Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

Doesn't "Gnostic" mean knowledge? And isn't that what you are championing here? I didn't say "Gnostic" to you, but... if the shoe fits... you're Cinderella. - lol

See? This is the crap that I'm referring to.

... I attempt to extend an Olive Branch early on (like when I first came on weeks ago in here). And you guys pull our your Bic Lighters and set it on fire.

I then attempt to explain to you why you might what to consider other angles, and you give me the face-palm and move to obscure the value of anything I might have to say.

Then, NOW, I challenge you and ............ you abuptly attempt (I repeat, attempt repeatedly) to somehow through belligerance....to turn things back on me with a number of "just so" statements, not of which are ever backed up by anything other than your own annoyance at my presence and my questions.

So, how do you think I'm going to respond to all of that?

 

[Saint Steven]

[QUOTE

As for being an expert on Hermeneutics and Exegesis, I ain't.

Clearly not. If you were you would know that meaningful discussions can take place without an explicit reference to hermeneutics and exegesis.

For the umpteenth time, this thread is not about hermeneutics etc. It's about universal restoration and why people find the idea offensive. Please, please, please, and I say this with the tears gushing from my eyes like a clown's, try to stay on topic.[/QUOTE]
I apologize.
I'll try to stop responding to posts that are not on topic. It only encourages him. And he has the right to reply, I'll grant him that. My bad.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See my post #1749 above.

There you go again. Obscuring the issues my attempting to inject false attributions to my position.

The fact is, my 'position' isn't some enclave enclosed secret. It's there for ANYONE to look into and investigate further, just as easily as I can say "high school diploma."

 

[Hmm]

I apologize.
I'll try to stop responding to posts that are not on topic. It only encourages him. And he has the right to reply, I'll grant him that. My bad.

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you at all! I was addressing @2PhiloVoid to try to get over the point that methodology has its place but so too does content and to request him for the umpteenth time to either stay on topic or to create a new thread to discuss hermeneutics etc.

 

[ozso]

There, now was that so hard to speak in plain English? (layman's terms)

But aren't you holding interpretation to some "learned" academic standard (Herman Nudists) from which you alone draw the "right" answer to the questions you drill us with?

You can cast a long shadow, but it's still only a shadow. We all know the source is smaller.

Or, a hot air balloon is big. But it only gets that way by being full of hot air. (as the name indicates)

Bingo.

 

[Hmm]

You can cast a long shadow, but it's still only a shadow. We all know the source is smaller.

lol!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you at all! I was addressing @2PhiloVoid to try to get over the point that methodology has its place but so too does content and to request him for the umpteenth time to either stay on topic or to create a new thread to discuss hermeneutics etc.

I created a thread on hermeneutics weeks ago...........you're welcome to come on over and make your presence known there if you wish ........................

But on that point, my apologies if you all think my questions here are off topic. It's just that where Philosophy is concerned, I thinks its integral to EVERYTHING ...

 

[Hmm]

I created a thread on hermeneutics weeks ago...........you're welcome to come on over and make your presence known there if you wish ........................

But on that point, my apologies if you all think my questions here are off topic. It's just that where Philosophy is concerned, I thinks its integral to EVERYTHING ...

It is but so is water but this thread is not about H2O. It has a different topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is but so is water but this thread is not about H2O. It has a different topic.

" It is, but ...???" Oh. I see. So, that's the way it's going to be, ay?

 

[Hmm]

" It is, but ...???" Oh. I see. So, that's the way it's going to be, ay?

That's what having a topic means: a focussing or a cutting away if you insist. Otherwise all we'd ever talk about is philosophy.

 

[ozso]

That's what having a topic means: a focussing or a cutting away if you insist. Otherwise all we'd be talking about is philosophy.

Do you remember Otto from a Fish Called Wanda?

 

[Hmm]

Do you remember Otto from a Fish Called Wanda?

I don't but I'm intrigued...

 

[ozso]

I don't but I'm intrigued...

He was really into philosophy.

 

[Hmm]

He was really into philosophy.

Okay! I agree with @2PhiloVoid that philosophy is important. It can cast a lot of light on things and save us from irrationality and prejudices but it can't explain everything. ECT for example. To me, the idea that God will eternally torment/torture someone forever and ever is an absolute heresy and no amount of proof-texts, so-called authoritive teaching or philosophical reasoning will ever persuade me otherwise. So although philosophy is important, it cannot explain everything. Sometimes it has to take a back seat when we know something in a way that is beyond understanding, philosophically or otherwise. This is why I asked for visceral reactions to ECT in the OP.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay! I agree with @2PhiloVoid that philosophy is important. It can cast a lot of light on things and save us from irrationality and prejudices but it can't explain everything. ECT for example. To me, the idea that God will eternally torment/torture someone forever and ever is an absolute heresy and no amount of proof-texts, so-called authoritive teaching or philosophical reasoning will ever persuade me otherwise. So although philosophy is important, it cannot explain everything. Sometimes it has to take a back seat when we know something in a way that is beyond understanding, philosophically or otherwise. This is why I asked for visceral reactions to ECT in the OP.

No, that's not what you said in the OP.

In the OP you said, "There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words 'Christian Universalism."

THAT is what you said. THAT is what you asked ........ for.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He was really into philosophy.

Nice. Really nice.

 

[ozso]

Nice. Really nice.

Well in your profile you say that you're a "wannabe philosopher", which is what Otto was.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Philosophy - what's not to like?

 

[ozso]

Philosophy - what's not to like?

Depends on how it's delivered.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Depends on how it's delivered.

If it's properly de-livered, would it missing some vital functions?