Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Hmm]

Christians take great pleasure in the idea of the wicked (or just people they don’t like very much) being punished and going into hell under the guise of justice being done.

Yes. Sartre said "Hell is other people" while many Christians believe "Hell is for other people". The fans of hell always seem to assume that it can't possibly be for them!

 

[Hmm]

I've restored the finish on my coffee table, but I surely do not think the table has been given eternal existence because of it.

So God, the Great Restorer, restores us and then immediately thows us on the fire? I don't think a furniture restorer would last long with that kind of thinking.

 

[Neogaia777]

We change though, wouldn’t you agree? I personally believe we take those changes into our lives with God and into our lives here on earth. It’s not outside of the grand scheme or unrelated to its significance.

Some of it might go on for some of us maybe, etc...? "Maybe"...?

Some of that carry over, etc...

Surely if you believe in eternal separation from God then what we feel or believe in today is incredibly important.

As long as we are separating what we feel, from what we believe, then yes.

Especially what we believe about the character of God.

Again, as long as we are separating what we feel, from what we believe, then yes.

If we can’t say whether or not God wants the wicked to live or be doomed, then there’s very little we can say we know about God. No?

There is a point and purpose to here, etc, it will always be or forever exist, etc, although started all over from time to time, etc, and things here, don't change, sorry, and sorry if you bought into that, etc, but they just don't, etc, and neither do some of the people here either, because they were never meant to, etc, but are just a part of that system that never sees beyond it or outside of it, meant only for and only as a part of that only, etc...

Those people/programs are necessary only to make the others manifest or become or grow, etc, the ones that are and do become more, etc...

Beyond that there is no other life for them, etc, for those others by which the others grow, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes. Sartre said "Hell is other people" while many Christians believe "Hell is for other people". The fans of hell always seem to assume that it can't possibly be for them!

Yes, if they want hell so bad... we should give it to them. - lol

 

[Hmm]

Worse than that. Some will even abandon loved ones to the flames to worship their eternal torturer. Madness!

It's Pythonesque:

Chaplain: Let us praise God. Oh Lord…

Congregation: Oh Lord…

Chaplain: Oooh you are so big…

Congregation: Oooh you are so big…

Chaplain: So absolutely huge.

Congregation: So ab – solutely huge.

Chaplain: Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you.

Congregation: Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you.

Chaplain: Forgive Us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying.

Congregation: And barefaced flattery.

Chaplain: But you are so strong and, well, just so super.

Congregation: Fan – tastic.

Headmaster: Amen.

 

[Cormack]

As long as we are separating what we feel, from what we believe, then yes.

Again, as long as we are separating what we feel, from what we believe, then yes.

You haven’t arrived at anything you believe based upon feelings? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your use of “what we feel” here, that’s very possible.

I mean, morality, value, beauty and the experience of God. They’re feelings that have helped lead me into articles of faith or thoughts.

Shouldn’t our moral intuition, or our feelings, shouldn’t they help inform our view of God?

To discover, as you explained.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes. Sartre said "Hell is other people" while many Christians believe "Hell is for other people". The fans of hell always seem to assume that it can't possibly be for them!

I would like to say it's not all always based on knowledge and/or awareness always either, etc...

God's choosing specifically is still way, way, way beyond knowing, or is still a full blown mystery to me right now, and I expect will continue to be for a long while still yet, etc....

And, no, not just especially with just my own self only, etc, thank you very much.

Anyway,

It going to be a very mixed and diverse crowd, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

You haven’t arrived at anything you believe based upon feelings? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your use of “what we feel” here, that’s very possible.

I mean, morality, value, beauty and the experience of God. They’re feelings that have helped lead me into articles of faith or thoughts.

Shouldn’t our moral intuition, or our feelings, shouldn’t they help inform our view of God?

To discover, as you explained.

They can I guess, as long as it's healthy, and honest, and true, but I'd say don't rely too much on what you all feel all of the time either, etc....

And if by "inform" you mean "change from what is written", then I'd have to say "no", or not really, or not ever at all, etc...

Because then it's not healthy or honest or true in the end, etc...

Can only end in rotten fruit, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Hmm]

God's choosing specifically is still way, way, way beyond knowing, or is still a full blown mystery to me right now, and I expect will continue to be for a long while still yet, etc....

The question of whether God would ever torment someone forever or not is not "a full blown mystery" or "way, way beyond knowing". The answer was given to us when Jesus perfectly revealed to us what God is like.

 

[Cormack]

And if by "inform" you mean "change from what is written", then I'd have to say "no", or not really, or not ever at all, etc...

What if our own feelings of goodwill have enforced scripture, not changed or undermined the words.

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?​

Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’
​

Notice everywhere we go we have received different “reports” about God, who He is, what He’s doing. Should we believe in the good reports about God or the bad ones?

I believe I’m following after the best report while living in our very mysterious world.

God love you and keep you in His care buddy.

 

[Neogaia777]

God love you and keep you in His care buddy.

You as well.

Peace.

God Bless!

 

[Albion]

That’s an awfully naive view considering how long you must have been posting to other Christians online.

I cannot remember any Christian saying that he absolutely didn't want non-believers to come to Christ, no.

So it's not a matter of being naive, because that would be to disbelieve something that's actually happening.

 

[Albion]

Only God is eternal. Even the complete restoration will only be for that age. Very much like your coffee table.

Hmmmmm. Well, that is quite a departure from what conventional Christianity teaches and long has taught.

 

[Saint Steven]

Hmmmmm. Well, that is quite a departure from what conventional Christianity teaches and long has taught.

Agreed. That's the problem with it. And before that...

1. 1 Corinthians 10:11
   These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.
   
   
2. Ephesians 1:21
   far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

 

[Fervent]

I’m not writing that’s your view, but rather that when you dismiss the biblical witness about Gods attributes or His ways that’s making Him unknown. You’ve voided God of content because you don’t like the biblical witness teaching how God would prefer the wicked man turn from his way and live rather than continue in his way.

Right now you’re showing your own ability to preform mental gymnastics and escape a plain reading of the Bible in favour of your own philosophy.



Which would be very different from saying God doesn’t have preferences or feel love or have any of what you believe are anthropomorphic phrases. Your reading of the Bible is like a salad bar when you throw out so much material in favour of your unknown God.

“Who has known the mind of God to instruct Him?” Isn’t a blank check to ignore His many thoughts and attributes.

And that’s not worth it just so you can avoid the plain Bible verses that teach God would prefer that the wicked turn from his ways and live.

We can speak of God having preferences…. (Sensible.)



We can’t speak of God having preferences… (not sensible.)





Then there’s your philosophical rationale behind the whole scheme of doublespeak in terms of Gods sufficiency, but once again your philosophical conjecture and salad bar approach to what’s an anthropomorphism in the Bible doesn’t do much to undermine the plain sense reading of scripture.

That’s why you can’t answer my question.



“Strictly” according to the plain meaning of words. Yes I’m being strict because those are the words directly in front of us and they are not in harmony with your less than strict handling of the Bible. You’re making the Bible serve your philosophy, which wouldn’t be so bad just as long as you had better philosophy.

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
​

You’d rather minimise than extend. So you can dry up the verses about Gods love or preference that the wicked turn from their way and live (AKA Christian universalism,) which would help soften the blow that God Himself prefers universalism. You’re entangled in your own theological spaghetti here.



That’s the real source of your discomfort here. You’re trying to play 4D chess and preplan defences against universalism to the point that you can’t play regular chess and you end up throwing out simple Bible verses.







The Bible does though. So the Bible is guilty of abuse. Christians who are faithful to the biblical witness everywhere do the very thing you believe is an “abuse” and they do it without the constraints of your philosophy. There’s an abuse for sure, but it’s only the abuse of unbiblical ideas that you are attracted to.

Your battling a strawman continues, in fact intensifies in this post. Since you have been called on your false attribution in claiming a God that is known analogically is the same as being unknown I see no point in continuing with you as you are not interacting with what has actually been said, simply continuing an abusive eisegetical tact in order to prop up a desired theology.

 

[Cormack]

Sure that would be great. Having said that, if universalism were true. Their would be no reason to trust Christ.

Don’t you feel there are some major changes or benefits that your earthly life has accrued thanks to being a believer in Jesus? Like those adverts or songs that says “I wish I knew that when I was younger.” Wouldn’t being part of Christs Kingdom always be worthwhile as soon as we could believe, even if everyone is eventually saved.

I imagine the person that’s always walked with Christ from their youth would be greater in the Kingdom than someone that scraps in by the skin of their teeth.

Making Jesus sin atoning sacrifice a worthless/unneeded payment.

Doesn’t that penalty for sin paid on the head of Jesus Christ get us into heaven? It’s not worthless or unneeded in our case, it’s essential for our salvation, why would extending the cross’ benefits to the whole world devalue it in any way?

The universalist seems to put the blame on God if all people are not saved, so to avoid blaming God they come up with a way for everyone to be saved.

Don’t many Christians who aren’t universalist leaning place the responsibility upon God for a part of humanity not being saved. In their minds God has created the wicked for “the day of trouble,” they’re his clay pots and he may dispose of them however he pleases. They’d use the word responsible (and not blame) because by their own understanding of God everything he does is good, even organising a system of eternal torment. To these people whatever God does is “good” by default.

Universalists just have a higher standard that places Gods goodness in His essence and character, not onto his volition. Instead His volition is an expression of that good essence and character.

Both groups would believe that God is in charge or responsible for the sinners doom, but only one of those groups has the good sense to call eternal conscience torment immoral or cruel.

Would you consider that “blaming” God or simply lifting His standard higher than other believers give Him credit?

Positivity is very helpful in becoming much more effective over things one has control over. One ought know the limits of what one has control over.

Are you a believer in 5 point Calvinism, @grasping the after wind?

Would it be preferable if some get to heaven or all get to heaven? This is not a difficult question to answer.

You’d be surprised. Some posters have refused an answer. Some posters have replied yes and then compared universalism to Satan’s lies. Why they’d want Satan’s lie to be true is a head scratcher. Others have insisted they won’t answer and that their wills are only in line with Gods will. Which is an amazing trick since even Christ prayed that the cup pass from Him, which was clearly outside of the Fathers will, since Jesus had to learn obedience and face the cross. So I guess they’re better Christians than even Jesus. Have you read through any small part of the topic to see how badly users want to undermine the theology?

They're in the Lake of Fire. There is weeping and gnashing of teeth because it is painful. What are you going to do? You'll say anything to end the pain.

Isn’t hell thrown into the lake of fire?

My only point was that it's not about what I prefer - I'm in no position to argue with God if I feel that he's got it wrong.

Would you consider Abraham asking “will not the God of all the earth do right” arguing with God the Father? Do you think He recoils at people having their own ideas. My message to @Oompa Loompa should be helpful here too, you’re allowed your own opinions and preferences. If only for the purpose of having those preferences corrected by the God you love, believing “it’s not my place” does strike me as you seeing God as a sort of tyrant.
___________________
Thanks everyone for contributing so far. God bless y’all

 

[Cormack]

I would expect that for anyone to be subjected to the eternal torment that was suggested as an option , the person would have to eternally reject reconciliation if forgiveness was eternally offered. I don't see that as an impossibility. I also don't see universal reconciliation i.e. the eventual acceptance of forgiveness and subsequent reconciliation of all individuals to God, as an impossibility

Just to be clear. You believe human beings are capable of being tormented, tortured or some variation of the word and they can refuse Gods offer to be reconciled? That’s possible?

Just reading about people who crack and confess to crimes they didn’t commit under human abusers, I’m not so sure it’s even possible to withstand the torment of God or to withstand an eternity of self inflicted torment without accepting the offer to be lifted out of your own hole.

Resisting God forever sounds impossible, beyond what humans actually do, while your second point about everyone eventually turning towards the Lord under the threat of an eternity of divine punishment seems obvious.

So long as God’s willing to extend His grace into forever there seems to be no other verdict than universalism.

I prefer to leave questions like this up to God, He knows what He is doing, we do not.

You would prefer to leave questions about your own preferences up to God? “He knows what He is doing, we do not.” I’m sure you know your own preferences, @misput.

 

[bling]

Don’t many Christians who aren’t universalist leaning place the responsibility upon God for a part of humanity not being saved. In their minds God has created the wicked for “the day of trouble,” they’re his clay pots and he may dispose of them however he pleases. They’d use the word responsible (and not blame) because by their own understanding of God everything he does is good, even organising a system of eternal torment. To these people whatever God does is “good” by default.

Universalists just have a higher standard that places Gods goodness in His essence and character, not onto his volition. Instead His volition is an expression of that good essence and character.

Both groups would believe that God is in charge or responsible for the sinners doom, but only one of those groups has the good sense to call eternal conscience torment immoral or cruel.

Would you consider that “blaming” God or simply lifting His standard higher than other believers give Him credit?

Been a While since my post, so thank you for responding.

You do good to point out the foolishness of some false doctrines.

We have an objective while here on earth that can only be fulfilled while here on earth, knowing some people will not have the opportunity to fulfill man’s objective and would enter heaven without ever obtain Godly type Love and only have a strong child for wonderful parent type Love. There will also be people who repeatedly refuse to fulfill their earthly objective to the point (God alone would know this) they would never fulfill this objective. This later group takes on the lesser objective of helping those who can still choose to fulfill their objective. God allowed wicked people to torture, humiliate and murder Jesus to help people to fulfill their objective, so allowing wicked people to be tortured for a while and annihilated would not be unreasonable, they at least have some value. God is not allowing wicked people He Loves to be tortured to help them there is nothing more to do for them, or help Himself (that is silly), but to help protentional Kingdom Children.

There are just somethings God cannot do like making clones of Christ, who has always existed.

 

[sawdust]

Isn’t hell thrown into the lake of fire?

Death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire. The word Hell today has become synonymous with the Lake of Fire. I can make no sense of your question.

Rev.20:13&14 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

 

[Cormack]

The word Hell today has become synonymous with the Lake of Fire.

Wouldn’t that be an error? Throwing hell into hell doesn’t sound right.

Death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Yet traditionalists have labelled both “Hades” and the “lake of fire” hell. It’s like rebranding everything into the same narrow concept.

If I launched a sauna into the sun, we wouldn’t start referring to the Sun as “the Sauna.”