Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

What antidote is the church offering? It's like that absurdist concept of pataphysics, the science of imaginary solutions (which is ubiquitous in the world today). These churches seem to be leading folks to a Matt 7:23 scenario.

The church is offering an antidote - "Join us and you won't be sent to Dante's inferno. But if you don't, you will or might be" - but, as with any medicine, no-one ever had a 100% confidence in it, and there.may also be some very unpleasant side-effects. It also doesn't mean that the poison is real - if you don't believe in ECT then you don't need to be protected from the consequences of the belief.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philip Schaff was a racist...

... there's my contribution to this train wreck.

I mean, if folks get to punch Pascal in the face for his Wager and because he thought unbaptized babies go to Hell, then I can point out the foibles of other 'authority figures' and do so without being accused of going all Ad Hominem.

Moreover, I haven't really seen much in the way of any solid Hermeneutics from either side in this thread so far. Sorry @Der Alte, but you ain't cutting it any better than @Hmmm or the others have.

 

[Saint Steven]

What antidote is the church offering? It's like that absurdist concept of pataphysics, the science of imaginary solutions (which is ubiquitous in the world today). These churches seem to be leading folks to a Matt 7:23 scenario.

I think they sugar coat ECT as a placebo called "separation from God".

 

[Saint Steven]

Philip Schaff was a racist...

... there's my contribution to this train wreck.

I mean, if folks get to punch Pascal in the face for his Wager and because he thought unbaptized babies go to Hell, then I can point out the foibles of other 'authority figures' and do so without being accused of going all Ad Hominem.

Moreover, I haven't really seen much in the way of any solid Hermeneutics from either side in this thread so far. Sorry @Der Alte, but you ain't cutting it any better than @Hmmm or the others have.

Please stay on topic, Phil. - lol

 

[Hmm]

Philip Schaff was a racist...

... there's my contribution to this train wreck.

I mean, if folks get to punch Pascal in the face for his Wager and because he thought unbaptized babies go to Hell, then I can point out the foibles of other 'authority figures' and do so without being accused of going all Ad Hominem.

Moreover, I haven't really seen much in the way of any solid Hermeneutics from either side in this thread so far. Sorry @Der Alte, but you ain't cutting it any better than @Hmmm or the others have.

Hermeneutics simply means "interpretation". You seem to think that there is a perfect "solid" interpretation somewhere but that's probably not the case. But if you've found it, do share

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please stay on topic, Phil. - lol

I am on topic. For me it's Hermeneutics and Philosophy or bust ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please, if you're going to criti


Hermeneutics simply means "interpretation". You seem to think that there is a perfect "solid" interpretation somewhere but that's probably not the case.

Bull. Hermeneutics and Exegesis are topics that nary any of you have done in any kind of solid, let alone, comprehensive manner this entire thread.

And no, I don't DON'T think there is a perfect, "solid" interpretation ... if you think that, you're mis-interpreting what it is you think I'm referring to when I denote the terms "Hermeneutics" and/or "Exegesis."

However, there is a difference between Willy-Nilly interpretation like what you guys on both sides of the track have been doing the entire time on this thread (and others) and what can be cited as fuller Hermeneutics.

I'm just here to call your eisgetical bluff (as well as that of @Der Alte).

You guys need to stop talking and guessing out of your hind ends.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Furthermore, the fact that hardly any of you showed up on my Hermeneutics thread several weeks back says a lot ...

... you all just keep think'n you're being led by the Holy Spirit to splurt out this or that. I'll challenge that thinking because I think you're being led by something, and that something is your own intuitions.

 

[Hmm]

Bull. Hermeneutics and Exegesis are topics that nary any of you have done in any kind of solid, let alone, comprehensive manner this entire thread.

And no, I don't DON'T think there is a perfect, "solid" interpretation ... if you think that, you're mis-interpreting what it is you think I'm referring to when I denote the terms "Hermeneutics" and/or "Exegesis."

However, there is a different between Willy-Nilly interpretation like what you guys on both sides of the track have been doing the entire time on this thread (and others).

I'm just here to call your eisgetical bluff (as well as that of @Der Alte).

You guys need to stop talking and guessing out of your hind ends.

Well, if you have a better hermeneutics than any you've read here, why not share it? If you haven't, what benchmark are you using in your criticism?

Btw, hermeneutics does mean interpretion - and there's no interpretation needed here, it's what the word means.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if you have a better hermeneutics than any you've read here, why not share it?

And btw, hermeneutics does mean interpretion - there's no interpretation needed here, it's what the word means.

Look, Hmm. When I refer to "Hermeneutics," I'm referring to a field of study backed by two dozen diversified books on my bookshelves, not some singular colloquialized concept from Webster's dictionary.

So, you can dispense with all of the 'hand-waving' you do on this thread whenever I show up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My main point here is that it is completely unnecessary for all of you on both sides to keep jabbing at each other page after page after egregious page.

You'll all need to get off this train your on and just accept each other as human beings who, like me, are existentially stuck here without access to any complete answers about either Life or Eternity.

 

[Hmm]

I'll challenge that thinking because I think you're being led by something, and that something is your own intuitions.

Challenge is good but don't forget that what you've just asserted is also personal opinion. Everything is really, outside of Mathematics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Challenge is good but don't forget that what you've just asserted is also personal opinion. Everything is really, outside of Mathematics.

What does 'math' have to do with any of this? Dude. You need to stop needling. You won't win.

 

[Saint Steven]

Please, if you're going to criti


Hermeneutics simply means "interpretation". You seem to think that there is a perfect "solid" interpretation somewhere but that's probably not the case. But if you've found it, do share

Right there are many interpretations and perspectives. Who is right? Jesus understood this.

Luke 10:25-26 NIV
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

 

[Hmm]

What does 'math' have to do with any of this? Dude. You need to stop needling. You won't win.

Don't forget, I'm English which means that I don't play to win, but to come in a brave and noble second, beloved and slightly patronised by all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right there are many interpretations and perspectives. Who is right? Jesus understood this.

Luke 10:25-26 NIV
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

Then, if there are 'many' perspectives and no one really 'KNOWS' he/she is absolutely correct, then it's probably best to not bash each other over the head and needle each other about each other's respective intentions, motives, integrity or ... the effort of being 'spiritual enough.'

 

[Saint Steven]

I am on topic. For me it's Hermeneutics and Philosophy or bust ...

That makes sense. You ARE a topic.
And I don't care what the others say about you, I still like you. - lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't forget, I'm English which means that I don't play to win, but to come in a brave and noble second, loved and slightly patronised by all.

Existential angst doesn't care one wit if you're English, American ... or Aborigine.

Also, the absolute value of 'math' is up for grabs ...

 

[Saint Steven]

Then, if there are 'many' perspective and no one really 'KNOWS' he/she is absolutely correct, then it's probably best to not bash each other over the head and needle each other about their respective intentions, motives, integrity or ... being 'spiritual enough.'

And I believe that God may use the same things to reveal different truths to different individuals.

The problem is when one individual claims that what God showed them is the only "legitimate" truth. And tell anyone who disagrees with THEM to take it up with God. (thus playing the "God card" in an attempt to win the debate)

 

[Hmm]

Existential angst doesn't care one wit if you're English, American ... or Aborigine.

Also, the absolute value of 'math' is up for grabs ...

That's an issue that need not detain us so, moving on, let's get back OT. Universal hermeneutics, sorry I mean redemption, what's not to like?