Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Der Alte said:

Your second paragraph is what I have been trying to make the more militant UR-ites realize. If prison stats in the U.S. are any indication. The recidivism rate is 60+% and the prisons are nowhere as bad as hell is portrayed. So it makes me wonder how can fiery punishment make 100% of the people in hell suddenly become God loving servants?
If God is simply going to change their minds and attitudes with or without their consent what is the purpose of the punishment?

Click to expand...

Obviously the kind of punitive system you're setting up wouldn't work. So the obvious answer for UR to work, is that the process isn't like what you described. There are Christians who never thought they would ever become Christians. Some of the most active evangelists started out as the most unlikely candidates. The reason why wretches and reprobates become disciples of Christ is because God got through to them. Jesus referred to sinners as those who are sick and in need of a physician. Paul was an enemy of Christ, until Christ got through to him. Paul just might say, "If Christ could get through to me, he can get through to anyone". And as we know, some people take longer than others. For some it can take most of their lifetime before God finally gets through to them.

So here's the question; could it be that God can get though to many, no matter how reprehensible they are, yet it's impossible for Him to get through to others?

Der Alte said:

I have noticed that too. Most of the folks on the UR side fit right in that category. But I doubt if most of them know an aorist from an apple or a hithpael from a hatpin.

Click to expand...

I don't know whether they were talking about me or you or both, but I've NEVER participated on a forum where anyone who was obviously highly educated, articulate and rational wasn't immediately pegged as "not one of us." It's kind of the last refuge of those who can't keep up. Being a retired lawyer, of course, I'm used to it and kind of revel in it.

Along those lines, it appears that my long post above, actually dealing with relevant verses, has struck the peanut gallery dumb. That's another favorite tactic - when the "not one of us" pretty well reduces "us" to rubble, make sure his post is ignored and buried as quickly as possible.

Irkle Berserkle said:

Along those lines, it appears that my long post above, actually dealing with relevant verses, has struck the peanut gallery dumb. That's another favorite tactic - when the "not one of us" pretty well reduces "us" to rubble, make sure his post is ignored and buried as quickly as possible.

Click to expand...

I have noticed members of the "hell" camp employ the same tactic. Maybe the other side just needs to think awhile...

Irkle Berserkle said:

I don't know whether they were talking about me or you or both, but I've NEVER participated on a forum where anyone who was obviously highly educated, articulate and rational wasn't immediately pegged as "not one of us." It's kind of the last refuge of those who can't keep up. Being a retired lawyer, of course, I'm used to it and kind of revel in it.

Along those lines, it appears that my long post above, actually dealing with relevant verses, has struck the peanut gallery dumb. That's another favorite tactic - when the "not one of us" pretty well reduces "us" to rubble, make sure his post is ignored and buried as quickly as possible.

Click to expand...

A line like, "it appears that my long post above, actually dealing with relevant verses, has struck the peanut gallery dumb" displays both hubris and condescension. Is that how you want to be perceived?

Being highly educated and articulate isn't the problem. Pretty much all of the scholars and theologians UR proponents appeal to are highly educated and articulate. The problem is when someone puts on airs and intentionally uses language that's designed to be hard to follow.

Fervent said:

The main issue here is that it only works if there is some misunderstanding on the human end regarding who God is, and denies that any are aware of God's nature and reject Him upon it. After all, God's nature is unchanging so the persuasion cannot involve God modifying to be more palatable to the individual. So what's supposed to change in the person who God is fully revealed to in eternity that is not immediately transformed through encounter?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is related to the point you're making, but my belief is that this life is the arena of decision. God provides more-than-sufficient clues, but His revelation isn't so explicit that it coerces belief. We're given free will and the clues (Jesus being one pretty big one) and tasked with making a decision for or against God. We're informed clearly and explicitly that this choice will have eternal consequences.

When we encounter the reality of God and the Christian message after death, this will be coercive - precisely what God chose not to do while we were living. If we could change our minds and turn to God after death, this would make a mockery of the entire plan of salvation.

My belief is that God desires communion with genuine moral agents who have freely chosen what He offers. Those who reject Him now but "choose" Him when confronted with his glory, when they really have no real choice to do otherwise, would hardly fit that description.

Lazarus Short said:

I have noticed members of the "hell" camp employ the same tactic. Maybe the other side just needs to think awhile...

Click to expand...

It seems like several who have come onto this thread to argue against UR have tried their best to alienate themselves.

Lazarus Short said:

I have noticed members of the "hell" camp employ the same tactic. Maybe the other side just needs to think awhile...

Click to expand...

Sure, fair enough - but it took Saint Steven scarcely a nanosecond to respond to my previous posts with accusations of "ignorance" and the like.

MMXX said:

A line like, "it appears that my long post above, actually dealing with relevant verses, has struck the peanut gallery dumb" displays both hubris and condescension. Is that how you want to be perceived?

Click to expand...

You want an honest answer? I've was a practicing appellate lawyer for almost 40 years. That was an adversarial arena of the highest level where my job was deconstructing other lawyers' arguments and supporting my own with adequate authority. I've made my living writing and editing for 50 years - I was a journalist before I was a lawyer. I know my IQ and my analytical abilities. I'm supremely confident in those abilities. I don't do "false humility." On the other hand, I recognize that forums such as this comprise participants of wildly different levels of intelligence, emotional maturity, analytical and communication skills, education and all the rest. I try to deal in matters of substance and accept people as they are.

I really don't care how I'm "perceived," shocking as this may be to those for whom forums such as this serve primarily as social clubs. I deal in substance.

"Peanut gallery" is defined by the dictionary as "a group of people who criticize someone, often by focusing on insignificant details." Is that a fair assessment of the responses to my posts on this thread? I think so. Did Saint Steven ranting that I was "ignorant" (really? ya think?) trouble you to the extent of posting something similar to him? People who try to play those games with me are likely to get a full dose of "hubris and condescension."

MMXX said:

A line like, "it appears that my long post above, actually dealing with relevant verses, has struck the peanut gallery dumb" displays both hubris and condescension. Is that how you want to be perceived?
Being highly educated and articulate isn't the problem. Pretty much all of the scholars and theologians UR proponents appeal to are highly educated and articulate. The problem is when someone puts on airs and intentionally uses language that's designed to be hard to follow.

Click to expand...

Hmm. "hubris,""condescension" I have noticed that a lot too, certain factions frequently having side bar conversations about about those that disagree with them.

Irkle Berserkle said:

I'm not sure if this is related to the point you're making, but my belief is that this life is the arena of decision. God provides more-than-sufficient clues, but His revelation isn't so explicit that it coerces belief. We're given free will and the clues (Jesus being one pretty big one) and tasked with making a decision for or against God. We're informed clearly and explicitly that this choice will have eternal consequences.

Click to expand...

The problem is that for some people it doesn't register. Or they don't take it as seriously as they should. Or they simply don't believe. Obviously all of those factors can be corrected, otherwise no one would become a Christian. The question is, if someone truly fully realized the love of God and the horrors of eternal punishment, would they still remain unconverted?

Irkle Berserkle said:

When we encounter the reality of God and the Christian message after death, this will be coercive - precisely what God chose not to do while we were living. If we could change our minds and turn to God after death, this would make a mockery of the entire plan of salvation.

My belief is that God desires communion with genuine moral agents who have freely chosen what He offers. Those who reject Him now but "choose" Him when confronted with his glory, when they really have no real choice to do otherwise, would hardly fit that description.

Click to expand...

You've laid out what it would be, but you haven't explained why it would be that way.

Der Alte said:

Hmm. "hubris,""condescension" I have noticed that a lot too, certain factions frequently having side bar conversations about about those that disagree with them.

Click to expand...

Well that's expected from riffraff who don't know an aorist from an apple or a hithpael from a hatpin.

MMXX said:

Obviously the kind of punitive system you're setting up wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

I'm not setting up anything. I'm just calling them as I see them.

So the obvious answer for UR to work, is that the process isn't like what you described. There are Christians who never thought they would ever become Christians. Some of the most active evangelists started out as the most unlikely candidates.

Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more, But that happened in this world not after death right?

The reason why wretches and reprobates become disciples of Christ is because God got through to them. Jesus referred to sinners as those who are sick and in need of a physician. Paul was an enemy of Christ, until Christ got through to him. Paul just might say, "If Christ could get through to me, he can get through to anyone". And as we know, some people take longer than others. For some it can take most of their lifetime before God finally gets through to them.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. In this life right? Got any examples of salvation after death?

So here's the question; could it be that God can get though to many, no matter how reprehensible they are, yet it's impossible for Him to get through to others?

Click to expand...

MMXX said:

The problem is that for some people it doesn't register. Or they don't take it as seriously as they should. Or they simply don't believe. Obviously all of those factors can be corrected, otherwise no one would become a Christian. The question is, if someone truly fully realized the love of God and the horrors of eternal punishment, would they still remain unconverted?

Click to expand...

You apparently would like for God to make His reality and the reality of Hell so compellingly obvious as to be coercive - to compel belief. Alas, that isn't what He has done. We do have plenty of evidence that many people who are presented with the full Gospel message will, in fact, reject it and even ridicule it. Your position is apparently that God should make everything soi obvious that unbelief is impossible for anyone. As I've said, this clearly isn't what He actually chose to do, what He did choose to do makes complete sense to me, and coercing belief would seem to me to make a mockery of the entire plan of salvation.

You've laid out what it would be, but you haven't explained why it would be that way.

Click to expand...

What is the "it" you're talking about? I try to deal with reality as it is and God's message as we have it. I don't speak for God, but what makes sense to me is that He wants to spend eternity with genuine moral agents who have exercised their free will to choose what He offers and spend eternity in communion with Him. If He wanted to save everyone, regardless of what free-will choices they had made, I don't believe our reality would look the way it does or God's message would sound like it does. That's all I can tell you.

I just don't have this kind of time, and I've surely contributed (if that's the word) all I can to this thread. Saint Steven can now accuse me of "running away" - another favorite tactic in these environments. If anyone wants clarification of something I've said, send me a PM.

MMXX said:

Well that's expected from riffraff who don't know an aorist from an apple or a hithpael from a hatpin.

Click to expand...

I don't recall using any pejorative epithets. Do you know what an aorist and a hitpael is?

Irkle Berserkle said:

You want an honest answer? I've was a practicing appellate lawyer for almost 40 years. That was an adversarial arena of the highest level where my job was deconstructing other lawyers' arguments and supporting my own with adequate authority. I've made my living writing and editing for 50 years - I was a journalist before I was a lawyer. I know my IQ and my analytical abilities. I'm supremely confident in those abilities. I don't do "false humility." On the other hand, I recognize that forums such as this comprise participants of wildly different levels of intelligence, emotional maturity, analytical and communication skills, education and all the rest. I try to deal in matters of substance and accept people as they are.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the club of anonymous joes with dazzling resumes.

Irkle Berserkle said:

I really don't care how I'm "perceived," shocking as this may be to those for whom forums such as this serve primarily as social clubs. I deal in substance.

Click to expand...

Rather than a social club, how about a place where brothers and sisters in Christ engage in loving fellowship with one another?

Irkle Berserkle said:

"Peanut gallery" is defined by the dictionary as "a group of people who criticize someone, often by focusing on insignificant details." Is that a fair assessment of the responses to my posts on this thread? I think so. Did Saint Steven ranting that I was "ignorant" (really? ya think?) trouble you to the extent of posting something similar to him? People who try to play those games with me are likely to get a full dose of "hubris and condescension."

Click to expand...

Saint Steven probably called you ignorant, because you appeared to be making uninformed statements about UR. I noticed that myself. People have come into this thread and talked about how much they know about UR, and then went on to say things that indicated they actually didn't really know about and understand it, but rather just had a prejudicial opinion about it. I've been pining for someone to show up who truly understands it, to contest it.

It's just like when Protestants bash Catholicism and Catholics, without truly understanding Catholicism. All they really know about it, is what they've heard about it from other Protestants.

MMXX said:

Welcome to the club of anonymous joes with dazzling resumes.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

Rather than a social club, how about a place where brothers and sisters in Christ engage in loving fellowship with one another?

Click to expand...

Be great if there was one, wouldn't it? As we can see in spades, here and throughout Christendom, "loving fellowship" is pretty much limited to "those who agree with us." Those who don't, not so much.

Saint Steven probably called you ignorant, because you appeared to be making uninformed statements about UR. I noticed that myself. People have come into this thread and talked about how much they knew about UR, and then went on to say things that indicated they actually didn't really know about and understand it, but rather just had a prejudicial opinion about it. I've been pining for someone to show up who truly understands it, to contest it.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

Gotta admire that "loving fellowship" for kindly Saint Steven, however.

'Bye.

public hermit said:

I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you think nothing changes in the person to whom God is fully revealed. I believe, and I bet some changes would occur in me given that situation.

If you're saying someone's belief would not change with a full revelation, I find that to be a hard position to defend. You and I believe based on the Gospel and the witness of the Holy Spirit. In other words, our belief originates with testimony, which under usual circumstances is consider a fairly weak justification for belief. Gratefully, we still do. But having a direct encounter is probably the strongest justification for belief. So, I don't think it's unlikely that beliefs could change under those conditions; it seems highly likely they would! Hence, every knee bows and every tongue confesses. But, maybe I misunderstood your point?

Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is what is going to change in time once the revelation is made. A period of torment isn't going to make God more tantalizing if the initial encounter doesn't transform them. So why would those who reject God not only now, but upon His full removal of the veil choose to love Him after He's spent a few lifetimes torturing them? It's more going after the notion that "eventually" everyone will turn, as it seems it would either be an immediate reaction and transformation rather than something that they're brought to. So what's supposed to change with time?

Irkle Berserkle said:

Uh-huh.

Be great if there was one, wouldn't it? As we can see in spades, here and throughout Christendom, "loving fellowship" is pretty much limited to "those who agree with us." Those who don't, not so much.

Uh-huh.

Gotta admire that "loving fellowship" for kindly Saint Steven, however.

'Bye.

Click to expand...

It's funny how there's always an explanation for why they're having snide side conversations, mocking, being snarrky or directly insulting, etc. Somehow that's our fault. But if we show even an inkling of repayment in kind we're monsters.

Fervent said:

No, what I'm saying is what is going to change in time once the revelation is made. A period of torment isn't going to make God more tantalizing if the initial encounter doesn't transform them. So why would those who reject God not only now, but upon His full removal of the veil choose to love Him after He's spent a few lifetimes torturing them? It's more going after the notion that "eventually" everyone will turn, as it seems it would either be an immediate reaction and transformation rather than something that they're brought to. So what's supposed to change with time?

Click to expand...

And, of course, my point is: That really wouldn't be "love" in those circumstances at all. It would be a coerced pretense of love. Even if there had been no torment, but merely the unbeliever confronted with the full glory of God saying "How do like me now?" that wouldn't be love - it would be coerced belief.

It strikes me that universalists really have such an exalted opinion of themselves and their fellow humans they just can't imagine a God who wouldn't want to surround Himself with all of them for eternity. I think the Bible calls it "pride."

Irkle Berserkle said:

I'm not sure if this is related to the point you're making, but my belief is that this life is the arena of decision. God provides more-than-sufficient clues, but His revelation isn't so explicit that it coerces belief. We're given free will and the clues (Jesus being one pretty big one) and tasked with making a decision for or against God. We're informed clearly and explicitly that this choice will have eternal consequences.

Click to expand...

Concerning why some come to faith and others don't, I normally go to John 3:19-21. But this gives me something to think about as well.

Stick around.

Irkle Berserkle said:

You apparently would like for God to make His reality and the reality of Hell so compellingly obvious as to be coercive - to compel belief. Alas, that isn't what He has done. We do have plenty of evidence that many people who are presented with the full Gospel message will, in fact, reject it and even ridicule it. Your position is apparently that God should make everything soi obvious that unbelief is impossible for anyone. As I've said, this clearly isn't what He actually chose to do, what He did choose to do makes complete sense to me, and coercing belief would seem to me to make a mockery of the entire plan of salvation.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that's what God should do. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying what Jesus said, "they know not what they do". If the Pharisees really truly knew who Jesus is, would they still have had him crucified? I seriously doubt it. But on the other hand I'm not saying that Jesus didn't do enough to convince them or that he should have done more to convince them.

Irkle Berserkle said:

What is the "it" you're talking about? I try to deal with reality as it is and God's message as we have it. I don't speak for God, but what makes sense to me is that He wants to spend eternity with genuine moral agents who have exercised their free will to choose what He offers and spend eternity in communion with Him. If He wanted to save everyone, regardless of what free-will choices they had made, I don't believe our reality would look the way it does or God's message would sound like it does. That's all I can tell you.

Click to expand...

I once started a thread asking people if they would be a Christian if there was no afterlife. Many if not most basically said their only reason for becoming a Christian was to escape eternal torment. Now if you really understood the UR point of view, that's seen as "giving people an offer they can't refuse". And I have to wonder if free will is measured in the consequences of not accepting an offer being the absolute worse outcome that could possibly exist.

Put another way, is someone becoming a Christian because they were terrified not to, not a result of coercion?

Irkle Berserkle said:

I just don't have this kind of time, and I've surely contributed (if that's the word) all I can to this thread. Saint Steven can now accuse me of "running away" - another favorite tactic in these environments. If anyone wants clarification of something I've said, send me a PM.

Click to expand...