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

[Cormack]

We can always wait on Steven to elaborate his case, though between my viewing of his message and yours, I’m clearly steel manning his view (the most generous and sensible way to view any reply.) While you appear to be making his message seem as weak as possible.

If there were more steel manning going on in the church between religious people I suspect Christians wouldn’t be seen in such a poor light as they often are.

 

[Albion]

We can always wait on Steven to elaborate his case, though between my viewing of his message and yours, I’m clearly steel manning his view (the most generous and sensible way to view any reply.) While you appear to be making his message seem as weak as possible.

When all the evidence is against you, to then fall back upon a claim that says "well, they're all brainwashed, so...." can hardly be called an "argument" at all, not even a weak one! It's a complete retreat.

 

[ozso]

Of course it did not. Jesus was stern and serious but not saying that Peter literally WAS Satan. It was a turn of phrase on his part, just like some of the things we say ourselves.

Why did Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me Satan”? | GotQuestions.org

What I'm noticing regarding this is that Jesus used pretty strong hyperbole at times.

 

[ozso]

When all the evidence is against you, to then fall back upon a claim that says "well, they're all brainwashed, so...." can hardly be called an "argument" at all, not even a weak one! It's a complete retreat.

Having to believe in eternal torment is pretty strongly enforced in some circles. Some treat even questioning it as about the worst heresy in existence.

 

[Albion]

Having to believe in eternal torment is pretty strongly enforced in some circles. Some treat even questioning it as about the worst heresy in existence.

I haven't noticed that, but my point was somewhat different.

I was saying that brushing off the strong consensus of almost all of Christian history and all its best thinkers with a comment like "Anyone who agrees with them is brainwashed" isn't offering much of an argument.

 

[Cormack]

Interesting that the negative responses seem to all revolve around claims that Universalism is not true. Which completely sidesteps the question. As if to say, "No, I wouldn't prefer it, because it isn't true."

It seems that they simply can't fathom the possibility. So complete is the brainwashing of our youth, to not even consider such a "preposterous" idea.

Notice 99% of that message ^^^^^^^ is about users refusing to participate in the hypothetical nature of the thread. My message continued in that style, emphasising Saint Steven’s point.

Your reply to Steven was…

But now you're saying that anyone who still doesn't think Universalism to be true has been "brainwashed?"

That’s not what @Saint Steven wrote. He didn’t write “anyone who thinks universalism is untrue has been brainwashed.”

He didn’t write anything in the ballpark of that, rather he wrote if people show some kind of cognitive inability to think about a hypothetical situation, that’s a sign of having been brainwashed from their youth. He wrote people won’t even “consider” universalism, that’s where the comment about brainwashing comes in.

Your response didn’t represent the man fairly, and after not representing him fairly, you clung onto the word “brainwashing” rather than simply wrestle with the overarching point, namely that users are avoiding the whole purpose of the thread.

@Saint Steven didn’t write people were brainwashed because..

When all the evidence is against you, to then fall back upon a claim that says "well, they're all brainwashed, so...."

He wrote people were brainwashed because they are refusing to use their brains in a topic that requires the use of hypotheticals, not because “all the evidence is against” him. The topic involves a function of the brain that the non universalist side refuses to use, hence brainwashed.

can hardly be called an "argument" at all, not even a weak one! It's a complete retreat.

The only thing I referred to as weak was Saint Steven’s message after you were through strawmanning it into oblivion. You insist on interpreting his message in the least favourable light so as to have something easier to argue against.

 

[ozso]

I haven't noticed that, but my point was somewhat different.

I was saying that brushing off the strong consensus of almost all of Christian history and all its best thinkers with a comment like "Anyone who agrees with them is brainwashed" isn't offering much of an argument.

I'd say many are pretty strongly conditioned regarding various historical consensuses. Some of which Angelicins probably don't hold to. As a lifelong Christian I never even heard of universal reconciliation until I was 45.

 

[Albion]

Your reply to Steven was…



That’s not what @Saint Steven wrote.

I don't care to argue it any further. It is silly to argue that all the Christians of history (which is almost all of them) who don't believe in Universalism feel that way because they've been "brainwashed."

 

[ozso]

I haven't noticed that, but my point was somewhat different.

I was saying that brushing off the strong consensus of almost all of Christian history and all its best thinkers with a comment like "Anyone who agrees with them is brainwashed" isn't offering much of an argument.

So Jesus can use hyperbole but Steven can't?

For the record to properly quote him, he said:

It seems that they simply can't fathom the possibility. So complete is the brainwashing of our youth, to not even consider such a "preposterous" idea.

 

[Cormack]

It is silly to argue that all the Christians of history who don't believe in Universalism feel that way because they've been "brainwashed."

@Saint Steven didn’t argue that either. That’s just another straw man.

 

[Albion]

You don’t care to argue it further because you’re in error.

Talk about risking the destruction of one's credibility in a single, short sentence. That one's a winner.

 

[RickReads]

When all the evidence is against you, to then fall back upon a claim that says "well, they're all brainwashed, so...." can hardly be called an "argument" at all, not even a weak one! It's a complete retreat.

Or dismiss any verse that doesn`t agree with your opinions as mistranslated.

 

[RickReads]

Having to believe in eternal torment is pretty strongly enforced in some circles. Some treat even questioning it as about the worst heresy in existence.

I find the extreme views of both questionable. Both eternal punishing and the no consequence for sin view of universalism.

I find both to be unreasonable and dismissive of those who question it.

 

[Clare73]

Isn't all theology and doctrine a product of human reasoning?

Nope. . .much is clearly stated, no reasoning needed.

"All who reject the Son. . .remain under God's wrath." (John 3:36)

"All those who do not believe in the Son are condemned already." (John 3:18)

"No one comes to Jesus unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3)

"However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can
boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Clare73]

Of course it did not. Jesus was stern and serious but not saying that Peter literally WAS Satan.
It was a turn of phrase on his part, just like some of the things we say ourselves.

Why did Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me Satan”? | GotQuestions.org

Peter was (unknowingly) tempting him, as Satan did.

 

[Clare73]

Notice 99% of that message ^^^^^^^ is about users refusing to participate in the hypothetical nature of the thread. My message continued in that style, emphasising Saint Steven’s point.
Your reply to Steven was…
That’s not what @Saint Steven wrote. He didn’t write “anyone who thinks universalism is untrue has been brainwashed.”

He didn’t write anything in the ballpark of that, rather he wrote if people show some kind of cognitive inability to think about a hypothetical situation, that’s a sign of having been brainwashed from their youth. He wrote
people won’t even “consider” universalism, that’s where the comment about brainwashing comes in.

You are "dancing with the devil,"--Hath God said. . .(Genesis 3:1)--that is always a dangerous game to play.

Your response didn’t represent the man fairly, and after not representing him fairly, you clung onto the word “brainwashing” rather than simply wrestle with the overarching point, namely that users are avoiding the whole purpose of the thread.

@Saint Steven didn’t write people were brainwashed because..
He wrote people were brainwashed because they are refusing to use their brains in a topic that requires the use of hypotheticals, not because “all the evidence is against” him. The topic involves a function of the brain that the non universalist side refuses to use, hence brainwashed.
The only thing I referred to as weak was Saint Steven’s message after you were through strawmanning it into oblivion. You insist on interpreting his message in the least favourable light so as to have something easier to argue against.

 

[Albion]

Peter was (unknowingly) tempting him, as Satan did.

I don't think that's quite the way the exchange is usually interpreted, but it's on track.

 

[Clare73]

I'd say many are pretty strongly conditioned regarding various historical consensuses. Some of which Angelicins probably don't hold to. As a lifelong Christian I never even heard of universal reconciliation until I was 45.

I got you beat on that one. . .and I consider it a blessing.

 

[Clare73]

You don’t care to argue it further because you’re in error. Now that error is tied up in your pride.

Like I said, that is a dangerous game to play.

 

[Clare73]

I don't think that's quite the way the exchange is usually interpreted, but it's on track.

Thanks.

Satan tempted Adam through his wife,
Satan tempted Job (who never rebelled against God's action) through his wife, and now
Satan tempts Christ (second Adam, in agreement with God's action) through Peter.