Losing the fear of an eternal hell

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, IMO it's the only view that makes complete sense of Christianity. Jesus and torture simply don't go together. I think most people realise that anyway, it's just that they think it's something they are expected to believe. Probably not many do really. Anyone who really believes in ECT either doesn't care too much about others or else, as personal testimonies evidence, suffers a lot of anxiety from the associated cognitive dissonance.

Oh, here we go again with the mutual mudslinging..... ! It never gets old, does it?

 

[public hermit]

Isn't there an "if" or two somewhere in and among Paul's discourse in those chapters?

That's a good question. I'll have to go back and look but I seem to remember he does speak in conditionals. He ends chapter 11 with clearly dogmatic statements about God subjecting all to disobedience in order to be merciful to all. But the tendency is to try and reframe the definition of "all."

 

[public hermit]

Oh, here we go again with the mutual mudslinging..... ! It never gets old, does it?

How is that mudslinging? He's offering his opinion?

 

[Der Alte]

All the respect, but you are assuming a lot here. Plus, what about Romans 9-11? Aren't the Jews grafted back in, even assuming eternal damnation? How do you interpret those passages?

How can I be assuming anything? I merely stated what happened without making any judgement either way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See? It's disturbing they way God is framed for children. I thought God only loved me if I was good, which was a real struggle for me. Lol. I grew up with so much guilt and fear. That's not right. It makes me sad because it was not necessary.

I'm sorry to hear you had to go through that, PH!

Y'know, despite the fact that I've heard a lot crap interpretations about a lot of bit and pieces of the Bible over the years---I've never heard any preacher say that God "only" loves us if we're good, even from proponents of ECT.

 

[public hermit]

How can I be assuming anything? I merely stated what happened without making any judgement either way.

Okay, that's fair. What I read was you assuming he rejected the faith for his family. You have no idea about his private thoughts, prayers, or what he eventually did. Does that makes sense or am I assuming too much?

 

[public hermit]

I'm sorry to hear you had to go through that, PH!

Y'know, despite the fact that I've heard a lot crap interpretations about a lot of bit and pieces of the Bible over the years---I've never heard any preacher say that God "only" loves us if we're good, even from proponents of ECT.

You also didn't have my mother.

 

[Saint Steven]

This seems to be about true and false disciples to me:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
— Matthew 7:21-23

That's a difficult passage. And the one I assumed you had in mind. It raises some interesting and frightening questions.

These "false disciples" as you are labeling them were operating in signs and wonders. No one can prophesy in God's name, cast out demons, and perform miracles in the flesh. These are manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

Yet Jesus says: "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

Not sure how manifesting spiritual gifts equates to "lawlessness". Or how anyone could operate in the gifts without a relationship with Christ.

So... how useful is this scripture in identifying "false" disciples? And if it is in fact useless, in this regard, do you have anything else to support your theory?

 

[Saint Steven]

You also didn't have my mother.

When people say "You're good." to me, I like to respond by saying, "That's not what my mother said... but we'll go with that."

 

[public hermit]

When people say "You're good." to me, I like to respond by saying, "That's not what my mother said... but we'll go with that."

My mother was holiness and very much about "Your sins will find you out, boy!" It's no wonder I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Of course, if we say God only saves some, then the whole idea of divine love becomes questionable. What does that love look like when it is dished out to some. Mom's favorite gets ice cream, but the rest of y'all can eat dirt.

 

[Saint Steven]

See? It's disturbing they way God is framed for children. I thought God only loved me if I was good, which was a real struggle for me. Lol. I grew up with so much guilt and fear. That's not right. It makes me sad because it was not necessary.

I remember hearing someone laugh at the comment of a toddler who said. "We have to do what God says, cuz he's bigger 'n us."

Right. Like a bully? (makes me sick)

 

[Saint Steven]

Of course, if we say God only saves some, then the whole idea of divine love becomes questionable.

Wow. That's another great double standard example. Favoritism is a sin. (James 2:9)
Add that to the list. Favoritism and love of enemies. Other ideas?

 

[public hermit]

Wow. That's another great double standard example. Favoritism is a sin. (James 2:9)
Add that to the list. Favoritism and love of enemies. Other ideas?

God is righteousness and is no respector of persons, except for all eternity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How is that mudslinging? He's offering his opinion?

He didn't couch it in qualified or conditional language. He just shot his Either/Or out there, as if apathy or dissonance are the only two possibilities working the overall psychology of any one individual.

When someone attempts to jump to conclusions all too easily about the absolute 'whys and wherefores' of my own psychology, and I see that they do so from some limited expression of what barely passes for deduction (or the field of psychology), and I know they have essentially ZERO interest in understanding my side of an argument or to understand me as a person, I get rather testy-----and being the educated person that I am, I know that I don't have to fall into line with being presented a false, preachy dichotomy, whether that false dichotomy is handed to me in my face by Universalists or by proponents of ECT (or even by some radical, ribald Annihilationist).

However, as rhetorical as all of that sounds above, I think that 'If' we want to REALLY hit the jugular in all of this Ethical Judgment and chutzpah which makes today's tennis match between Universalists and proponents of ECT so popular, we can just mosey on over to the present Atheist's camp and drink oh so very deeply from their cistern of grief over all things Biblical.

And by this I mean precisely to say: why not just say and affirm what the Atheists are saying of late?: That Yahweh is a terrorist!

 

[Hmm]

"We have to do what God says, cuz he's bigger 'n us."

That reminds me of the Monty Python sketch "Oh Lord, you are so big!"

"Let us praise God.

Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic. Amen."

Then they sing a hymn:

"O Lord, please don't burn us, Don't grill us or toast your flock, Don't put us on a barbecue, Or simmer us in stock, Don't braise or bake or boil us, Or stir-fry us in a wok. Oh please don't lightly poach us, Or baste us with hot fat, Don't fricassee or roast us, Or boil us in a vat, And please don't stick thy servants, Lord, In a Rotissomat."

Or you can just watch it!

Sadly, this is still most people's perception of the church. I can't think why!

 

[Der Alte]

Okay, that's fair. What I read was you assuming he rejected the faith for his family. You have no idea about his private thoughts, prayers, or what he eventually did. Does that makes sense or am I assuming too much?

That is a fair summation. He appeared to be a staunch Christian participating in Bible studies and even street witnessing, then he announced he was returning to his family and nothing else then walked out.

 

[public hermit]

He didn't couch it in qualified or conditional language. He just shot his Either/Or out there, as if those are the only two possibilities working the overall psychology of any one individual.

When someone attempts to jump to conclusions all too easily about the absolute 'whys and wherefores' of my own psychology, and I see that they do so from some limited expression of what barely passes for deduction (or the field of psychology), and I know they have essentially ZERO interest in understanding my side of an argument or to understand me as a person, I get rather testy-----and being the educated person that I am, I know that I don't have to fall into line with being presented a false, preachy dichotomy, whether that false dichotomy is handed to me in my face by Universalists or by proponents of ECT (or even by some radical, ribald Annihilationist).

However, as rhetorical as all of that sounds above, I think that 'If' we want to REALLY hit the jugular in all of this Ethical Judgment and chutzpah which makes today's tennis match between Universalists and proponents of ECT so popular, we can just mosey on over to the present Atheist's camp and drink oh so very deeply from their cistern of grief over all things Biblical.

And by this I mean precisely to say: why not just say and affirm what the Atheists are saying of late?: That Yahweh is a terrorist!

So is it any different that you just compared proponents of UR to atheists?

I agree, and I'm guilty of this, that it would help the flow of conversation if we all qualified our statements appropriately as, "This is what I think..." But, I also find it interesting that critiquing ECT makes people feel attacked, personally. Why is that? If you critique UR, I'm not going to think you are attacking me so much as the position. But people seem to feel attacked when eternal damnation is critiqued. That tells me that people are very much identified with the Doctrine. To criticize ECT is to criticize their person.

 

[Saint Steven]

God is righteousness and is no respector of persons, except for all eternity.

Right. He chooses who wants to save, and to hell with the rest. Feel the love. (sigh)

 

[public hermit]

Right. He chooses who wants to save, and to hell with the rest. Feel the love. (sigh)

As you know, it took me awhile to come right out and declare that I believe in UR. For a long time, I qualified my position because I wanted to say we just don't know, which I believe is true. But I cannot see how divine love makes sense if everyone is not brought to fulfillment. And I have to be honest about that. Divine love that doesn't succeed in bringing each creature to its created purpose is not love. And, I'll just include animals in that, too. God so loved the cosmos.

 

[Saint Steven]

But, I also find it interesting that critiquing ECT makes people feel attacked, personally. Why is that?

It seems that there are two different fears of hell.
1) The fear of hell that sends them to church in the first place. (true or false salvation?)
2) The unbelief in hell that sends you to hell. (because hell is for unbelievers)

Therefore, ECT proponents discuss the subject of hell with much fear.
If you convince them that hell doesn't exist (and they may hope you are right),
they risk ending up there if we UR proponents are wrong. Slippery slope.