Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

It doesn't. However Malachi 3:2 says "But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap."

To be honest, I think the Malachi 3:2 reference is to the first advent of Messiah Y'shua. BUT... the comparison of fire and soap indicates refinement and cleansing rather than wrathful vengeance. Why would Jesus change this MO in the afterlife? He came to heal and restore, not to bring punishment. (John 3:17) In fact, this confirms that the process of restoration began when Christ came. Even the coming of the forerunner indicates an end to the old system. (Luke 16:16) "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John..." Until John? Then what?

 

[Hmm]

Why would Jesus change this MO in the afterlife?

Great point. Would God suddenly change from being loving, gracious and forgiving towards us to reaching for His nearest torture instruments, spitting in His hands and settling down for a session of everlasting torment just because we have passed the moment of our death and haven't yet learnt to recognise Him as Lord?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm pretty sure you would not have been satisfied with a serious response. Humor seemed the best reply.

Well, I can understand how you might think this, but this wouldn't be an accurate assessment of my expectations. I really am asking for serious responses. Keep in mind that as a philosophically educated person, I am inclined to question the structures of other people's ideas, and the questions I pose are specifically placed by me so as to invite authentic answers.

In addition to this, I'd politely ask that you take me seriously when I ask you guys a hermeneutical question and also try not to 'guess' my mind. I know that you're not trying to be trollish in your responses and that as fellow Christians, you too want respect for your own perspective. I just ask for the same treatment without all of the instant, knee-jerk responses or the attempts to judge me or my intentions.

I could try to field a few direct questions. I don't actually know the rules to the game you are playing. (no way to win, or even compete)

I don't actually have a game, but if you want to learn about Hermeneutics and Exegesis, I'd be more than happy to do a study with you if you would like to better understand my perspective on how I engage the Christian faith.

I don't think any of us understand how scripture is supposed to be used. Here's an example. (gave gifts, or received gifts?)

Actually, a number of Christian scholars have been doing so for quite some time. You might as well get in on it, too.

Ephesians 4:8 NIV
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.” (Psalm 68:18) see below

COMPARE:

Psalm 68:18 NIV
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.

Yep. You're Luke Skywalker, Steven! You see the connections. And they have (many times) hermeneutical explanations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do you complain about "smart-mouth remarks", when you use snarky phrases like, "interpretive notion of yours"? (as if it was a thoughtless response) Not the case. (I assure you) Besides, I thought I was in charge of smart-mouth remarks around here. - lol (I could be wrong)

Actually, I wasn't being snarky in the least. My apologies if, by my use of the word "notion" that you felt it was being used as a smart-mouth, rhetorical comment. It was far from it. As a philosopher, when I use the term 'notion,' I usually mean it in the primary denotation that it has, not in its flippant, more colloquial usage. When I refer to a notion, I simply mean to refer to the idea that a person (even such as myself) may have an idea in mind that is based more on intuition than on actually research. There's nothing wrong with this, and we all carry various notions in our minds about this or that in life because none of us can know everything.

Here's the Webster's entry for the term "Notion." Take a look at the various denotations of this word:

Definition of NOTION


From this, I know you can see that I'm not making up what I'm stating above. So, again. My apologies if my inquiry to the other poster where I use the term "notion" wasn't clear. But I'm attempting to make it clear now.

Thanks!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I started a topic on the subject some time ago. It died a pretty quick death. No one around here seems to want to discuss the errors in the Bible. (taboo)
I remember several instances in the NT where the author was misquoting the OT. A curious thing. Some cited issues in the translation process. Which is what we have been claiming all along. HELLO?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Here's an example. (gave gifts, or received gifts?)

I'll be more than happy to get on your thread about apparent inconsistencies in the Bible, Steven. That has been one of my central points of research and has been one of the reasons why I was contending so vociferously with atheists in the Christian Apologetics section (and elsewhere) here on CF [until they closed down that section of CF several months ago].

 

[Saint Steven]

Well, I can understand how you might think this, but this wouldn't be an accurate assessment of my expectations. I really am asking for serious responses. Keep in mind that as a philosophically educated person, I am inclined to question the structures of other people's ideas, and the questions I pose are specifically placed by me so as to invite authentic answers.

Well, seriously, Phil. Your question is pasted below. Two things:
1) It wasn't addressed to me. (so I was butting in to make humor)
2) How on earth could I answer a question correctly that you have framed in such a way as to make YOUR answer the only RIGHT answer?
3) I know, I know... I said two things. -- You will be more likely to get a serious answer from me if you put the cookies on the lower shelf. Yes, I'm that stupid. - lol

2PhiloVoid said: ↑
Possibly, but the hermeneutical question remains: is this intrepretive notion of yours one that reflects 1st century Jewish idiomatic expressions? OR is this interpretive notion of yours one that fits an anachronistically applied 21st century Western Nation's sensibility regarding laundry detergents?

 

[Saint Steven]

In addition to this, I'd politely ask that you take me seriously when I ask you guys a hermeneutical question and also try not to 'guess' my mind. I know that you're not trying to be trollish in your responses and that as fellow Christians, you too want respect for your own perspective. I just ask for the same treatment without all of the instant, knee-jerk responses or the attempts to judge me or my intentions.

Lose the word "hermeneutical" and we can talk.
I don't know the rules to that game. (so, I ain't playin') Be more direct. All this posturing isn't aiding discussion.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yep. You're Luke Skywalker, Steven! You see the connections. And they have (many times) hermeneutical explanations.

I'll take that as a compliment, regardless of your intent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, seriously, Phil. Your question is pasted below. Two things:
1) It wasn't addressed to me. (so I was butting in to make humor)
2) How on earth could I answer a question correctly that you have framed in such a way as to make YOUR answer the only RIGHT answer?
3) I know, I know... I said two things. -- You will be more likely to get a serious answer from me if you put the cookies on the lower shelf. Yes, I'm that stupid. - lol

2PhiloVoid said: ↑
Possibly, but the hermeneutical question remains: is this intrepretive notion of yours one that reflects 1st century Jewish idiomatic expressions? OR is this interpretive notion of yours one that fits an anachronistically applied 21st century Western Nation's sensibility regarding laundry detergents?

I don't see my questions as "cookies" to place on a lower shelf. Personally, I think most people are very capable of engaging these questions since they're academically pertinent. I'm sorry if you think my questions have been 'framed' in such a way that it appears that I'm somehow inferring a 'correct' answer. But this assessment isn't what I was attempting to do with these questions.

The REASON I ask these questions is for the simple fact that a number of people, however well intentioned, attempt to read the Bible without any interest whatsoever in taking into account the Jewish nature of thought that permeates all that is written. So, my questions are placed so as to bring attention to the importance of our collaborative and historical recognition of this important context that can help us better understand the meanings we read in the Bible.

These questions are in line with the whole purpose of my own initiation of a separate thread lately, one that I notice hasn't gathered much interest (surprisingly to me).

 

[Saint Steven]

Actually, I wasn't being snarky in the least. ...

Where did you get that misguided notion? Not hermeneutics, or a anachronistic application.

2PhiloVoid said: ↑
Possibly, but the hermeneutical question remains: is this intrepretive notion of yours one that reflects 1st century Jewish idiomatic expressions? OR is this interpretive notion of yours one that fits an anachronistically applied 21st century Western Nation's sensibility regarding laundry detergents?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lose the word "hermeneutical" and we can talk.
I don't know the rules to that game. (so, I ain't playin') Be more direct. All this posturing isn't aiding discussion.

It isn't posturing, Steven. And I'm not losing the word 'Hermeneutics.' It's a word that been around since the Greeks and I'll continue to use it. You see, this falls in line also with my philosophy of Education, which is: Most people aren't dumb so things don't really need to be "dumbed down."

 

[Saint Steven]

Personally, I think most people are very capable of engaging these questions since they're academically pertinent. ...

How is that working so far?
Aren't we currently discussing how inaccessible (and loaded) your questions are?

It would be like me asking you to explain something in music theory. (assuming you are a non-musician) Can you name the seven modes of the Major scale?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where did you get that misguided notion? Not hermeneutics, or a anachronistic application.

I got it while studying at the university ??

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How is that working so far?
Aren't we currently discussing how inaccessible (and loaded) your questions are?

It would be like me asking you to explain something in music theory. (assuming you are a non-musician) Can you name the seven modes of the Major scale?

My questions aren't inaccessible or loaded IF I have books lining my shelves -- Christian books even -- that cover and address this very THING!

So, don't get testy with me simply because you're been so far unaware of all of the scholarship that other Christians have already produce in the field of study for quite some time.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't see my questions as "cookies" to place on a lower shelf.

Fine. But if you continue to put them on an upper shelf, no one will be able to reach them. Maybe you need to find some kids your own size to pick on. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

It isn't posturing, Steven. And I'm not losing the word 'Hermeneutics.' It's a word that been around since the Greeks and I'll continue to use it. You see, this falls in line also with my philosophy of Education, which is: Most people aren't dumb so things don't really need to be "dumbed down."

None of this is helpful.

 

[Der Alte]

Great point. Would God suddenly change from being loving, gracious and forgiving towards us to reaching for His nearest torture instruments, spitting in His hands and settling down for a session of everlasting torment just because we have passed the moment of our death and haven't yet learnt to recognise Him as Lord?

Unfortunately God does model His dealings with mankind on what fallible humans think or do/might do.
I have asked repeatedly for someone to show me where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, unequivocally says "All mankind will be saved the unrighteous and righteous alike, even after death." or words to that affect. I don't mean the words of an O.T. prophet or a N.T. disciple but the very words of God, Himself or Jesus, Himself.
Did God settle down spit on His hands when He drowned millions during the flood, thousands when He rained down fire from heaven on Sodom, Gomorrah and the cites of the plains and when He commanded Israel to enter the cities of Canaan and kill every living thing?
When Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc.did that we rightly call it an atrocity.

 

[Saint Steven]

My questions aren't inaccessible or loaded IF I have books lining my shelves -- Christian books even -- that cover and address this very THING!

Well, I'm glad YOU can reach your book shelf. But it is inaccessible to the rest of us.

And, no, I don't a bibliography to read. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Saint Steven]

So, don't get testy with me simply because you're been so far unaware of all of the scholarship that other Christians have already produce in the field of study for quite some time.

What's more important? Knowing God, or knowing stuff?

Acts 4:13 NIV
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

 

[Hmm]

Did God settle down spit on His hands when He drowned millions during the flood, thousands when He rained down fire from heaven on Sodom, Gomorrah and the cites of the plains and when He commanded Israel to enter the cities of Canaan and kill every living thing?
When Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc.did that we rightly call it an atrocity.

I'm not sure from your last sentence what you're saying. Are you saying that entering the cities of Canaan and killing everything is an atroicity or that it isn't?

 

[Hmm]

I have asked repeatedly for someone to show me where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself unequivocally says "All mankind will be saved the unrighteous and righteous alike, even after death." or words to that affect. I don't mean the words of an O.T. prophet or a N.T. disciple but the very words of God, Himself or Jesus, Himself.

Is this an implicit acknowledgement that the OT prophets and NT disciples have unequivocally said that all will be saved?