conjecture. Whole books have been written on what is and isn't said. Not to mention a myriad of lengthy debates. I don't see how it's not problematic. Why not address the questions brought up? Seeing that God is omniscient, how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out? How could he regret creating mankind as if he didn't know how it was going to turn out? It's common for us to start a project and then scrap it and start over because we didn't see how it was going to turn out. But God actually has 20/20 hindsight, so how could that have happened? I don't see how these aren't legitimate questions. And as usual, the problem is probably in how we interpret the text, or are unable to satisfactorily interpret the text, rather than in the text itself. The only way I can see to avoid all of that is to establish a dogmatic narrative and then insist that everyone stick to it and absolutely not question it.

The issue isn't that the theological issues aren't worth wrestling with, but the manner in which they were brought up as if they were a counter argument to the post that was being responded to. The only reason I can see for bringing up those challenges in that context are to cast aspersions on the text. Ultimately, whatever problems are created by the text for our theology we must keep in mind that this is how God chose to reveal Himself to humanity. So while it may be important to try to resolve those questions through a broader investigation into the text, the function of bringing up the questions in that capacity appears to be an attack on the text.

 

[Servus]

The issue isn't that the theological issues aren't worth wrestling with, but the manner in which they were brought up as if they were a counter argument to the post that was being responded to. The only reason I can see for bringing up those challenges in that context are to cast aspersions on the text. Ultimately, whatever problems are created by the text for our theology we must keep in mind that this is how God chose to reveal Himself to humanity. So while it may be important to try to resolve those questions through a broader investigation into the text, the function of bringing up the questions in that capacity appears to be an attack on the text.

So far you've yet to really address the problem directly. You just move the goalpost and then basically repeat the same accusation without there being anything really tangible to lock onto. At least that's been my experience so far. I know if I ask Steve or other universalists if they're attacking the text, they're going to say that they're attacking what's being done with the text.

 

[Servus]

Based on what we know about God's character attributes from the rest of the Bible, the statements made about him in the Flood account are more narrative than informative.

For instance, we know that God is omniscient, so how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out before the Flood? As if he had no prior knowledge that it would happen? Or that his planning was flawed to the point of scrapping the whole idea? And then in order to "correct' the problem, engaged in global genocide as the solution? Wow. Like I said, wrought with theological problems.

Are you saying scripture is flawed? Are you saying God didn't create a flood to drown everyone?

 

[Tolworth John]

Glad you brought that up, the Fall.
Are you familiar with the scripture below?
The salvation of humankind hangs on the acts of two men. Adam 1 and Adam 2.

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I am a Christian, yes I know those scriptures and what they mean.
Salvation is not just because jesus died and rose again, there is the requirement for repentance and acceptance of salvation.
There is no such thing as ' universalism in the bible.

 

[Tolworth John]

Explain the reason why the children received no inheritance.
Was it not withheld (revenge) due to not agreeing with the father's opinions?

Saint Steven said:

Is that love?
To take revenge on your own flesh and blood for not agreeing with your personal beliefs?
Nullifying their inheritance to punish them for having their own mind?
Do you suppose this would bring them closer to God?
What sort of tyrant would behave this way? Please don't say, "God."

What one has earnt durring ones life time is entirly at ones disposeal. There is no right of inheritance.
This is not a case of parental spite but of the childs deliberate rejection of their parents values.
You seem to think it just for an atheist to recieve the inheritance from a Christian or vice versa.
Yes one can think for oneself, but that can have consquences.

 

[Saint Steven]

Are you saying scripture is flawed? Are you saying God didn't create a flood to drown everyone?

Great question, thanks.

No. I'm "attacking what's being done with the text", not the text itself. (thanks for the teleprompt) - LOL

As you mentioned, there are raging debates about the early Genesis text. Many legitimate questions arise.
Questions that are typically not allowed among "Christians". (tragic)

So, I am certainly living with some cognitive dissonance on the matter. I can see both sides of the argument.

I see evidence of a global flood, but the narrative provides me many unanswered questions.
But for the record, I still stubbornly cling to the "fact" that the global flood happened.
However, as you and I both spotlighted, the reasons given for WHY God did this is highly suspect.
Since it violates everything we Know about God now.

What to do, what to do... ???

 

[Servus]

Great question, thanks.

No. I'm "attacking what's being done with the text", not the text itself. (thanks for the teleprompt) - LOL

As you mentioned, there are raging debates about the early Genesis text. Many legitimate questions arise.
Questions that are typically not allowed among "Christians". (tragic)

So, I am certainly living with some cognitive dissonance on the matter. I can see both sides of the argument.

I see evidence of a global flood, but the narrative provides me many unanswered questions.
But for the record, I still stubbornly cling to the "fact" that the global flood happened.
However, as you and I both spotlighted, the reasons given for WHY God did this is highly suspect.
Since it violates everything we Know about God now.

What to do, what to do... ???

How does it violate what we know about God now? With the possible exception of Enoch and Elijah, no one has been spared from dying. Not Noah or his family. Their deaths were just postponed. Really it seems to me God either expedites death or he postpones death. But death happens no matter what.

All throughout the Bible God talks about how brief our lives are. That we're like vapor or mist that quickly evaporates.

 

[Saint Steven]

How does it violate what we know about God now?

I concur with what you wrote earlier, which may have been in agreement with what I wrote early, which may have... well you get the idea. - LOL
Nothing new about our current understanding of the attributes of God.

Therefore, it would be a violation of what we know about God's omniscience to conclude that he didn't anticipate (have foreknowledge of) the ensuing conditions that purportedly gave rise to the need for planetary genocide as a solution to a BIG oops on His part. Seriously?

I feel the same way about the Fall. Didn't see that coming? Seriously?

With the possible exception of Enoch and Elijah, no one has been spared from dying. Not Noah or his family. Their deaths were just postponed. Really it seems to me God either expedites death or he postpones death. But death happens no matter what.

Hard to argue with that. I agree. The only wild card here is defining what death is. I know you meant physical death.
But that may be another topic. But I run a pretty loose ship, so we could take a short detour. - LOL

Luke 20:38 NIV
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

John 11:25-27 NIV
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

 

[Fervent]

So far you've yet to really address the problem directly. You just move the goalpost and then basically repeat the same accusation without there being anything really tangible to lock onto. At least that's been my experience so far. I know if I ask Steve or other universalists if they're attacking the text, they're going to say that they're attacking what's being done with the text.

Of course he would deny the accusation, but what does supposed problems to God's omniscience in the text(which are easily resolved when you understand the meaning of the Hebrew word used for regret) have to do with the post he was quoting? What does bringing up unrelated issues accomplish, except to question the extent to which we can trust what is written in the text as reflective of God's disposition?

 

[Halbhh]

You seem to be responding more to my UR position than stating your position on the topic title question.
Could you weigh in on that? Thanks.

You post makes some assumptions about UR and ECT that need more thought. Not everyone has had the same opportunity you claim. And it is not the position of UR proponents that unrepentant sinners go directly to heaven.

Hi Steven, I don't know what a 'UR' is, but if you can say what you think are my assumptions about ECT, I'll address those, tell you whether I assume them or not, or what I use instead, etc. I had written actually to the topic title question, but wrote the explanation for my answer instead of just the direct answer, which is 'no'. Some commonplace guesses/ideas some have such as ECT are among things I address to explain why those guesses/ideas are incorrect, and thus the answer is 'no'.

 

[Servus]

Of course he would deny the accusation, but what does supposed problems to God's omniscience in the text(which are easily resolved when you understand the meaning of the Hebrew word used for regret) have to do with the post he was quoting? What does bringing up unrelated issues accomplish, except to question the extent to which we can trust what is written in the text as reflective of God's disposition?

IDK. You'll have to hash it out with Steve and whoever else. I'm not going to keep probing to try and figure out what's under your skin.