Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

It's hard to tell, I know. Just keep in mind what 'Truth' is, and I'm sure you'll no in no time.

"... no in no time" is a spelling no-no. (should be "know in no time")
Not sure if I spelled no-no correctly though. Might be contagious. (that's not easy to spell either - lol)

 

[Der Alte]

***

Okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with UR, correct? If so... it's not something that annoys you about UR. Do you not commit to UR simply because you don't commit to anything?(maybe I am misunderstanding you)

What we have here is a failure to communicate. What @2PhiloVoid is objecting to is being referred to as the Harlot Church, which has been done twice in this thread alone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with UR, correct?

As I said above, Steven, I'm only annoyed if the shoe fits. So, in the case of UR, if the shoe doesn't fit, then I've got nothing to be annoyed by.

Do you not commit to UR simply because you don't commit to anything?
(maybe I am misunderstanding you)

Oh, I commit to a number of theological things. Post #3525 above being one such thing, really.

Good question!

 

[Fervent]

Well that might be because when you're arguing with people, you start confusticating. I know you're positive you don't, but that's what I'm experiencing. If we were discussing something we both agree on, then I wouldn't be experiencing it.

If you have trouble following my arguments, it's on you. It seems the only issue is that I've used grammatical terms for grammatical arguments. Do you think Stephen Hawking would use lay-terms for an argument over mathematics, or might the mathematical jargon put the argument out of the reach of some?

 

[ozso]

If you have trouble following my arguments, it's on you. It seems the only issue is that I've used grammatical terms for grammatical arguments. Do you think Stephen Hawking would use lay-terms for an argument over mathematics, or might the mathematical jargon put the argument out of the reach of some?

According to you from what I've read, you're complaining about the idea of having to dumb down your posts for the UR crowd. As for me personally, I was trying to get you to point out how Amos was talking about eternal torment, and the answers you gave were words that told me nothing. It's not that I don't know what the you used words mean, it's that it wasn't discernable.

 

[ozso]

Interesting manipulation of scripture. If that is true, without exception, as you apparently understand it, that would mean that not nobody, not no how would ever be punished for any length of time. Yet, I see verses which state somebody is going to be tossed into fiery furnaces, the LOF etc. How do we resolve that?

Perhaps we should look closer at the context and not assume that every verse refers to UR. Paul was not preaching/teaching to a large group he was speaking to only one person, the keeper of the prison, and was referring to him alone and his immediate family not all of their relatives and not all of mankind and all of their extended families. God does not have any grand children only sons and daughters.

That can be resolved by seeing how a fiery furnace is used as a metaphor for purification of sin in Ezekiel as one example.

I thought you were referring to an immediate family member in the scenario you presented.

 

[Fervent]

According to you from what I've read, you're complaining about the idea of having to dumb down your posts for the UR crowd. As for me personally, I was trying to get you to point out how Amos was talking about eternal torment, and the answers you gave were words that told me nothing. It's not that I don't know what the you used words mean, it's that it wasn't discernable.

I never said I'd do the exegetical work for Amos, because our previous discussion on 1 Cor. 15 shows that there's no point to do so given the frequency of red herrings thrown about when no counter was available.

 

[Der Alte]

...

That can be resolved by seeing how a fiery furnace is used as a metaphor for purification of sin in Ezekiel as one example....

That is correct BUT it is dishonest to take a fire metaphor in one verse and relate it to every mention of fire in the entire Bible.

 

[ozso]

That is correct BUT it is dishonest to take a fire metaphor in one verse and relate it to every mention of fire in the entire Bible.

How about every mention of fire that's applicable?

 

[Der Alte]

***

How about every mention of fire that's applicable?

Only if and that is a big "if" scripture applies it to other occurrences.
ETA: I took another look at Ezekiel and Lo what do I see? Yet another out-of-context UR proof text that does NOT say what you are desperately trying to make it say.
I do not see literal fire burning dross off Israel.

Ezekiel 22:18-22
18 Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross: all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver.
19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye are all [house of Israel] become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem.
20 As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you.
21 Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof.
22 As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the LORD have poured out my fury upon you.​

There is no literal fire here but God says He will gather the house of Israel as a metal smith gathers different metals into a furnace. God does not use literal fire. His "anger and fury" does the burning and melts the house of Israel and leaves them there. vs. 20. God does not burn dross off of the house of Israel. The house of Israel is the dross, they are melted and left there. Not purified and brought back into the fold, they remain where they are melted.
If the house of Israel is melted and left who is left?

 

[ozso]

I never said I'd do the exegetical work for Amos, because our previous discussion on 1 Cor. 15 shows that there's no point to do so given the frequency of red herrings thrown about when no counter was available.

Looks to me like you're saying that you haven't really done any exegetical work on this yet. And that you're also coming up with excuses for being really vague.

 

[Fervent]

Looks to me like you're saying that you haven't really done any exegetical work on this yet. And that you're also coming up with excuses for being really vague.

Not at all, it's simply pointless to walk you through it.

 

[ozso]

Only if and that is a big "if" scripture applies it to other occurrences.
ETA: I took another look at Ezekiel an Lo what do I see? Yet another out-of-context UR proof text that does NOT say what you are desperately trying to make it say.

The thing is, I'm not desperate. I could go either of three ways on this subject. The question is, of the three which ones have the most overall Biblical support, and which ones make the most sense.

I do not see literal fire burning dross off Israel.
Ezekiel 22:18-22
18 Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross: all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver.
19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye are all [house of Israel] become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem.
20 As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you.
21 Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof.
22 As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the LORD have poured out my fury upon you.

There is no literal fire here but God says He will gather the house of Israel as a metal smith gathers different metals into a furnace. God does not use literal fire. His "anger and fury" does the burning and melts the house of Israel and leaves them there. vs. 20. God does not burn dross off of the house of Israel. The house of Israel is the dross, they are melted and left there. Not purified and brought back into the fold, they remain where they are melted.
If the house of Israel is melted and left who is left?

It seems that you're taking "I will leave you there" as being permanent. But what purpose would it serve a metal smith to leave metal in a furnace permanently? From what I know of metal smiting, metals are melted in a furnace to produce an end result product.

 

[Fervent]

The thing is, I'm not desperate. I could go either of three ways on this subject. The question is, of the three which ones have the most overall Biblical support, and which ones make the most sense.



It seems that you're taking "I will leave you there" as being permanent. But what purpose would it serve a metal smith to leave metal in a furnace permanently? From what I know of metal smiting, metals are melted in a furnace to produce an end result product.

There's a major category issue with your interpretation. The metaphor is being used of a collective Israel, not of its individual members. The nation of Israel will be tried like fire, and the impurities within the nation will be burned off entirely. What is a nation composed of?

 

[ozso]

Not at all, it's simply pointless to walk you through it.

That looks like a cop-out to me. And why even walk me through it? How about just posting a viable source which illustrates that Amos 8:9-14 is about eternal torment? Surely if that's the case, it's been addressed by scholars and theologians in the last several centuries.

 

[Fervent]

That looks like a cop-out to me. And why even walk me through it? How about just posting a viable source which illustrates that Amos 8:9-14 is about eternal torment? Surely if that's the case, it's been addressed by scholars and theologians in the last several centuries.

It has been, but sources are supplements to argument not arguments in themselves. I don't particularly care what it looks like to you, especially as whatever respect I had for you at the beginning of this conversation has been entirely lost due to your conduct. I cannot maintain the assumption that you are arguing in good faith, so actually engaging in discussion about what the text says is simply not an option.

 

[ozso]

There's a major category issue with your interpretation. The metaphor is being used of a collective Israel, not of its individual members. The nation of Israel will be tried like fire, and the impurities within the nation will be burned off entirely. What is a nation composed of?

It's not my interpretation. It's an interpretation that existed before I ever knew about it. It's funny how you said "your interpretation" and then went on about the difference between individual and collective. And the premise was never about an individual, but rather about sin and sinners as a whole. The idea being that dross is a metaphor for sin.

 

[ozso]

It has been, but sources are supplements to argument not arguments in themselves. I don't particularly care what it looks like to you, especially as whatever respect I had for you at the beginning of this conversation has been entirely lost due to your conduct. I cannot maintain the assumption that you are arguing in good faith, so actually engaging in discussion about what the text says is simply not an option.

That just appears to be more evading, obfuscating and copping out.

 

[Fervent]

It's not my interpretation. It's an interpretation that existed before I ever knew about it. It's funny how you said "your interpretation" and then went on about the difference between individual and collective. And the premise was never about an individual, but rather about sin and sinners as a whole. The idea being that dross is a metaphor for sin.

You presented it, it's your interpretation. Whether it pre-exists you or not, the same flaw is present. "Dross" does not refer to sin, at least not in some modern abstract sense. It literally means that the nation of Israel has become unfit for its intended purpose, because its members have become lead and other impurities in the holy nation. The passage is about the removal of wicked men from the nation of Israel so that the pure remnant would abandon the sins of its fathers.

 

[ozso]

You presented it, it's your interpretation.

That's not how it works. If I were to illustrate the SDA view of the sabbath, that would not make it my it my interpretation.