The Christian Thread

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I don't have the time to watch the video either, but it's a debate about universal reconciliation, if I understand correctly?  I'll see if I can find the time to watch it in a couple days... That it is. Here is another excellent debate on the subject. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33973 Oh good.  I'll read that instead, because I like reading and hate watching long youtube videos.

I actually think the universalist in the forum debate, while having done an excellent job, missed a few very important points he could've made.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: By the way, how do you distinguish between a "universalist" who believes that God will eventually save all of mankind and a "universalist" who just believes that all religions are equal?  Are there different words for them?  Do we just stick a "unitarian" in front of the second one?

Well, here's what I'd say to that - I've seen you use the term "ultimate redemptionist", and that really is what it's all about.  I'd say that most people who oppose universalism don't really understand what it is - they seem to think it's the ultra liberal "no one ever gets any punishment no matter what horrid thing they've done" view.  They think it's about erasing "hell" from the picture entirely.  But that's really not what it's about.  And there's a lot of divergence within universalism, and I'll get to what I actually believe on what hell is in a minute, but it's not erasing hell - it's redefining what it is and giving it a purpose.
Secondly, as to "all religions are equal", I would say that for me I'm not saying that Jesus is not the way.  Jesus is absolutely the way.  But have you ever heard someone say something like "many paths leading to the same destination" before?  That's basically what they're getting at - you can run as long as you like but no matter what you're going to end up facing Jesus at some point in your life, is more like what the ultimate redemptionist believes.  And of course, a natural byproduct of removing "eternal" from the "conscious torment" equation is that you start to soften towards other beliefs - you start to realize that if they're not actually psychologically damaging other people, why would I be upset with them?  It's illogical to be!  And then you start to actually listen to people of other religions in a non-combative way, with a sort of curiosity, and then you start to hear things that make you go "huh, that sounds a LOT like this doctrine that I believe", and then you start to think things like "whoah...what if this infinite God I've always believed in has actually revealed himself in many ways to different people all over the world, and none of us fully understands Him but all of us has bits and pieces...."  But you don't usually share such thoughts aloud because it gets people shouting "heretic!" at you. 

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I'm partway through the debate, and wasn't too crazy about either of their opening statements; both tended to beat around the bush a lot and not really make coherent arguments.  The logos guy, especially, while making some good points, was all over the place .  And Kevin didn't really answer any of his questions - but I guess that might be a rebuttal thing.  I'm not used to reading formal debates on the internet.

Yeah, I thought the logos guy did alright and made some points I thought were good, but I would have done things differently.  For me, there are four main moves a universalist should make.

Move 1: Does God get what God wants, and what does God want?
You have to start by directly asking these questions.  Most Christians would answer "yes" to the first question, I think, even though Arminians and Open Theists have a more nuanced view of how that comes about (which I very much appreciate) than Calvinists.  I'd say that even though, for example, Open Theists believe that God releases His control (which there is ample sources of Scripture to prove such a point, actually), I'd say they still believe that God get's what he wants IN THE END.  Now I'm trying to be brief, mind you - we could really get deep into this debate.  But let's say we've arrived at the conclusion that yes, God gets what He wants (not necessarily immediately, but in the end).  So then we ask "what does God want?"  Well, 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wants EVERYONE to come to repentance, and I Timothy 2:4 says God wants EVERYONE to be saved.  And if you then change your answer to the negative, saying that God doesn't really get what God wants, I'd point out that I John 4:8 says that God is love, and I Corinthians 13:8 says that love never fails.  BTW, I think to understand God it is VITALLY important to meditate on I Corinthians 13 - Calvinism makes God into a control freak, I think (mind you, I grew up Calvinist - but even in my youth it pretty much had to be beaten into me), but I Corinthians 13:5 says the love does not demand its own way - so there is a mystery where we have to understand that while God IS in control (as "love never fails" implies), God also gives up his control (which "love does not demand its own way", and really the way God was revealed in Jesus, implies), but somehow in giving up his control He gets His will.

Move 2: What does "All" mean?
I'd start this one out by quoting Marc Speed:

Let me start by asking you a simple question: How can a word have one meaning in the first part of a sentence and the opposite meaning in the second part of the sentence?   If I as a communicator change the fundamental definition of a word within the same sentence without telling you…I am an agent of confusion, not a communicator!   Dear friends, no word ever changes definitions to the opposite of its own meaning within the same sentence. This is a common sense rule of language that helps us understand each other. There may be a rare instance where the context makes it clear that the word has a slightly different meaning in two parts of a sentence because the word is commonly used in two different ways (e.g. “I’m working on my multiplication table at the kitchen table”), but even in those cases the word’s core definition (“table” means “a flat surface”) does not change.

I just love that.  It points out the foolishness of interpreting the following verse a certain way:
“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
I Corinthians 15:22

Indeed, there are many, MANY places in the new testament that talk about "all" and "the world", and those who believe in eternal conscious torment or even annihilationism have been trained to redefine "all" and "the world" as "a minority of the world - a fraction."  This makes no sense.  No, when I see "all" or "the world" now, I know it actually means "all" and "the world".
And if you're still going to insist that "all" really means "all believers", well what about these ones:
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
I John 2:2

“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.”
I Timothy 4:10

Those two verses pretty much blow the "all means believers" theory out of the water, because of the way they are worded.

Move 3: Aion and Olam do not mean eternal or everlasting
Now I said I was trying to be brief, and I'm not really being brief.  So these last two points I will be very brief with and if anyone wants me to prove them I will.  But once again I will quote Marc Speed:

Every time you see the words “eternal/everlasting/forever/forever-and-ever” in your English Bible, it is always – I repeat, always – a blatant mistranslation of the Greek word “eon” or the Hebrew word “olam”.   Hasting's Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. I, p. 542, art. Christ and the Gospels) puts it well when it states that there is no word either in the Hebrew Old Testament or in the Greek New Testament that expresses the abstract idea of eternity.

I have found a few sites that prove the truth in this statement - this link will demonstrate how interpreting "olam" to mean "everlasting" or "forever" or "eternal" is not accurate, and this link lists all the usages of "aion", and this link lists all the usages of "aionios".  When you look at the lists, you realize that "forever", "eternal", or "everlasting" is simply inaccurate, because there are too many verses where this translation would not work.

Move 4: discuss translating four different words as hell
Yes, there are four different words that are translated as "hell".  None of them accurately portray the idea of eternal conscious torment in a lake of fire that is the imagery most Americans get into their head as a direct result of Dante's inferno.  But most importantly of all of those four, to understanding an ACCURATE view of what hell is, is to understand the actual physical history of Gehenna.  When you understand that, you understand that Hell is not a place you go to after you die where you are tormented as a form of punishment that was directly meted out by God - Hell is something WE made and WE wallow in it HERE, ON EARTH.  And God wants to get us out of it.  The way to do that?  Defeat it with love.

That was my attempt to be brief - keep that in mind, because I simplified a lot of things I could've said.

Epignosis wrote: Marc wrote: Dear friends, no word ever changes definitions to the opposite of its own meaning within the same sentence. The hapless man cleaved unto his wife even after she cleaved him asunder. Under the manager's oversight, the poorly run hotel was the subject of many an oversight. The alarm was off until the thief broke the window, and then the alarm went off. Our first landlord had never rented to us before, but we were happy that we rented from him. Forty US senators will sanction the government's sanction of Iran. In order to not get a strike in baseball, you have to strike the baseball. The house was so filthy, we needed to dust it before we could dust it with confetti for the party. One runner was very fast, while the other, lazy runner, stood fast at the starting line. While Martha seeded the watermelon, I seeded our field. I took our dog to the vet to get fixed while John fixed our broken door. The kidnapper bound me with duct tape, but when I got free, I was bound for the police station. The continuance of the trial was stressful, so my attorney requested a continuance. When four of my friends left, there were only three friends left. I pitched my screenplay to the producers, but they didn't like it, so they pitched it. I asked my wife about her many fine gifts; she waved her hand said, "Oh, they're fine, I guess."

The English language is consistently inconsistent.

If you're that bored.  

dtguitarfan wrote: Republican Jesus™

I cant say I disagree with  what he said but the way he wrote it was a little smarmy.

I'm actually considering going to a Quaker College in Greensboro, North Carolina called Guilford College in January.

Edited by Jonathan - August 01 2013 at 20:41

The Bible teaches karma, right?

You reap what you sow? 

HOW ENLIGHTENED ARE YOU?

IF....

If you can live without caffeine,

If you can be cheerful, ignoring aches and pains,

If you can resist complaining,

If you can understand when your loved ones are too busy to give you any time,

If you can take criticism and blame without resentment,

If you can ignore a friend's limited education and never correct him or her,

If you can resist treating a rich friend better than a poor friend,

If you can face the world without lies and deceit,

If you can conquer tension without medical help,

If you can relax without liquor,

If you can sleep without the aid of drugs,

If you can honestly say that deep in your heart you have no prejudice against creed, color, religion, gender preference, or politics,

--Then you have almost reached the same level of spiritual development as your dog!

Jonathan wrote: In Scripture there was a verse where Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Water or a River. In the Tao Te Ching there's a verse where the Tao is compared to River Valleys and follows of water.   In Scripture if I'm correct The Holy Spirit created the Universe. In the Tao Te Ching the Tao created the Universe.

Can you please tell me in the Bible what these verses are?

Jonathan wrote: Epignosis wrote: Jonathan wrote: In Scripture there was a verse where Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Water or a River. In the Tao Te Ching there's a verse where the Tao is compared to River Valleys and follows of water.   In Scripture if I'm correct The Holy Spirit created the Universe. In the Tao Te Ching the Tao created the Universe.   Can you please tell me in the Bible what these verses are? John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall follow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive...   Isaiah 44: 3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thin offering   Jeremiah 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.   Genesis 1:2-3 ...And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: And there was light.   Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The word for "breath" is the same word translated "spirit."

Ruach - Hebrew

Pneuma - Greek

In fact, I wish we could eliminate the word "spirit" from the Bible.  We should translate all of these instances, "breath."