Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I save five people I happen to be friends with from a burning building while letting ten others burn to death inside, I'm a hero, but if I save all fifteen, I'm a liar and my actions are pointless?
I refuse to accept any theology which makes me more merciful and compassionate than God.
Throwing in some emotional garbage to try and prove a point is useless. You need to make arguments from scripture, I will simply ignore your emotional appeal.If I save five people I happen to be friends with from a burning building while letting ten others burn to death inside, I'm a hero, but if I save all fifteen, I'm a liar and my actions are pointless?
I refuse to accept any theology which makes me more merciful and compassionate than God.
You make a very bold assumption that we all take scriptures literally. Much as I state to my politically conservative friends, you cannot subscribe the tenets of what you believe from a single source to be the foundation of an argument. As such, just because you take the scriptures entirely literally and without question do not assume we all do. The ability to question that which creates a backbone of faith is a major emotional portion of anyone's psyche and should not ever be dismissed by anyone.
Catholics killing everyone..yeah...you are thinking of medevil Christianity. What I'm talking about is the first 200-300 years or so of Christianity where doctrines where determined, the biblical cannon was set in stone, the creeds where made ect.The testament of history was written by the Roman Catholic church which basically killed anyone who decided to speak out against them. As such, history, as always, is written by the winners and the record shows that. We are all aware that the truth is not what the historical tomes necessarily tell though. They are just a snapshot of the time
are you talking about the transciption of the books of the bible throughout history?and in the case of the bible, with tons of translations and various people putting their individual spins upon it, it is entirely plausible that the original intent may not be what we are expecting.
Loving your neighbor is Christian, because you can find that in Scriptures. Believing everyone will be saved is not Christian, because you CANNOT find it in the bible.And yeah, having the idea that everyone might be saved is totally unchristian, because it's not like were commanded to love our neighbor right?
Let me ask this on a personal level - what is it for you (Searching for Christ) that upsets you so much about the concept of universalism? Does your whole idea of faith somehow fall apart because someone who doesn't believe like you do might be saved as well? What is the root of your issue with it?
I find going against the general Orthodox scheme of things to be in poor taste, I mean yeah this is the liberal CHRISTIAN section of the forum, but the throwing around of heretical ideas seems to go on far too often. The salvation of all mankind isn't bad, but it isn't scriptural either, thus entertaining such ideas is a waist of time, because clearly not all are saved in the end.
Throwing in some emotional garbage to try and prove a point is useless. You need to make arguments from scripture, I will simply ignore your emotional appeal.
Lismore, I will look into it.
The specifics of universal reconciliation may vary among believers, but the basic idea is that all will be reconciled to God, either in this life or the next. I don't see how said belief necessarily negates Jesus or his actions on the cross, nor do I see it in conflict with Matthew since evildoers could easily come to God during or after the initial judgement of mankind. It really depends on what you believe about the end of days, a topic that's highly debatable.What part about not coming to the Father except through Jesus makes sense if in the end we all come to the father? Or about the folks that in the end will be saying "Lord, Lord" yet they will be dismissed as never being known? none of this can be possible if universalism is true.
I'm somewhat leaning towards this being the main reason the Christian eternal hell doctrine was invented and changed over Judaism's version. Easier to make converts with the fear of eternal suffering, and allows people to feel a sense of superiority over those who don't make it.People are bloodthirsty to the core, and desire to see "bad people" suffer rather than be redeemed to their Father, because that way they too are allowed to hate who God hates. It's a scarier world for some people if hatred of others is not allowed, because they know it is a standard they cannot meet. Sometimes for understandable reasons. A lot of the people I know who are passionate defenders of eternal hellfire, are so because they want redress for something done to them personally. No one wants to meet their rapist in heaven, you know? It's a violent life, so we created a violent afterlife to go with it.
You're assuming the Bible's discussion of Hell in the New Testament is an accurate translation of the original. Considering the Christian Hell so grossly diverged from the Jewish version Jesus and the Apostles would have been familiar with, it seems odd to claim such assuredness in its accuracy.I find going against the general Orthodox scheme of things to be in poor taste, I mean yeah this is the liberal CHRISTIAN section of the forum, but the throwing around of heretical ideas seems to go on far too often. The salvation of all mankind isn't bad, but it isn't scriptural either, thus entertaining such ideas is a waist of time, because clearly not all are saved in the end.
You do realize your views are relatively modern right? The whole sola scriptura, no interpretation necessary literal approach to Bible hermeneutics is a modern invention, and not one held through most of Christian history. Claiming a botched 20th Century English translation of an ancient text dictates all doctrine and belief with no analysis or interpretation necessary is dangerous.If your going to make any assumptions on what is truth within the Christian tradition, you shouldn't be going anywhere outside of scripture for those answers. Scriptures aren't supposed to be interpreted in the lense of emotion, but scripture by scripture. Emotionally I would like to think that all my family would be saved, but its likely that not all will...but scripture says that not all men will be saved, so THATS what I must go by. I'm also fully aware that most liberals don't take the scriptures literally, which is part of the reason you all generally fall into heresies long since dealt with. You shouldn't be neglecting the testament of history, and the testament of history says that universalism, is heresy and Unorthodox, and thus by being unorthodox is un-christian.
I agree. I see nothing inherently wrong with discussing these issues. They have, afterall, been debated by Christian church fathers, theologians, scholars, philosophers for all of Christian history. I don't think God expects us to ignore our rational and logical desire to investigate things that we don't understand.In some ways (and I hate to use the term devils advocate here but I suppose it fits for my argument) I can see why the idea of universalim would be threatening to a fundamentalist view. If you are raised or taught or indoctrinated into a belief system that preaches exclusivity as its main tenet, then the idea that something might allow everyone in is pretty scary because you might feel as if you were somehow invalidating your own methods and works and beliefs prior to this point.
I liken it to, and this is not me insinuating racism; just using the example, the racial tension when school segregation came about. If you are accustomed to a certain exclusivity, a club of like members, and someone of a different nature is allowed *by their own volition or otherwise* then yeah, I can see why the fundamentalist and ultraconservative theological sectors get bent over this.
The reason I maintain an open faith is because I was not brought to faith through fear but through forgiveness. So in my world, I was not taught anything or with anyone's predisposed notions. I use about 6 different bibles from the KJV to the NIV to a NRSV and find the possbility of most anything is open for debate and research and study.
If I save five people I happen to be friends with from a burning building while letting ten others burn to death inside, I'm a hero, but if I save all fifteen, I'm a liar and my actions are pointless?
I refuse to accept any theology which makes me more merciful and compassionate than God.
Christianity IS exclusive. Jesus Himself said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life...'I apologize if this is a dumb question, and maybe even getting really simle answers wil help me to understand better, but as a person who was always pretty much a rank and file agnostic, one of my main challenges I faceed when I became a follower of Christ was dealing with the exclusionary model of Christianity.
Thinking Christianity is exclusive isn't heretical. Universalism is.That said, I realize (perhaps naively so) that the idea of having such thoughts makes me either a heretic or a lunatic depening on who you ask. I also can see where many denominations and religious sects would essentially lose their main reasoning and arguments for why they are how they are. Perhaps it has too much of the idea of religious socialism and therefore negates any real scrutiny?
It changes doctrine that has been established for a few hundred years, for one thing. For another, it essentially means that Jesus' comments on hell in Matthew 25, or the lake of fire if you prefer that term, are lies and a number of verses in Revelation are also lies. It would mean that the Bible does not contain completely reliable information.I guess I am just trying to find out why the idea of universal salvation is considered a bad one.
For another, it essentially means that Jesus' comments on hell in Matthew 25, or the lake of fire if you prefer that term, are lies and a number of verses in Revelation are also lies. It would mean that the Bible does not contain completely reliable information.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?