Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

John was (IIRC) instructed to NOT write down some things...but to guess would be to speculate. What I do know is that the last chapters of the Revelation are NOT the end of the story. For that, we need to go to First Corinthians 15, where the Son hands the Kingdom over to the Father, who then becomes All in all.

Steven told me that I should inform you about my thoughts. Ok. So, rather than grilling you with a question (because I know you guys don't like to be questioned), I'll just make a statement:

I fail to see how you are exegetically justified to assume that you can appropriate 1 Corinthians 15 and [for lack of a better word at the moment] stuff it into the place of Revelation 20:16.​

I'll back off now and step away since I'm not trying to raise a ruckus. I'm just rather attempting to inform you of what I think.

 

[Saint Steven]

Ok. But first off, what's the point of this thread on the whole? I'm just reviewing the OP to see where I went wrong. Maybe I misunderstood what you guys were wanting to hear from respondents.

Looks like the main question was right up front.

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Looks like the main question was right up front.

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians?

Ok. So, when you guys ask this question, I'm assuming then that since you are all men of integrity, you're not intending for this question to be either loaded or insinuatively inflammatory, right?

And if it's not meant to be psychologically cajoling, then what kinds of answers did you expect to receive in this thread since the question invites answers?

Personally, I'm not "annoyed" by U.R., but I do get annoyed with patronizing and disdainful reactions to what I think are pertinent questions and/or statements.

 

[Saint Steven]

Ok. So, when you guys ask this question, I'm assuming then that since you are all men of integrity, you're not intending for this question to be either loaded or insinuatively inflammatory, right?

And if it's not meant to be psychologically cajoling, then what kinds of answers did you expect to receive in this thread since the question invites answers?

Personally, I'm not "annoyed" by U.R., but I do get annoyed with patronizing and disdainful reactions to what I think are pertinent questions and/or statements.

It's pretty straight forward. What annoys you about UR?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's pretty straight forward. What annoys you about UR?

Well, [edit: almost] nothing annoys me about it in any direct sense, and if some fellow Christians think the concept of UR is the way they need to think in order to make sense out of things within a generally Trinitarian framework, then as an Existentialist and as a proponent of Journey Epistemology, I'm fine with that. And I don't feel the need, really, to try to argue UR brethren "out" of that position.

How's that for an answer?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's pretty straight forward. What annoys you about UR?

If there is one thing that might annoy me, though, it's when any other Christians employ a framework that all too firmly states they can clearly and discernibly identify, and will ardently work against, what they see as a "Harlot Church." This is most especially the case for me when brethren of any sort, from any other denomination, work overtime to make sure I'm informed about and come to know that I'm in the "Harlot Church" which they've so clairvoyantly discerned.

Other than that, I'm good.

 

[Fervent]

Even tremendous intellects like Stephen Hawking are capable of making themselves understandable. So if you're not understandable, that's on you. A true intellectual knows how to be fully and clearly understood and succeeds at it.

The only time people seem to have trouble understanding me is when they're arguing with me. But hey, I'm not a true intellect. Don't really care, all I want to know is: what does the text say?

 

[Fervent]

Er, if there's an apparent contradiction between God's sworn oath and another text, what would be the general rule of thumb there? Might I suggest to strive to harmonise the servient with the dominant.

Certainly, but those promises have to be understood within the context they were given before reaching a conclusion on them. No where is universal salvation promised by God, in fact salvation thrughout the Scriptures is predicated on obedience.

My assumption that God is absolute? Very droll.

Your assumption of UR, but nice dodge.

Sadly, reason so often seems to elude the intellectual. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

The beauty is in the simplicity, these are the eternal truths. Just let God be true. If the boss wants to pay the late workers the same even though you've toiled the livelong day, what's it to you?

Yet another ad hominem with nothing of substance.

 

[Fervent]

OK, κολασις means punishment inflicted in the interest of the sufferer. IOW, corrective punishment as I wrote before.

this is more reflective of the usage outside of the Biblical range than it is of how it's used in the LXX and NT. The main consideration there seems to be that it is not inflicted for God's pleasure, as the main difference between the common words is not about the one receiving the punishment but the one giving it. In other words, it's not revenge but genuine consequences.

 

[ozso]

Steven told me that I should inform you about my thoughts. Ok. So, rather than grilling you with a question (because I know you guys don't like to be questioned), I'll just make a statement:

I fail to see how you are exegetically justified to assume that you can appropriate 1 Corinthians 15 and [for lack of a better word at the moment] stuff it into the place of Revelation 20:16.​

I'll back off now and step away since I'm not trying to raise a ruckus. I'm just rather attempting to inform you of what I think.

I don't think asking questions is a problem. It's asking loaded questions that's a problem. Along with loaded posts. That sort of thing just sets a bad tone.

 

[Hmm]

The relevance of those questions is they point out to Saint Steven that UR isn't the only position that argues with those who aver for ECT.

I know you guys do more than virtue signalling, and I never said that that is all you guys do. There is in fact several other types of Advertising Propaganda that you all do in addition to this, and I realize that virtue signalling isn't the only one these tactics that you all too often employ. Like these for instance:

Public Relations and Propaganda Techniques | GW PR Program​

You guys do make excellent adverstisers for UR, I must say!

At this point, I imagine you're digging in your heels and grinding your teeth.... just.... about ....... NOW!

Enjoy that feeling.

See ya!

Sorry but none of that made any sense to me at all

 

[ozso]

Sorry but none of that made any sense to me at all

That seems to be the idea.

 

[ozso]

The only time people seem to have trouble understanding me is when they're arguing with me. But hey, I'm not a true intellect. Don't really care, all I want to know is: what does the text say?

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.

 

[ozso]

The relevance of those questions is they point out to Saint Steven that UR isn't the only position that argues with those who aver for ECT.

I know you guys do more than virtue signalling, and I never said that that is all you guys do. There is in fact several other types of Advertising Propaganda that you all do in addition to this, and I realize that virtue signalling isn't the only one these tactics that you all too often employ. Like these for instance:

Public Relations and Propaganda Techniques | GW PR Program​

You guys do make excellent adverstisers for UR, I must say!

At this point, I imagine you're digging in your heels and grinding your teeth.... just.... about ....... NOW!

Enjoy that feeling.

See ya!

More like

 

[Hmm]

I'm not on Team Hell but will answer any way . There are 2 possibilities:

1) Their memories will be wiped out.

2) Their hearts will be calloused.

Both answers lead to the same conclusion: They will not be humans.

I agree, if you can't remember the things from this life or the love you had for others was blunted or removed then you would not be the same person.

Possibility 1 could lead to some bizarre scenarios. Here's one. Suppose a man's wife and children died and your wife wasn't a Christian so under Team Hell rules she goes to hell. And then suppose you die and go to heaven. You meet your children but your memory of your wife has been erased in accordance with option 1 so that you don't feel sad about her. How then could you explain the fact that you had children?

I think weird stuff like that shows the absurdity of ECT.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think asking questions is a problem. It's asking loaded questions that's a problem. Along with loaded posts. That sort of thing just sets a bad tone.

That's exactly my sentiment! See? We have more in common that we realize.

 

[ozso]

I'm not on Team Hell

 

[Der Alte]

John was (IIRC) instructed to NOT write down some things...but to guess would be to speculate. What I do know is that the last chapters of the Revelation are NOT the end of the story. For that, we need to go to First Corinthians 15, where the Son hands the Kingdom over to the Father, who then becomes All in all.

I knew this was coming. That is not quite what John said.

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.​

You can check this for yourself. When John wrote what I quoted why would he say what he did? Did he not know that, supposedly, all mankind would be saved?
Where is it written that those who were told to remain filthy etc. would be saved? Where is it written that those outside new Jerusalem would be saved? Where is it written that those who take away from what God dictated to John would have their right to the book of life taken away then restored?

 

[ozso]

That's exactly my sentiment! See? We have more in common that we realize.

It's hard to tell who's better at trying to confusticate, you or Fervent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry but none of that made any sense to me at all

That's ok. I'll just assume you know what I'm talking about anyway since you must have surely gotten some solid things out of those Mathematics classes (and who knows what else) that I know you've taken. You're a smart guy, and no one is doubting this, at least I'm not.