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.
This post helps me give a better response to SD about shared responsibility. On the negative side, I used the dynamic of blame to show how we humans sometimes, even though we know there is more than one cause, attribute all the responsibility to one of them, and excuse the others. The problem with this is that we then change our narration and act as if the cause we blamed or assigned responsibility was the only cause, when in reality, what happened could not have happened but for quite a number of things happening or being in place at the same time. We call this the "but for" test of causation.
On the positive side, I think the New Testament's most predominant paradigm for narrative construction (and let's make no mistake - what we are engaged in is biblical theology, that is, constructing a narrative that is as consistent as possible with all of scripture) is love.
Human narratives about love are that it is supposed to be mutual and reciprocal. The loving act of one toward another ideally provokes a loving response that, in turn increases love again. OTOH, unrequited love is a tragedy, or causes something to go very wrong if it is not quickly extinguished when not returned. Think stalkers and other annoying admirers, as well as some of the other analogies we've seen in these threads, like kidnapping.
So love involves two persons, and can't work right unless both willingly participate.
The question we are exploring, then, is what options are available to God, who loves all humans, to deal with those who don't love God back. What endings can we put on such narratives, and are such endings consistent with scripture?
I think, as creatures, we certainly can take ultimate causation back to the First Cause, the creator. But love is not possible without at least two agents, so we cannot discount human agency, either. That is why I find simplistic narratives, like the Calvinist one and some universalist ones, that disregard human agency entirely. They are not consistent with scriptures that, for example, assign ethical responsibility to humans, and they are not consistent with love.
I would much rather just be totally extinguished from existence. Wouldn't you? Maybe this is the second death? I don't know, nor do I want to find out.
Ask that about the crucifixion - maybe that's all wrong too... heck, maybe Jesus didn't even exist!Does Scripture teach anything or do people use Scripture to teach things?
Ask that about the crucifixion - maybe that's all wrong too... heck, maybe Jesus didn't even exist!
OH MY!!
Even the most God hating person of all time is overwhelmed almost instantly...hmmm about a half a second.....
Such is the Soveriegn Power and will of God.
Well this thread looks more like
"PREACH TO THE CHOIR" at the moment.
I'll go find a worthwhile thread till the virtual feeding frenzy dissipates.
The good thing is, no matter how bad we act & attack people, we're all getting into heaven anyways
21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?
23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!
Well this thread looks more like
"PREACH TO THE CHOIR" at the moment.
Neither is personal attack CaDan, you may want to reprimand "someone else" if you really care about what's "RIGHT". Either correct impartially or don't do it at all.Mockery is not helpful. If you don't want to participate, that's fine.
The momentary Lightness of our affliction, produces for us a transcendantly transcendant burden of eonion glory.2 Cor. 4:17
Did you notice how Paul ran out of adequate words to desribe such, he had no better word to use so he used trancendantly transcendant....it means over cast, but not in the sense of a weather report, but as in higher than the highest thing...over cast over all....note burden....
That is an interesting word burden.....something that is carried : load b: duty responsibility
Some people want to taste Glory to the dregs...Jesus knows who they are, but they will taste suffering to the dregs to produce that burden of eonion Glory.
Is not suffering somthing that has to be graciously granted ?
Philippians 2:29: "For to you it is graciously granted, for Christs sake, not only to be believing on Him, but to be suffering for His sake also."
"(We are) joint enjoyers of Christs allotment, if so be that we are suffering together, that we should be glorified together also" (Rom. 8:17).
Will we wish we had not suffered more in preperation when that time comes ?
Note that the trials are called "light," while the glory is a "burden." Paul had a healthy perspective here.
We often suppose that these trials are weighty and that the glory could never eclipse the pain.
This is so wrong.
Our bodies need to be changed. Why? Because we cant carry so much glory in these frames. Without new bodies, we couldnt bear the glory ahead. It would be like asking a light bulb filament to channel a nuclear explosion......
*redoing post/quote feature glitch*Now that I know you're only pretending to be infallible, I can disregard statements like this.
More useful information. You're only persuaded by nonsense.
So you are unwilling to participate in this thread according to the parameters set forth by the OP.
Lucky for you she has promised not to request its closure.
Perhaps we have considered it, but have decided it is only one narrative and not the overarching metanarrative that explains God, the universe and everything.
Since we know you are no more educated than we are, and are only pretending to know more than the rest of us, this doesn't help you, either.
Let's get real.
What does repentance have to do with God wiping out whole cities, including children incapable of repenting?
Who thinks that?
Yet it seems, after sifting away all the pretense, you want universalists to change their message because it offends you.
Have you ever thought of it that way?
What I am saying is that your advocacy tends to drift into that line of thinking. A certain asceticism that impresses God.
There are different degrees of Pietism. It is not necessarily Pelagianism.
Originally Posted by Nadiine
*redoing post/quote feature glitch*
Well Liz... you still haven't READ my posts. IF you read them, you'de see what I actually said, NOT what you place onto me w/ what you "hear". You clearly didn't hear what I said.. Not a shock tho.
WHAT MATTERS IS SCRIPTURE.
(if you read my post, you'de of seen that repeatedly) I don't care what people's assessments are - the bible is from GOD to US to teach us His spiritual truths.
Universalism offends ME none- it's an offense against people who will be lulled into a false sense of eternal security when they find out the Bible was true about eternal condemnation.
Argue GOD about it, it's His word and it's blatantly clear if people actually wanted to believe what it said.
Your personal attacks change nothing. & If I'm wrong, what the heck do you care? we'll all be dancing around the stars up there in bliss... what does any of our opinion matter; right or wrong?
Many people will continue to live in the chronic sins they choose - which might include adultery, cheating people, lying, stealing, gossipping & whatever else, I guess my horrible sin is preaching what the BIBLE says about not everyone making it into heaven to warn them of impending danger of harm to them.
I like how OTHERS get your pardon, but you lay into ME when (in your mind) you think I'm doing something so wrong.
People claim to believe one thing & preach their tolerance, yet posts like yours show the REAL underlying sources & beliefs & what's actually going on at the core.
Thanks for the enlightenment & confirmation
(ps. this not a formal debate, I have no interest in one - nor do I HAVE to join one. If you want to, skip on over & type to your heart's content; your comments on a formal debate are invalid as it pertains to me OR this thread)
Last I checked, this thread didn't say "UNIVERSALISTS ONLY" did it??
Since you fancy passing out educational links, here's one you might want to look up:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerance
Here's where I see the analogy breaking down. The example most often used of a parent warning a child is teaching the child not to run out in the street without looking for traffic. In this example and the others I recall, the warning is to avoid dangers caused by OTHERS. The parent isn't saying, "If you run out in the street without looking, I will deliberately run over you and kill you." A good parent would not deliberately run over their child and kill them. Warning a child of dangers posed by others is one thing, but warning a child off something that will be the parent's deliberate action - not corrective action, but destructive action - does not fit the analogy.
Can you find a better analogy?
22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?
Do you want my "P" word?
Now that I know you're only pretending to be infallible, I can disregard statements like this.
More useful information. You're only persuaded by nonsense.
So you are unwilling to participate in this thread according to the parameters set forth by the OP.
Lucky for you she has promised not to request its closure.
Perhaps we have considered it, but have decided it is only one narrative and not the overarching metanarrative that explains God, the universe and everything.
Since we know you are no more educated than we are, and are only pretending to know more than the rest of us, this doesn't help you, either.
Let's get real.
What does repentance have to do with God wiping out whole cities, including children incapable of repenting?
Who thinks that?
Yet it seems, after sifting away all the pretense, you want universalists to change their message because it offends you.
Have you ever thought of it that way?
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?