proof that God is not angry with anyone

[disgracian]

I suspected that you would. A surprise would have been that you found an opposing site filled with great responses.

Well that's just it, there was no great responses. It's just one form of Christianity telling another it's wrong over some matter of doctrine, whether it's Christian Universalism of Calvanistic predestination.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Well that's just it, there was no great responses.

 

Your opinion is noted, and I rest my case.

[Moose]

Your opinion is noted, and I rest my case.

Seems to me you have the flavor of intellect that D. can, (might) grasp better than mine.

 

I pretty much said the same thing here:

We may converse about our different denominations, BUT, I try......trynot to argue. My thing is that atheists and agnostics posting here......shouldn't. All they seem to want to do is argue that God doesn't exist, or that they don't exclude He can. IF we read Scripture, front to back, CRITICALLY.....there wouldn't be any ARGUEING.

I say, believe what you want. I understand that God has given us this ability simply because love for Him or ANYONE or, anything couldn't exist without our own choice(s).

 

Agree to disagree D. or just put us on iggy or sumthin', I don't think anyone has a problem with you expressing what you believe, it's your insistance that what you say is the absolute, when the only absolute exists within each and everyone one of us.

 

You may think of us as ignorant, gullable, or insane....no need to waste your time (attempting) to prove it.

[disgracian]

It would be hard for me to insist that what I say is absolute, given that I don't believe in absolutes whatsoever. As subjective beings, we cannot perceive things in absolutes; everything is filtered through our own perspective. What I actually do is back up my claims with evidence and reasoning, and I expect others to do the same. Do you take this to mean that I think myself always right? No, all it means is that I do not express my beliefs as though they were self evident and expect others to accept them at face value.

 

In fact, it's those that hold dogmatic religious beliefs that are the ones who, more often than not, tend to insist that their beliefs are absolute because of their unwavering faith.

 

I have no intention of putting people that I disagree with or dislike on ignore. Humans do that far too much these days, thanks to the internet. It's too easy to isolate ourselves from criticism by hanging out almost exclusively in the company of like-minded people. I like to keep on my toes, and keep others on their toes. I also like to speak out against what I perceive as ignorance, prejudice and damaging beliefs. I'm sure most of you like to do the same.

 

Back to the topic, James, just so we are on the same page, I am saying that nothing you have said or presented through that webpage demonstrates that universalism is in any way illogical or false; only that it is not compatible with what I shall tentatively call "mainstream Christianity". As to which group can draw more support from the Bible for their respective positions, we have not had that discussion yet.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Back to the topic, James, just so we are on the same page, I am saying that nothing you have said or presented through that webpage demonstrates that universalism is in any way illogical or false; only that it is not compatible with what I shall tentatively call "mainstream Christianity". As to which group can draw more support from the Bible for their respective positions, we have not had that discussion yet.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Feel free to reread much of the thread. I think both sides will disagree with you. Both sides have presented arguments as to what verse or concepts seem to support their views. Chris has made some arguments, Moose has made some arguments, I have made some arguments, and others have made some arguments. And yes, the CARM website made some arguments. You dismissed them all with the figurative wave of the hand and say that no arguments have been made.

 

This IMO simply says that none of these arguments are good enough for YOU. And the point is...no one is actually trying to convince you. Both sides of this argument agree on some basic concepts such as: There is a God, Jesus was God, and Jesus died and rose again. However, I think we lost you already at...there is a God. Actually from reading your last post, we lost you at the idea that there really are absolutes. Hence, I doubt any arguments after that from either side will be convincing to you. In order to feel that any responses are of any value, I think all will agree with me (whichever view they hold regarding universalism) that these basic concepts as listed above must be at least agreed upon.

 

To be on the same page, both individuals need to be at least reading the same Book.

 

It's likely Chris will be along shortly to point this out in more detail.

 

Although I am sure you will need to have that last word, I doubt that this argument really is one which you feel strongly about for either position.

[disgracian]

Feel free to reread much of the thread. I think both sides will disagree with you. Both sides have presented arguments as to what verse or concepts seem to support their views.

Trading a few verses isn't what I had in mind. Nothing has been delved into in any significant depth yet. The rest of your post is about me and not the topic, so I will let it pass.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Trading a few verses isn't what I had in mind.

 

Unfortunately when one discusses doctrinal points which revolve around the Bible, then "trading a few verses" will be what happens.

 

The rest of your post is about me and not the topic, so I will let it pass.

 

Good for you.

[Diamonds&Rust]

Hell is an intellectual crutch for people who have trouble outlining the benefits of temperance, virtue, and love to the living.

 

"Be a good person to avoid burning forever," is not logical cosmology, it's a last resort.

 

You wouldn't read the first few chapters of a novel, then skip to the last few chapters....would you?

You wouldn't read a text that was written over the course of thousands of years by multiple different communities of people from different geographic regions writing for different audiences in different styles with different political motives and understandings of divinity and pretend its English translation is a unified text, would you? Would you?

 

The Bible is not "a novel," or anything close.

[disgracian]

Unfortunately when one discusses doctrinal points which revolve around the Bible, then "trading a few verses" will be what happens.

Trading verses on its own is not discussing. You know this, and you also know that's what I meant.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Trading verses on its own is not discussing. You know this, and you also know that's what I meant.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

There have been a few verses debated, but it is a topic that could be "delved into further" no doubt.

 

Still...it will be mainly a topic which consists of...verses versus verses.