Is the number of Christians who are open to universalism dependent on how it's described?

[public hermit]

I suppose they would say, it is "God;s justice. Demonstrating his wrath gives him glory". (something like that)

Yeah, I'm sure. Ill try: The Babylonian children deserve a head bashing because God used the Babylonians to punish Judah because they failed to seek justice for their own widows and orphans. (That's horrible- and sarcastic- but not unlike other very unhelpful interpretations I've heard)

Here's a better reading: the psalmist is upset the Babylonians asked them to sing during their captivity. In a moment of intense hatred for their captors, the psalmist wrote a horrendous line that certainly expresses emotion, but has no moral or spiritual value. No need to bring God into it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suppose they would say, it is "God;s justice. Demonstrating his wrath gives him glory". (something like that)

Who is "they"? It sounds like you're making a reference to a bad B Sci-fi movie, Steven.

 

[Hmm]

But I might have to deliver my message in piecemeal fashion ....

That sounds interesting and I doubt I can cope with your message all in one go so please send Part 1 of messasge asap.

Then too, I think the whole Book of Judges is horrible, and it took me a long time (and some study) to come to realize that that is kind of the main point of this gutwrenching book. It's horrible for a reason.

I'm not aware of the context of all this but I'd be interested in hearing of any reason that could justify a literal interpretation of "babies heads being smashed on the rocks".

This, and the realization that I shouldn't trust any woman named Delilah.

Is there bad history there?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That sounds interesting and I doubt I can cope with your message all in one go so please send Part 1 of messasge asap.

You do know that I was offering a bit of humor, right?

I'm not aware of the context of all this but I'd be interested in hearing of any reason that could justify a literal interpretation of "babies heads being smashed on the rocks".

I was only talking about Judges, not the imprecatory Psalms.

Is there bad history there?

For myself? Not directly, no.

Sorry to disappoint you if you thought otherwise.

 

[Hmm]

You do know that I was offering a bit of humor, right?

I did but in addition, thought you had a wider point to make but were hesitant to make it in a short post. My bad.

For myself? Not directly, no.

Sorry to disappoint you if you thought otherwise.

I was also trying to offer humour but obviously failed spectacularly. No surprise there then. As we were then...

 

[public hermit]

I'm not aware of the context of all this but I'd be interested in hearing of any reason that could justify a literal interpretation of "babies heads being smashed on the rocks"

It's Psalm 137.

ETA: If you haven't read Judges 19, you should if your current nightmares are not yet sufficient.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did but in addition, thought you had a wider point to make but were hesitant to make it in a short post. My bad.

The wider point in regard to Judges is that it has a literary structure, one that indicates that the entirety of that book is what happens when an entire people group ---such as the illustrious Israelites--- interpreted and did "what was right in their own eyes" because "they had no king" to rule over them and **cough** wisely direct them to do what God would have wanted them to do.

So....................... (insert best deflating balloon sound effect [here])............................out came the book of "Judges."

If I had a point, like say, a hermeneutical point, that would be it.

The moral of the story?: ... choose your barber wisely.

I was also trying to offer humour but obviously failed spectacularly. No surprise there then.

No problem. We both know that some of our meaning gets lost in the shuffle of 'on-line' writing to each other. That, and the fact that we've probably poked each other in the eyes one too many times doesn't help.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's Psalm 137.

Well, y'know, there's an easy way to address (or redress) this situation, don't you?

Hint: ... the typical paper quality of most bibles is mighty thin.

 

[public hermit]

Well, y'know, there's an easy way to address (or redress) this situation, don't you?

Hint: ... the typical paper quality of most bibles is mighty thin.

I've been using the psalms during prayer for a long time but there are some that don't quite hit right.

The ancients had a reasonable approach, or about as reasonable as one could hope for. The "babies" are our passions and we "dash them against the rocks" by overcoming them through spiritual discipline. Allegorical interpretations had their use.

 

[public hermit]

I've been using the psalms during prayer for a long time but there are some that don't quite hit right.

The ancients had a reasonable approach, or about as reasonable as one could hope for. The "babies" are our passions and we "dash them against the rocks" by overcoming them through spiritual discipline. Allegorical interpretations had their use.

Literalists could learn a lot from the ancients. You don’t have to sacrifice goodness in order to understand and use the scriptures as authoritative. You just have to find an interpretation that doesn't abrogate the law of love, pace Augustine.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been using the psalms during prayer for a long time but there are some that don't quite hit right.

The ancients had a reasonable approach, or about as reasonable as one could hope for. The "babies" are our passions and we "dash them against the rocks" by overcoming them through spiritual discipline. Allegorical interpretations had their use.

Philosophically speaking, where Axiology and Epistemology join in within our attempts to wrestle with the foreign "stuff" we find in the Bible, you sound much more charitable toward the ancients than I am or ever could be, PH.

... Then again, I'm not philosophically charitable toward today's moderns, either, and maybe this plays into the way in which I attempt to stomach ancient Israelite theology and spirituality.

On my part, I tend to think that reading something like the imprecatory Psalms (or half of the Old Testament, for that matter) in an allegorical way, however psychologically useful it may be to allay our irritations at the biblical text, won't paste over the fact that these Israelites of Old were violent people, even if we strongly surmise that their writings were hyperbolic in nature.

They still killed some people; they just killed "less" people than they say they did. So, what do we "do" with that...? Exisentially, that's a very difficult question for any of us to have to answer and no amount of biblical exegesis can remove that difficulty.

 

[Hmm]

The wider point...

Is what? That God does smash baby's heads against walls? Or He doesn't?

Make a stand my friend! Your hermeneutics doesn't seem to offer much. Or maybe it does but I've yet to see it. It seems to me you "contextually" and "philosophically" critique everything yet offer up nothing yourself. Is that because you are afraid of criticism yourself? And I ask that hermeneutically, not personally, so spare me the customary contextual ad homs please

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is what? That God does smash baby's heads against walls? Or He doesn't?

Make a stand my friend! Your hermeneutics doesn't seem to offer much. Or maybe it does but I've yet to see it. It seems to me you "contextually" and "philosophically" critique everything yet offer up nothing yourself. Is that because you are afraid of criticism yourself? And I ask that hermeneutically, not personally, so spare me the customary contextual ad homs please

Whatever I said to PH "is what" my wider, existentialist statement was inclined to be...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is what? That God does smash baby's heads against walls? Or He doesn't?

Make a stand my friend! Your hermeneutics doesn't seem to offer much. Or maybe it does but I've yet to see it. It seems to me you "contextually" and "philosophically" critique everything yet offer up nothing yourself. Is that because you are afraid of criticism yourself? And I ask that hermeneutically, not personally, so spare me the customary contextual ad homs please

Oh my! Oh yes! I'm ..... uh-fraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayed .... of criticism. Especially if it comes from you!

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh my! Oh yes! I'm ..... uh-fraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayed .... of criticism. Especially if it comes from you!

Is that an avoidance tactic?
Maybe even a 2PhilAvoidance tactic? - LOL

cc: @Hmm

 

[Hmm]

Is that an avoidance tactic?
Maybe even a 2PhilAvoidance tactic? - LOL

cc: @Hmm

I was really meaning self-criticism anyway. If you're a perfectionist as I suspect he is then it can be hard to commit to any ideas because every idea is problematic to an extent. This is a good thing.in many ways though.

 

[Andrewn]

There are still consequences for those who reject Him. There is really no getting around that even with scriptural sophistry and wishful thinking.

@Jeff Saunders addressed this part.

Where Universalists are mistaken is God has not changed. He was just as loving in the OT as He is wrathful in the NT.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 meekness, and self-control; against such there is no law.

I'm sure God has the fruit of his Spirit. Wrathfulness is not on the list. If wrath is necessary to avenge abusing God's children, it likely has an end when the abusers repent because of God's self-control.

As Christians, we should be concerned with our salvation and the salvation of others. For those who insist on rejecting Christ, we can hope that He has a mechanism to address their rebellion that does not include endless torment or annihilation.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm sure God has the fruit of his Spirit. Wrathfulness is not on the list. If wrath is necessary to avenge abusing God's children, it likely has an end when the abusers repent because of self-control.

Wow. That's a great way to explain that. The fruit of the Spirit reveals God's character. Wrath is nowhere to be found.

 

[Andrewn]

I've been using the psalms during prayer for a long time but there are some that don't quite hit right.

The ancients had a reasonable approach, or about as reasonable as one could hope for. The "babies" are our passions and we "dash them against the rocks" by overcoming them through spiritual discipline. Allegorical interpretations had their use.

Yes, imprecatory psalms should be read as prayers against demons.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

....we can hope ....

I agree, we can only hope.
Blessings