Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Der Alte said:

Did you even read my post? Evidently not. Once again, versions are irrelevant I don't rely on any version. I have been reading both Bible languages for more than 3 decades. So where the word "hell" does or does not occur is also irrelevant. What it might have meant on another continent, in another culture and language is equally irrelevant.
In Israel, among the Jews, before and during the time of Jesus, there was a significant belief in a place of eternal, everlasting, unending fiery punishment for the unrighteous and they called it both sheol and Ge Hinnom. In the 225 BC LXX and the NT they are written as "hades" and "Ge Henna" respectively.
In the Jewish Encyclopedia in the Gehenna article the JE refers to Gehenna as "hell."
Jesus attended Temple and synagogues for 25 years +/- and He would have known what they believed about "hades" and "Ge Henna." So when Jesus said "hades" and "Ge Henna" His Jewish audience would have understood it as the place of punishment. Call it whatever you will. "Hell" is just as good as any other word.
If you want to respond to me have the courtesy to actually read my post first.

Click to expand...

Actually, and believe it or not, I do read your posts, unless...
length is excessive,
multi-colors are used,
quotes are present from or reference is made to those three [irrefutable] Jewish sources
or they begin with "Rubbish!" "Wrong!" or suchlike.

I believe that asking if someone has actually read your post is a tactic, and it is not working. In fact I recall you responding to my list of conclusions and supporting Bible references faster than you could have possibly checked them out.

Lazarus Short said:

* * *
quotes are present from or reference is made to those three [irrefutable] Jewish sources
or they begin with "Rubbish!" "Wrong!" or suchlike. * * *

Click to expand...

If something is patently wrong I say so. Sometimes I tone it down to "That is incorrect."
Since so many people have objected to my phrase "three irrefutable sources" I changed it to "three sources which have not been refuted." But you are welcome to try. I can't think of any source which would possibly be more knowledgeable about the historical faith and practices of the Jews throughout history.

Der Alte said:

So is yours amigo. When someone quotes my post and does not address anything in that post or misrepresents something in the post then it is quite evident they did not read it, i.e. comprehend, understand.

Click to expand...

Funny how no one seems to have that issue with anyone else's posts.

Der Alte said:

If something is patently wrong I say so. Sometimes I tone it down to "That is incorrect."
Since so many people have objected to my phrase "thee irrefutable sources" I changed it to "three sources which have not been refuted." But you are welcome to try. I can't think of any source which would possibly be more knowledgeable about the historical faith and practices of the Jews throughout history.

Click to expand...

Welcome to try but of course that will result in them being told they didn't read it, and they misrepresented what you said it because they didn't understand it etc.

At this point there's absolutely no reason why anyone should reply to most of your posts, because it almost always results in the same string of belittling remarks and accusations from you.

MMXX said:

***

Click to expand...

MMXX said:

Welcome to try but of course that will result in them being told they didn't read it, and they misrepresented what you said it because they didn't understand it etc. At this point there's absolutely no reason why anyone should reply to most of your posts, because it almost always results in the same string of belittling remarks and accusations from you

Click to expand...

Oh are your feelings hurt? As if you and most of the other UR-ites, who post here, don't sling insults, put downs, snide remarks etc. in virtually post. I'm kinda like Dalton in the Double Deuce. I play nice until it is time to not play nice and the other person always decides when that is.

Der Alte said:

Oh are your feelings hurt? As if you and most of the other UR-ites, who post here, don't sling insults, put downs, snide remarks etc. in virtually post. I'm kinda like Dalton in the Double Deuce. I play nice until it is time to not play nice and the other person always decides when that is

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to realize is you're the one who usually dishes out the snark first. Then others reciprocate. You're the one setting the tone.

Hmm said:

A question for Team Hell that I can't work out. How is it possible to be happy in heaven with all our tears wiped away if one of our loved ones is suffering eternal torment? And how could God be happy when He is a Father to us all and He has said that He desires all to be saved? Or did Christ's sacrifice not quite manage to triumph over all sadness and grief?

Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I do wonder where these questions place on the intensity of inquiry scale for those who feel drawn to the U.R. position.

Hmm said:

Human language is always imprecise to some extent, isn't it?

Click to expand...

The answer to this question will depend on how precise and relevant you think the semantics of it actually are. And receiving an answer to it will also depend on whether the particular Analytic Philosopher or Linguist you pose it to offers comments freely or charges by the minute ...

MMXX said:

What you don't seem to realize is you're the one who usually dishes out the snark first. Then others reciprocate. You're the one setting the tone.

Click to expand...

You are quite mistaken go back to our first few encounters. I virtually always play real nice until someone accuses me of not knowing what I'm talking about, accuses me of just parroting what some [insulting epithet] pastor.teacher has told me etc.

Hmm said:

It's an individual thing isn't it? For myself, I would not be able to kick back on my allotted cloud and strum worship tunes on my harp if my best friend who isn't a Christian was undergoing the torture Team Hell insists upon.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's only partly an individual thing because I also think a number of contigencies are at play in the supposed theological matrix which we each think will apply to this issue.

However, even with that being the case, I also empathize with you in thinking that if I was to know that other folks were suffering in an ongoing manner for all eternity, writhing and screaming in a blazing inferno, and more specifically---that I'd actually be fully cognizant of this fact and I would not have any better emotional capacties in eternity than I do now in this life---then I'd be suffering from some massive cognitive dissonance, and not just at that "time" in eternity, but all of in the here and now as well.

Fortunately, I can't say these are my views so, less egregiously, my cognitive dissonance is on a low simmer. At least at the moment.

Hmm said:

A question for Team Hell that I can't work out. How is it possible to be happy in heaven with all our tears wiped away if one of our loved ones is suffering eternal torment? And how could God be happy when He is a Father to us all and He has said that He desires all to be saved? Or did Christ's sacrifice not quite manage to triumph over all sadness and grief?

Click to expand...

Would our feelings one way or another have any influence whatsoever on what God will do? A related question, God said that He is not willing that any should perish, how do you think God felt when He destroyed thousands, all mankind, men, women, old, young, infants etc. by drowning, except Noah and his family?
How do you think God felt when He destroyed all living things in and around Sodom and Gomorrah by fire? Then we have all the inhabitants, old, young, men, women etc. of Canaan and surrounding areas. God is love. How does a father feel when even one of his children dies?
Let's throw some more human reasoning into the mix. Why didn't God just change their hearts and minds and let them live? Wouldn't that be the most humane thing God could have done?

Der Alte said:

Would our feelings one way or another have any influence whatsoever on what God will do? A related question, God said that He is not willing that any should perish, how do you think God felt when He destroyed thousands, all mankind, men, women, old, young, infants etc. by drowning, except Noah and his family?
How do you think God felt when He destroyed all living things in and around Sodom and Gomorrah by fire? Then we have all the inhabitants, old, young, men, women etc. of Canaan and surrounding areas. God is love. How does a father feel when even one of his children dies?
Let's throw some more human reasoning into the mix. Why didn't God just change their hearts and minds and let them live? Wouldn't that be the most humane thing God could have done?

Click to expand...

Killing all those people surely grieved God...but He went ahead for at least two reasons:

1. His overall plan required it.

2. He was just going to resurrect them later anyway.

Thus, God is able to taunt and boast at Death, "Where is your sting?" If any were left dead and/or in Hell, God could not honestly do this.

MMXX said:

What about heliogabalus peculiarities parabolous?

Click to expand...

What's your complaint, exactly? That I'm not dumbing it down to a 3rd grade vocabulary?

Lazarus Short said:

Killing all those people surely grieved God...but He went ahead for at least two reasons:
1. His overall plan required it.
2. He was just going to resurrect them later anyway.
Thus, God is able to taunt and boast at Death, "Where is your sting?" If any were left dead and/or in Hell, God could not honestly do this.

Click to expand...

Once I was flying from the west coast to Virginia, the man in the seat next to me was reading the Bible. I said, "Good book. I like how it ends." He smiled and nodded. He was not in uniform but I said "You are a military aviator." He looked at me strangely and said "Do I have a sign on my forehead or something." I said "No, the glasses and haircut." His glasses were issue aviator glasses. I know I had the same glasses. And he had the high and tight military haircut.
So what? I have read the end of the book.
I can't find one single verse which states or suggests there is opportunity for repentance and salvation after death. In fact, just the opposite.
Vs. 4, no more death, all things new. but in vs. 8 eight groups are people are thrown into the LOF and it is still the second death.
Instead of everybody being saved the unjust and the filthy are told to stay as they are.
And there are still dogs, sorcerers, harlot mongers, murderers, idolaters, and liars outside New Jerusalem.
And there are some being threatened with being taken out of the book of life.
All those verses you are going to use to counter these. Why didn't John know about those verses.

2PhiloVoid said:

Among whom, Steven? Are there stats somewhere we can check out that buttress this statement?

Click to expand...

Just a personal observation.

Feel free to check with me if you wish. I'm an "expert" on my own opinions. (most days anyway)

When I arrived on this forum I didn't even know what Christian Universalism was. There were two people on the forum that I knew of who did. They are mostly off the forum now. Now there are a good half dozen regulars and a few others that show up now and then. And my research indicates other groups around the world. All this looks like gaining traction to me. But what do I know?

So, are you agnostic about UR?

2PhiloVoid said:

Are there stats somewhere we can check out that buttress this statement?

Click to expand...

If you need butt rest... pull up a chair. - lol

2PhiloVoid said:

Maybe, but I don't think the term 'indirect' (as you use it here) is exactly synonymous with 'anecdotal' (as MMXX uses it above).

Click to expand...

Have you tried Metamucil? (works wonders)