Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

That's not how it works. If I were to illustrate the SDA view of the sabbath, that would not make it my it my interpretation.

Pointless semantic objection. You made a presentation of it for argumentation, simply because you do not have the integrity to own your position does not make it some ethereal interpretation. Nor did you present it as an example of another's beliefs but presented it persuasively, so it is natural to presume that you find it to have some persuasive import. But again you're simply diverting from the argument.

 

[ozso]

Pointless semantic objection. You made a presentation of it for argumentation, simply because you do not have the integrity to own your position does not make it some ethereal interpretation. Nor did you present it as an example of another's beliefs but presented it persuasively, so it is natural to presume that you find it to have some persuasive import. But again you're simply diverting from the argument.

Okey dokey. How about just posting a viable source which illustrates that Amos 8:9-14 is about eternal torment?

 

[Hmm]

According to you from what I've read, you're complaining about the idea of having to dumb down your posts for the UR crowd.

I agree. It's not that what he's saying is so rarefied that only few can follow it, it's that it's usually impossible to discern any meaning because of a complete absence of content. It's all very well repeating the same spiel about heuristics and context etc. but sometimes you have to commit to saying something concrete as well if you expect a meaningful dialogue.

One of the signs of understanding something is that you know what you want to say and you can express it in a clear way that somebody less "expert" can understand. Good teachers feel they are imparting something, not dumbing things down.

 

[Hmm]

Okey dokey. How about just posting a viable source which illustrates that Amos 8:9-14 is about eternal torment?

There you go, asking for actual content again lol

 

[ozso]

There you go, asking for actual content again lol

My bad.

 

[Andrewn]

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.

How is the word "kolasis" used in Ezekiel in the LXX? Which Hebrew word(s) does it translate?

 

[ozso]

It seems to me folks come into a thread like this confident that they can easily disprove UR and make mincemeat out the UR proponents. And when that fails to happen, they start becoming frustrated. And that's where it starts going downhill.

 

[Andrewn]

As for me personally, I was trying to get you to point out how Amos was talking about eternal torment,

"Amos was active c. 750 BC during the reign of Jeroboam II (788–747 BC) of Samaria (aka. Northern Israel), making Amos the first prophetic book of the Bible to be written. The prophet denounces the crimes committed by the gentile (non-Jewish) nations, and tells Israel that even they have sinned and are guilty of the same crimes, and reports five symbolic visions prophesying the destruction of Israel."

Just as you said before, the book has nothing to do w/ eternal torment.

 

[Hmm]

It seems to me folks come into a thread like this confident that they can easily disprove UR and make mincemeat out the UR proponents. And when that fails to happen, they start becoming frustrated. And that's where it starts going downhill.

I agree. I used to assume that the reason UR was not widely believed in was because it was patently unscriptural but when I tried to find out what the actual arguments against it are I realised that there wasn't much. Hence this lack of content and the constant appeal to high-level analysis instead to try to win the opposing argument. And all to support a doctrine of torment! UR, what's not to like?

 

[ozso]

I agree. I used to assume that the reason UR was not widely believed in was because it was patently unscriptural but when I tried to find out what the actual arguments against it are I realised that there wasn't much. Hence this lack of content and the constant appeal to high-level analysis instead to try to win the opposing argument. And all to support a doctrine of torment! UR, what's not to like?

It's interesting to me that you entered into it as a skeptic, contrary to the usual accusation of being "desperate to make it work".

 

[Saint Steven]

It seems that you're taking "I will leave you there" as being permanent. But what purpose would it serve a metal smith to leave metal in a furnace permanently? From what I know of metal smiting, metals are melted in a furnace to produce an end result product.

That's a great point. Two actually.
1) Metal work is performed with an end in mind, a purpose.
2) Duration of a metal piece in a fire is for a treatment, like tempering, which makes it stronger. Benefiting the piece.

 

[ozso]

"Amos was active c. 750 BC during the reign of Jeroboam II (788–747 BC) of Samaria (aka. Northern Israel), making Amos the first prophetic book of the Bible to be written. The prophet denounces the crimes committed by the gentile (non-Jewish) nations, and tells Israel that even they have sinned and are guilty of the same crimes, and reports five symbolic visions prophesying the destruction of Israel."

Just as you said before, the book has nothing to do w/ eternal torment.

But what about the pre-existent strata of judgment oracles stretching back to Deuteronomy, via the allusions he makes in the passage, via verbal constructs and juxtaposition?

 

[ozso]

That's a great point. Two actually.
1) Metal work is performed with an end in mind, a purpose.
2) Duration of a metal piece in a fire is for a treatment, like tempering, which makes it stronger. Benefiting the piece.

I'm going to have to study that passage more. I've had a passing interest in metallurgy for a long time.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's interesting to me that you entered into it as a skeptic, contrary to the usual accusation of being "desperate to make it work".

I think that was the case with @Lazarus Short as well. He came into it with some healthy skepticism and made an unbiased study of it to find answers. (if I remember correctly)

I was hoping it was true, but grilled my UR friends mercilessly with all the Hell Yes! rebuttals. I was a major pain in the rear initially.

But once I began to do my homework and study into it, I could easily see the holes in the arguments against it. I began arguing in favor of UR before I had totally committed myself to it. - lol

The verse below stopped me in my tracks. "not only for ours"?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm going to have to study that passage more. I've had a passing interest in metallurgy for a long time.

Perhaps you are entering your own Iron Age. - lol

 

[Lazarus Short]

A comment on the discussion about fire, metals and melting: Not so long ago I did a word study on "fire" and related words. Conclusions - fire in the Bible is of two kinds, natural and Godfire. I could not find any "hellfire." God calls Himself a refiner of men, and there are lots of texts that bear this out. He is fairly explicit when He names metaphoric silver and gold as the desired end products. I see it as a necessary part of the UR position.

 

[Saint Steven]

Perhaps you are entering your own Iron Age. - lol

I subscribe to this YouTube channel. I love this video about restoring a Japanese knife. Applicable to the topic, I believe. What a beautiful thing is made from what appears to be junk.

This is a great channel. Lots of other great content. I love the interaction with the cat when Jun is cooking.

 

[ozso]

I think that was the case with @Lazarus Short as well. He came into it with some healthy skepticism and made an unbiased study of it to find answers. (if I remember correctly)

I was hoping it was true, but grilled my UR friends mercilessly with all the Hell Yes! rebuttals. I was a major pain in the rear initially.

But once I began to do my homework and study into it, I could easily see the holes in the arguments against it. I began arguing in favor of UR before I had totally committed myself to it. - lol

The verse below stopped me in my tracks. "not only for ours"?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I think I really started considering it a legitimate possibility when I went to home Bible study hosted by Steve Gregg (first time I met him) and lo and behold the topic was the different views of hell and challenging ECT. Which is not something I would NOT have expected from him.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think I really started considering it a legitimate possibility when I went to home Bible study hosted by Steve Gregg (first time I met him) and lo and behold the topic was the different views of hell and challenging ECT. Which is not something I would have expected from him.

Does that mean that you actually met him in person? Not just on YouTube?

 

[ozso]

Does that mean that you actually met him in person? Not just on YouTube?

Oh yeah. We even had dinner together before the thing got rolling.