Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

Unfortunately the word "notion" comes off as an impulse, or whim. (silly notion) It just has a bad reputation. But maybe only with me. I'll let others rate my post with AGREE if they do.

... but I'll try to refrain from using it from this point on since it's not in favor with you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What?!!!
Since when is UR "underdetermined"???!!!!
I would say it is very well determined.

Well, I've been saying this in more than one post now. Remember? I stated earlier that I think that U.R., Annihilationism and ECT are all underdetermined. So, from my perspective, and like I do with the fact that there are several competing views on 'End-Times,' I just hold all of them in tandem in my mind and realize that there are some things we all just don't know enough about to come down on any of the 3 positions in an ultimately decisive way.

 

[Saint Steven]

... or .... and here's the kicker for me.... "posturing." ...

Must have hit a nerve.
Your questions certainly appear to be posturing to me.
I mean, how else could we describe a post like this one below?
Can you explain how that is NOT posturing?

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]

Well, I've been saying this in more than one post now. Remember? I stated earlier that I think that U.R., Annihilationism and ECT are all underdetermined. So, from my perspective, and like I do with the fact that there are several competing views on 'End-Times,' I just hold all of them in tandem in my mind and realize that there are some things we all just don't know enough about to come down on any of the 3 positions in an ultimately decisive way.

I don't think ANY of the three are "underdetermined". But that's just me. (and an army of others) All three have biblical support. How can you say "underdetermined"?

Saint Steven said: ↑
What?!!!
Since when is UR "underdetermined"???!!!!
I would say it is very well determined.

 

[Saint Steven]

I really don't expect such to receive galling digs, insinuations about perceived deficiencies in my character, or utter dismissals from fellow Christians.

I haven't seen any of that on this topic. Although "galling digs" is a pretty broad category. (and determined by the receiver, not the giver)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Must have hit a nerve.
Your questions certainly appear to be posturing to me.
I mean, how else could we describe a post like this one below?
Can you explain how that is NOT posturing?

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?

You want me to apply Exegesis and Hermeneutics to my own questions, even after I've already explained my intentions and have, at your request, re-iterated them?

1) I've already explained my denotative reference by my use of the term 'notion.' So, that one has been explained.

2) I also have already cited that there is an entire sub-category of study that has been circulating among Christians for quite a long time, and that sub-category is on "The Use of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers." So, if you want to check it out if its new to you, I'll be happy to point provide some Christian books that open this up for you.

3) I have also cited that there is another field that has to do with the study of Jewish forms of thought pertaining to the 1st Centuries (both 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D).

So, these questions are pertinent because they're already at play in mainstream Christian thought in many Catholic and Protestant churches. These aren't 'new' things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think ANY of the three are "underdetermined". But that's just me. (and an army of others) All three have biblical support. How can you say "underdetermined"?

Saint Steven said: ↑
What?!!!
Since when is UR "underdetermined"???!!!!
I would say it is very well determined.

I can say they're all underdetermined because I've been studying both Annihilationism and ECT for quite some time, and from what I'm seeing of U.R., it's not in a better position either. This is why.

 

[Saint Steven]

I just hold all of them in tandem in my mind and realize that there are some things we all just don't know enough about to come down on any of the 3 positions in an ultimately decisive way.

Perhaps I can make the choice easier for you.
What does each view say about the character of God?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't seen any of that on this topic. Although "galling digs" is a pretty broad category. (and determined by the receiver, not the giver)

Well, I don't know. How would the Apostle Paul define "course jesting" according to your interpretation of things he's said?

 

[Saint Steven]

You want me to apply Exegesis and Hermeneutics to my own questions, even after I've already explained my intentions and have, at your request, re-iterated them?

1) I've already explained my denotative reference by my use of the term 'notion.' So, that one has been explained.

2) I also have already cited that there is an entire sub-category of study that has been circulating among Christians for quite a long time, and that sub-category is on "The Use of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers." So, if you want to check it out if its new to you, I'll be happy to point provide some Christian books that open this up for you.

3) I have also cited that there is another field that has to do with the study of Jewish forms of thought pertaining to the 1st Centuries (both 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D).

So, these questions are pertinent because they're already at play in mainstream Christian thought in many Catholic and Protestant churches. These aren't 'new' things.

Why would assume that we are prepared to discuss any of that?
That's why it looks like posturing.

Perhaps if you informed us on a point and then asked for our reaction? Rather than interrogating us about something that is a special interest to you, but of zero interest to us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps I can make the choice easier for you.
What does each view say about the character of God?

Not much because, again, and as a Hermeneuticist and as an Existentialist, I'm going to say that no one knows about God in His Fullness. Not me. Not you. Not anyone. (Unless you want to go on record and say that He's given you His personal interview and empowered you with some kind of super-hero mind that understand Him in all of His dimensions of Being).

If you don't want to go on record, I will and state flatly (and in line with those fellow Christians whom I align with, like Pascal and Kierkegaard and many others): The Lord God is bigger and inexpressibly MORE than my own personal understanding can possibly comprehend ....................................................

 

[Saint Steven]

Well, I don't know. How would the Apostle Paul define "course jesting" according to your interpretation of things he's said?

C'mon, Phil.
You know that I know nothing about Herman Nudists. - lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would assume that we are prepared to discuss any of that?
That's why it looks like posturing.

Perhaps if you informed us on a point and then asked for our reaction? Rather than interrogating us about something that is a special interest to you, but of zero interest to us.

No, my point here in this thread is that the burden of proof is upon the person who supports the assertive viewpoint, and in the context of this thread, the assertive viewpoint is U.R. rather than my viewpoint. So, this means that I'm interested in seeing which questions of coherency (as in the Coherence Theory of Truth) can be answered by proponents of U.R.

This is my angle and I'm being transparent in saying so. There's no posturing in it.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Lord God is bigger and inexpressibly MORE than my own personal understanding can possibly comprehend

Let's just say that I know him well enough to defend his character.

UR is the only view that does NOT slander the character of God.
Isn't that reason enough to give it SERIOUS consideration?

- Damnationism claims that God predestines countless billions to ECT.
- Annihilation is the more humane version, claiming the "damned" are incinerated into ashes.

How anyone could consciously choose a god like that is beyond me. I guess we were all brainwashed growing up.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is my angle and I'm being transparent in saying so. There's no posturing in it.

Sounds like hairsplitting to me.

So, how would you define posturing then?

 

[Saint Steven]

No, my point here in this thread is that the burden of proof is upon the person who supports the assertive viewpoint, and in the context of this thread, the assertive viewpoint is U.R. rather than my viewpoint. So, this means that I'm interested in seeing which questions of coherency (as in the Coherence Theory of Truth) can be answered by proponents of U.R.

I would venture to say, that if you haven't had those questions answered to date, and it seems that you haven't, then answers will not be forthcoming.

Although, we'll see if your simplified questions are answered when the others show up. But they'll have a lot of reading to do to catch up. - lol

Post #1646 for anyone interested.

 

[Hmm]

I would venture to say, that if you haven't had those questions answered to date, and it seems that you haven't, then answers will not be forthcoming.

Although, we'll see if your simplified questions are answered when the others show up. But they'll have a lot of reading to do to catch up. - lol

Post #1646 for anyone interested.

Sorry to leave all this to you Steve but your responses have been far better than any I could have made.

I've looked at the questions in #1646 and the questions aren't relevant to the topic so I won't be responding to them.

You're a very patient man. It's impressive.

 

[Saint Steven]

You're a very patient man. It's impressive.

I have my moments. Thanks for noticing.
I couldn't have done it without @2PhiloVoid - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

I've looked at the questions in #1646 and the questions aren't relevant to the topic so I won't be responding to them.

Thanks.
A last ditch effort to get Phil some answers.
As if anyone would want to answer a bunch of loaded questions.
What's next?

A Parody:

Astronaut: Hey what is this UR stuff?
Steven: It stands for Universal Restoration.
Astronaut: Not rocket science then?
Steven: No, not really.
Astronaut: I'm out of here. Bye.

 

[Hmm]

Thanks.
A last ditch effort to get Phil some answers.
As if anyone would want to answer a bunch of loaded questions.
What's next?

A Parody:

Astronaut: Hey what is this UR stuff?
Steven: It stands for Universal Restoration.
Astronaut: Not rocket science then?
Steven: No, not really.
Astronaut: I'm out of here. Bye.

Yes, it's a very simple idea but perhaps too simple to be true for some.