proof that God is not angry with anyone

[disgracian]

JamesM,

 

The bus represents a real and immediate danger that could end a person's life. God's wrath is an entirely hypothetical danger that cannot be seen, proven, or agreed upon, and only takes place after death, where we simply cease to exist.

 

Your attempts to cloud the issue by going on about who can see the bus and who can't don't work. You can prove a bus exists by shouting "Look out for that bus!" and pointing. Or the person need only turn their head and there it is. That's were similarities with god end.

 

A better analogy may be warning somebody that one day they perhaps might regret what they're doing. It's not as flashy and dramatic, but at least it's coherent and reasonably accurate.

 

The bus metaphor has too many holes and just doesn't fit, deal with it.

 

So, onto the burning stove. Despite your stoic objections, an eternity of suffering in hell and a burned hand are not comparable, not even remotely. One is a temporary condition, again one has immediate consequences while the other is completely unprovable and hypothetical. One is a natural consequence of actions, the other is a deliberate choice by another entity to inflict eternal torment for its own sake.

 

Your "what if the person doesn't take their hand away" scenario is just plain silly and has absolutely nothing to do with the original premise of the analogy, which is a flimsy point about free will and the consequences of choice, along with god being able to say "told you so!". As such it means you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and wasting my time as a consequence. So I'll just dispatch this by pointing out that the analogy is garbage because a stove has a legitimate purpose of cooking food and a parent is not omnipresent and can't be everywhere at once, while hell is engineered for the singular purpose of tormenting people forever and if god really didn't want people to go there in the same way a parent doesn't want their child burning their hand on a stove, then it wouldn't exist.

No, it is a punishment as a result of sin. "Sin against God, and punishment happens." Stick your hand on the stove, and you will get burned."

Actually I just had to quote this one for the sheer impact of how much you have missed the point. The difference staring you right in the face is that a person can at any time remove their hand from the stove. They cannot ascend from hell, because by the time a person is in the position to know of its existence and make an informed choice, it's too late.

 

Also, punishment as retribution (ie, revenge) versus punishment as a tool of discipline is an extremely unenlightened position to take. The fact that your god espouses the former and not the latter shows that it is the product of primitive human thought and not anything approaching the splendour of a truly divine being. I can happily discount this god as being anything other than malevolent fiction on that basis alone.

 

And to your final point, we can prove lineage beyond any and all reasonable doubt, while religious certainty is nothing but a mental fiction based on nothing more concrete than emotions.

 

Cheers,

D.

[MN randomguy]

Didn't read the whole thread,

 

But, Back to the OP, way to stir the pot Chris.

 

Maybe next time,

 

1. Give God a time frame. Maybe he'll strike you with lightning 20 years from now on a clear sunny day. God is a patient God.

 

2. Realize that you can't really give God orders if he is who he says he is. Maybe he's like, oh, I'll use this guy as a pastor of a mega church in twenty years. Then He'll be able to look back on all of his LS posts and use them in a sermon.

 

Really,

 

I check the spirituality area to see if there is something that I can use in my life or to give advice on.

 

Every thread is riddled with I don't like your religion/lack of religion nonsense.

 

No one can prove God, no one can disprove God. Give it a rest.

[Storyrider]

Isn't free will nothing more than a cruel joke if Choice A means everything is groovy but Choice B lands you in a state of everlasting torment in Hell?

 

It is kind of like telling your kids they have a choice between doing what you say or having the crap beaten out of them.

 

How is that a choice?

[theBrokenMuse]

Isn't free will nothing more than a cruel joke if Choice A means everything is groovy but Choice B lands you in a state of everlasting torment in Hell?

 

It is kind of like telling your kids they have a choice between doing what you say or having the crap beaten out of them.

 

How is that a choice?

 

It's not a choice so much as it is a Hobson's choice or an outright threat. It's kind of like a husband saying to his wife, "I love you so much that I decided to pay off all your old credit cards that you had since before we were wed but if you don't love me back, and do what I want now that I've gone and paid off your debts, you'll end up locked in the rat infested basement for the rest of your life. It will be all your fault if you end up there because not loving me back would be forcing my hand to throw you down there and lock the door. It's your choice."

[JamesM]

Many times, disgracian, I can say that you bring up many points that are worth discussing, and here you have again. While we don't usually agree (and yes, we have once or twice), your well thought out points make me think.

 

The bus represents a real and immediate danger that could end a person's life. God's wrath is an entirely hypothetical danger that cannot be seen, proven, or agreed upon, and only takes place after death, where we simply cease to exist.

 

Again, you missed the point. If the person being told of the bus cannot see the bus (perhaps he is physically blind as we are spiritually blind when it comes to seeing God), then this is no different than if someone does not see God yet another who does warns him or her of the impending doom.

 

Your attempts to cloud the issue by going on about who can see the bus and who can't don't work. You can prove a bus exists by shouting "Look out for that bus!" and pointing. Or the person need only turn their head and there it is. That's were similarities with god end.

 

Granted, no finite analogy (as I have said before) will be able to compare to an infinite reality. Granted, there will always be points that will be different. Again though, in this analogy, you make assumptions. You assume the person will want to turn his head. You will assume the person knows what a bus is...and on and on.

 

So your points to make this analogy unworkable can simply be shown to be also fallacious.

 

As with any analogy, if we miss the point, we missed the bus...so to speak.

 

A better analogy may be warning somebody that one day they perhaps might regret what they're doing. It's not as flashy and dramatic, but at least it's coherent and reasonably accurate.

 

That would be a warning but not an analogy.

 

The bus metaphor has too many holes and just doesn't fit, deal with it.

 

It is not a perfect analogy, but it works. Instead of dealing with the finer points, look at the bigger picture.

 

So, onto the burning stove. Despite your stoic objections, an eternity of suffering in hell and a burned hand are not comparable, not even remotely. One is a temporary condition, again one has immediate consequences while the other is completely unprovable and hypothetical.

 

Granted, one is finite. One is infinite. So it will be with any analogy. As for being unproven and hypothetical, that would be your opinion. For someone who has never experienced a burned hand and the effects of touching a stove, then in his or her eyes, it is still unproven and hypothetical. Until one actually experiences it, it remains such. Others may tell of what happens, but it still remains unproven to that individual.

 

Your "what if the person doesn't take their hand away" scenario is just plain silly and has absolutely nothing to do with the original premise of the analogy,

 

As such it means you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and wasting my time as a consequence.

 

First, again, blubbering about your opinions of what is silly and then telling ME I am wasting your time seems rather silly if you ask me. No one told you to respond to Moose's analogy with your opinions. No one told me to respond to your slightly off remarks about Moose's post. And no one tells us to continue.

 

This is where free will and choice comes into play. We both know you cannot stay away from a good challenging argument. You live for mental challenges.

 

So I'll just dispatch this by pointing out

 

Good, I am glad that you have done that. Now we can rest easier.

 

that the analogy is garbage because a stove has a legitimate purpose of cooking food and a parent is not omnipresent and can't be everywhere at once,

 

Now you are really stretching it.

 

The difference staring you right in the face is that a person can at any time remove their hand from the stove.

 

I think if you analyzed every analogy to death, not a single one proves to be perfect. As stated before, finite will never equal infinite, but it can still emphasize a point being made.

 

The point was...being warned of something that we ourselves do not believe or know to be true is what is being explained. Just as someone is told that (oh let's change the analogy), if you put your finger on that live wire, then the electric shock could kill you, so the warning is...continue in your life without being saved from your sins and it could eternally kill you. For the sake of space and to prevent wasting your time, let's agree that it is not perfect and get back to the original topic of this thread.

 

I am even going to let you say that I am totally wrong, so that you do not need to waste your time responding...not that this would be my choice to make for you.

 

Universalism makes perfect sense. While it does contradict Christianity, that is not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it mean Universalism is flawed or wrong in any way.

 

We agree on a couple of points. First, I can see how universalism could make sense to someone. This does not mean it is logical when compared to what we read in the Bible.

 

Second, it does contradict Christianity and other theist religions.

 

Third, it would not be a bad thing if it were possible that we could live as we like, believe or disbelieve in whom we want and still end up in eternal bliss with a God we do not love, respect or even believe exists.

 

That would not be bad, but it would not be logical.

 

We disagree because it is flawed and illogical. It does not agree with what God has stated in the Bible. Is it God's desire for all to be saved? Yes. Does that mean all will be saved? No.

 

We would then get into God's perfect will and God's permissable will. We would then point out the many scriptures that show that a belief in God is necessary. We would then show that there are many many verse that explain the consequences of sin. And frankly, if universalism is true, then it makes no sense to even seek after God, or believe He exists. The end results would be the same. And this would not be logical.

 

Universalism is flawed and illogical.

[Moose]

JamesM is doing such a fine job that I haven't even had to respond to the OP..for that, Thanks BIC!!

 

I will say this though, and leave it at that.....I've been reported, (Yes, I have a GOOD idea who it was too).

 

Chris, you cannot call yourself a Christian. You're a Universalist, and that's the just of it. I suggest you get the Word of God and get the Word of God into you.

 

Get saved and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you as you learn Scripture. You will IMMEDIATELY find out your error(s).

 

Everyone have a good day.....

[Trojan John]

Wait. Are talking about a school bus, or one of those big coach busses? The school bus is typically yellow, and yellow is one of the most easily visible colours, even at night, whereas the coach bus could be any colour, like black, which would be harder to see. Yellow is filthy. I'm thinking god is more like a green bus because of the whole "peaceful, yet jealous" thing.

[JamesM]

Wait. Are talking about a school bus, or one of those big coach busses?

 

These fine details have not been worked out yet. A committee is being formed to decide what color.

[disgracian]

Again, you missed the point. If the person being told of the bus cannot see the bus (perhaps he is physically blind as we are spiritually blind when it comes to seeing God), then this is no different than if someone does not see God yet another who does warns him or her of the impending doom.

Except for the bit about the bus actually existing in the physical realm, and even if one is blind they can still hear, touch, smell and (if they're really keen) taste it. Look, I'm in no way making any assumptions about the situation, rather it's you reading a bit too much into what I'm saying. The point that still remains is that the person warning about the bus has a very easy task of substantiating his claim. Conversely, not a single person has, in all of human history, managed to offer a single shred of credible evidence for god and his eternal torture chamber. Before we start debating on evidence, "personal evidence" along the lines of "my experiences are evidence enough for me" do not constitute empirical evidence and therefore do not cut the mustard.

Granted, no finite analogy (as I have said before) will be able to compare to an infinite reality. Granted, there will always be points that will be different.

No analogy can really compare to finite reality either and I accept that, but the bus analogy lands laughably wide of the mark on very fundamental points, not just nitpicky ones. It only goes as far as "person perceives danger and tries to warn somebody of that danger" but after that it trips over its own feet and lands face-first in the gutter.

 

Okay, since you didn't like my first attempt to provide a better analogy, how about warning your kids not to go into the forest because it's haunted? They may very well not return, but whether it's evil spirits or just hungry bears nobody will ever know because they don't go into the forest. Because it's haunted, you see.

As for being unproven and hypothetical, that would be your opinion.

No, that would be fact. It may well exist (the universe is a silly enough place), but it, according to its own premise, cannot be proven. Well, at least not until after we're dead and then it's a bit late to come back and tell everyone about it.

We agree on a couple of points. First, I can see how universalism could make sense to someone. This does not mean it is logical when compared to what we read in the Bible.

Whether it's logical or not has nothing to do with what is written in the Bible. Logic is not subjective.

Second, it does contradict Christianity and other theist religions.

That is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. This will come as no surprise to you I'm sure.

Third, it would not be a bad thing if it were possible that we could live as we like, believe or disbelieve in whom we want and still end up in eternal bliss with a God we do not love, respect or even believe exists.

What is illogical is a god that hides in the shadows and yet demands our belief and adoration. I think it's perfectly logical to reward (or at least not infinitely punish) an imperfect being for trying to learn from their mistakes, and making the best choices they could given their circumstances.

 

Really, can god honestly have the same expectations that somebody from Saudi Arabia will accept Jesus compared to somebody south of the Bible Belt in America?

 

Religion, like it or not, is determined as much (if not more) by geography than any other factor. And the world has always been a lot bigger than Israel. That Christians expect anybody to believe that the god of us all (who does not play favourites) spent most of human history looking after one vicious little nomadic Middle-Eastern tribe to the exclusion of the other 99.9% of the planet insults not only my sense of fairness but also my intelligence. In case I have not fully explained my point, here's a graphical representation just to put it into scale.

We disagree because it is flawed and illogical.

What is? Universalism? You haven't actually made that point yet; you've only claimed it's different to the Bible (which, since you like assumptions, is making an absolute whopper there).

It does not agree with what God has stated in the Bible. Is it God's desire for all to be saved? Yes. Does that mean all will be saved? No.

Maybe, maybe not. Honestly what can oppose the will of an all-powerful being? Nothing. It has been in god's power from the beginning to accept that we are what he made us and simply forgive us without all this ego-appeasing nonsense. A being who allegedly created the universe and everything in it can surely change his mind if he so wishes. If you disagree, you are in the odd position of placing limits on an infinite being.

And frankly, if universalism is true, then it makes no sense to even seek after God, or believe He exists. The end results would be the same. And this would not be logical.

Again you neglect to explain why. All it comes down to is "Bible says x, Universalism says y, therefore Universalism is illogical." I think you are clever enough to know this is epic fail. Again, you seem to be under this impression that god must, by definition, demand worship.

Universalism is flawed and illogical.

So far, only your arguments fall into that category. You will have to try much harder. I hate to suggest this because it sounds so patronising, but I think I will have to because you're not using the word correctly, but look up what logic actually is. You can't just pick two different premises and say that one is illogical because you like the other one more, but so far that's exactly what you're doing.

 

Cheers,

D.

[quankanne]

proof that God's not angry with us? Beer.

 

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" –*Benjamin Franklin

 

I don't like beer, meself, but hey, can't argue with that logic.

[disgracian]

And cats. Especially those stuck in Christmas trees.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

Remember, just my thoughts, and beliefs......

Except for the bit about the bus actually existing in the physical realm,

When you accept Christ as your Saviour, (With a contrite heart), the physical realism of God's Trinity is as real and physical as a BRICK WALL as the Holy Spirit enters within.....this is where you lack understanding in my point of view.

It only goes as far as "person perceives danger and tries to warn somebody of that danger" but after that it trips over its own feet and lands face-first in the gutter.

No atheists or agnostics in fox holes comes to my mind. One day, one way, (I Pray) you'll welcome your face in gutter in God's Kingdom....

Okay, since you didn't like my first attempt to provide a better analogy, how about warning your kids not to go into the forest because it's haunted? They may very well not return, but whether it's evil spirits or just hungry bears nobody will ever know because they don't go into the forest. Because it's haunted, you see

As far as me and my house, we worship the LORD. There is noone who is more powerful, more finite, than God Himself. MY family fears noone or nothing for everything works according to HIS ultimate plan to INCREASE His Kingdom.

 

K, too tired to finish.....BUT you should digest this if you have one ounce of respect to agree to disagree....otherwise, well.....I don't want to get flagged again.....you should know what I"m thinking about though...

[disgracian]

When you accept Christ as your Saviour, (With a contrite heart), the physical realism of God's Trinity is as real and physical as a BRICK WALL as the Holy Spirit enters within.....this is where you lack understanding in my point of view.

It may seem real to you, but please resist the temptation to redefine words. If god were to manifest himself physically in some way then there would be concrete proof and you may have a point.

No atheists or agnostics in fox holes comes to my mind.

In that they are both meaningless slogans that believers parrot without thinking?

K, too tired to finish.....BUT you should digest this if you have one ounce of respect to agree to disagree....otherwise, well.....I don't want to get flagged again.....you should know what I"m thinking about though...

 

 

Cheers,

D.

[theBrokenMuse]

When you accept Christ as your Saviour, (With a contrite heart), the physical realism of God's Trinity is as real and physical as a BRICK WALL as the Holy Spirit enters within.....this is where you lack understanding in my point of view.

 

Our minds are powerful enough to cause all kinds of shenanigans. So just because something feels real, doesn't mean that it is. Besides, physical manifestations leave physical evidence. There's a reason you're called to have faith.

No atheists or agnostics in fox holes comes to my mind.

 

That sentiment is largely untrue and an insult to soldiers like my cousin who toured Iraq twice and came home with permanent disabilities.

[JamesM]

Except for the bit about the bus actually existing in the physical realm,

 

Since I stated last time that I would leave the off topic discussion about analogies alone, then I had better not take this bait. And yes, we could go on and on about this.

 

No, that would be fact. It may well exist (the universe is a silly enough place), but it, according to its own premise, cannot be proven. Well, at least not until after we're dead and then it's a bit late to come back and tell everyone about it.

 

Semantically, you are correct. But many things that we know cannot be proven are actually believed to be true. For instance, your death is not proven nor will it be proven until it actually happens. Yes, the death of all humans who have died thus far is proven, but while we can look at your body and say that it is human (I think ), we cannot know that YOUR body will die until it actually does. We can assume by looking at body deterioration etc., but the actual event cannot be tested.

 

Funny thing is...most people live as if they will never die. Emotionally, most of us don't REALLY believe it will happen. With our rational mind, we may say it, but inwardly we do not.

 

Whether it's logical or not has nothing to do with what is written in the Bible. Logic is not subjective.

 

If universalism is somehow connected to Christianity which is explained to us via the Bible....and the Bible shows that this contradicts its teachings, then logic would say that since the two are not in accordance with each other, then universalism cannot be true. Either the Biblical teachings are true or the non-Biblical teachings are true, but since both are not equal, then both cannot be true. If universalism is believed to be a teaching that has nothing to do with the Bible, then this logical comparison is not necessary.

 

This is called the Principle of Contradiction. One can be true, but both cannot be true. It is one of the three basic laws of logic. I am surprised that you of all people did not recognize that.

 

I think it's perfectly logical to reward (or at least not infinitely punish) an imperfect being for trying to learn from their mistakes, and making the best choices they could given their circumstances.

 

You also think God does not exist. So creating the god that fits your subjective logic would then seem logical. You cannot even capitalize His name. How arrogant! Yet you will take the time to capitalize everyone else's name including Ted Bundy and others who would be considered completely despicable in your eyes. And you even take the time to capitalize Santa Claus' name who you also believe is not real. How can you then expect God to somehow give you a reward for "trying?"

 

Honestly, even if God does not exist, please give Him at least the same courtesy you would give Tinkerbell and Santa.

 

Really, can god honestly have the same expectations that somebody from Saudi Arabia will accept Jesus compared to somebody south of the Bible Belt in America?

 

Yes.

 

You haven't actually made that point yet; you've only claimed it's different to the Bible (which, since you like assumptions, is making an absolute whopper there).

 

No, I haven't made any assumptions. Read the original post. Chris uses the Bible and Jesus as showing how universalism is true. If he were using the Koran, then this thread would be going in a different direction. If he were trying to prove universalism despite the Bible, then you would have a case.

 

This thread seems to be about how the Bible teaches universalism. And I say that this is not true.

 

Again you neglect to explain why. All it comes down to is "Bible says x, Universalism says y, therefore Universalism is illogical." I think you are clever enough to know this is epic fail. Again, you seem to be under this impression that god must, by definition, demand worship.

 

First, read my last paragraph. This thread appears to be regarding how universalism is taught IN the Bible. Chris even uses Bible verse to "prove" his point. This is not an epic fail. Thank you for giving me the credit of intelligence.

 

If the topic is: Universalism is correct DESPITE the Bible, then you are correct. If it were the Bible versus Universalism, then you are correct. However, this topic has been how the Bible shows Universalism is true.

 

 

I hate to suggest this because it sounds so patronising,

 

As I drank my coffee, I about spit it all out! YOU are apologizing for being patronizing! Wow.

 

Disgracian without patronization is like....a bus without passengers (no, that analogy does not work. The bus is an inanimate object. If I use that, this thread will really go off topic. ). How about...it is like a roast beef sandwich without the roast beef? (No, that isn't right, roast beef doesn't have a brain or a heart...well, maybe...). Ah well, never mind.

 

Just kidding....Friday morning (at least for me) humor. I certainly mean no disrespect. You have proven that you DO have a brain. (And since your humor is similar to mine...then your response will be that I have not proven that I have a brain. )

 

You can't just pick two different premises and say that one is illogical because you like the other one more, but so far that's exactly what you're doing.

 

Maybe I am wrong...and I will admit that, but my premise is: Universalism is not congruent with the teachings of the Bible. And since the Bible teaches about Jesus' death on the cross and how He provides the Way of Salvation, then to me then, we must prove that universalism is compatible with those teachings. If it is not, then is not a Christian doctrine.

 

And since I can see that universalism does not agree with the Bible and what it tells us about Jesus and Salvation, then this premise is false.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

May you also have a good day. And again, thank you for the mental stimulation from your side of the world.

[disgracian]

Since I stated last time that I would leave the off topic discussion about analogies alone, then I had better not take this bait.

It wasn't intended as bait, just a bit of last-wordism on my part. Tell you what, we'll call it a draw.

But many things that we know cannot be proven are actually believed to be true. For instance, your death is not proven nor will it be proven until it actually happens.

I'm not sure of the connection here. The only thing that is uncertain about my death will be when and how. What, if anything, happens afterwards is 100% within the realms of speculation.

If universalism is somehow connected to Christianity which is explained to us via the Bible....and the Bible shows that this contradicts its teachings, then logic would say that since the two are not in accordance with each other, then universalism cannot be true.

Well, that assumes a very particular interpretation of the texts. As far as I'm concerned, every sort of Christianity contradicts the others and the Bible at some point or another. This point is threatening to become another entire discussion in itself, but as far as I can see, Christian Universalism is in no way different to any other sect in that it chooses which parts of the Bible to emphasise and which ones to mostly or entirely ignore. It's all just a matter of subjective interpretation, unless you go down the 100% Literal Word of God™ path, in which case you've forsaken logic long ago anyway so the point is moot.

This is called the Principle of Contradiction. One can be true, but both cannot be true. It is one of the three basic laws of logic. I am surprised that you of all people did not recognize that.

I do recognise that. I also recognise that logic relies on the veracity of its premises, that logically true statements can be completely false, also nonsensical. I also know that entire religions and philosophies cannot be boiled down to a single boolean answer.

You also think God does not exist. So creating the god that fits your subjective logic would then seem logical. You cannot even capitalize His name. How arrogant!

The way I use the word "god" is not as a proper noun. Also, while we're being completely and utterly pedantic, pronouns are never capitalised (unless they are the first word in a sentence, of course).

 

Also, when I talk of gods I speak hypothetically, therefore I don't expect anything to reward me for trying. I'm just speaking about a logical premise. You seem to have confused the two somehow.

Yes.

What a wonderfully thought-out and detailed answer. I will take this glib response as further evidence that my point is valid. Really, you put 10 times as much effort complaining about my grammar, and that speaks volumes to me.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

The only thing that is uncertain about my death will be when and how. What, if anything, happens afterwards is 100% within the realms of speculation.

 

But the only reason you KNOW you will die is because others have died. YOUR actual death can never be tested with you knowing the results. Hence, it can never be proven to you...yet you believe it will happen.

 

Well, that assumes a very particular interpretation of the texts. As far as I'm concerned, every sort of Christianity contradicts the others and the Bible at some point or another.

 

I cannot argue with your opinion here. However, my contention is that universalism goes against the whole message of the Bible. Truthfully, the one point that 99% of Christianity agrees on is this point. No, it does not mean it is right based on popularity vote, but it is not a contradiction to them either.

 

unless you go down the 100% Literal Word of God™ path, in which case you've forsaken logic long ago anyway so the point is moot.

 

I am not sure who takes the Bible 100% literal, but this is not a large percentage of people. There are a number of verses in the Bible that even the most literal of literalists would agree are not meant literally.

 

The way I use the word "god" is not as a proper noun.

 

Whenever God is referring to a Being known by that Name, then it should be capitalized. When the term is being used to describe a god, then it does not need to be capitalized. For instance, when we refer to..."The queens of Australia and England had tea today," we do not capitalize queens. Yet when we say, "Queen Elizabeth II of Australia stopped in London for tea," we capitalize her title. So it is with the Name of God.

 

God is a name and by all grammatical rules is then capitalized. Yet I see so many atheists and those who wish to minimize Him constantly leave His Name with a small "g" as if by doing so, it will make Him a smaller god.

 

Why did I bring it up? Because its shows the absurdity of of universalism. Spend a life mocking and cursing God yet spend eternity with that very God that was denied or hated without any repentance. Whether that follows any law of logic, it certainly is not logical to any human understanding.

 

Also, while we're being completely and utterly pedantic, pronouns are never capitalised (unless they are the first word in a sentence, of course).

 

Agreed....depending on whose rules. Even the King James Bible I have does not capitalize pronouns. The Hebrew scriptures do not use any capital letters and the Greek scriptures use all capital letters. Certainly not all Christian authors capitalize pronouns referring to God. Yet many European languages DO capitalize pronouns referencing a Deity. Other languages capitalize a formal second person pronoun (ie German). So, IMO, this seems to be a preferential rule. For myself, I cannot but help give Him the highest regard when using names or pronouns that indicate His Glory.

 

What a wonderfully thought-out and detailed answer. I will take this glib response as further evidence that my point is valid.

 

Actually, your "point" as you call it asked for a simple honest answer. Do you honestly....?" And my honest answer was yes. Nothing more needed to be said. If that spoke volumes to you, then so be it.

 

Really, you put 10 times as much effort complaining about my grammar, and that speaks volumes to me.

 

It is what it is.

 

Cheers,

 

Have a good day.

[chris250]

It's amazing how christians cannot agree on what the requirements are for salvation but they all come together and agree when someone says that Jesus met all of the requirements and that there is nothing left on our part.

 

Most christians will agree that believing is a requirement for salvation. However they will disagree as to whether or not that is the only requirement. There's all kinds of requirements depending on the denomination. Some stricter, some more laxed.

 

There's something very wrong when christians cannot agree on what it takes to be saved but they can all come together and say that Jesus did not really fulfill all the requirements.

 

But if another christian came in tomorrow and said "you must believe and castrate yourself to be saved" I doubt the christians on here would come against that.

 

I suspect that Moose, JamesM, quaken, bentbroken, & a few other christians here have different opinions on just what man needs to do to be saved. They argue among themselves and they'll all agree "yes you gotta believe" some will say believing is not enough. Well if believing is not enough then why worry about atheists and agnostics when you have a lot of work to do yourself to ensure you're going to make it?

 

I believe Jesus fulfilled all the requirements for us including the requirement to believe. All the requirements you can think of have already been fulfilled in His death, burial & resurrection.

[disgracian]

But the only reason you KNOW you will die is because others have died. YOUR actual death can never be tested with you knowing the results. Hence, it can never be proven to you...yet you believe it will happen.

Mate, you're really grasping at straws here. Remember this line of argument started over me saying that Hell was hypothetical and unprovable compared to being hit by a bus. That statement still stands. Death is inevitable for mortal beings, undeniable just about the only part of our lives that is certain. Hell, on the other hand, is a malevolent fairytale until proven otherwise.

I cannot argue with your opinion here. However, my contention is that universalism goes against the whole message of the Bible.

That god is merciful, fair and loves us? To nitpick, I do not think there is any such thing as a "whole message of the Bible" considering it is so fractured and describes two distinctly different gods.

Whenever God is referring to a Being known by that Name, then it should be capitalized.

Considering you just made two huge errors in this sentence, alone, you should not be lecturing me on grammar. I do not use the word "god" as a name or title. My usage is correct for the manner in which I use the word. This is completely off topic and I will not pursue it further.

Why did I bring it up? Because its shows the absurdity of of universalism. Spend a life mocking and cursing God yet spend eternity with that very God that was denied or hated without any repentance. Whether that follows any law of logic, it certainly is not logical to any human understanding.

Logic and human understanding are entirely unrelated. I do not think you really know what logic means beyond some vague understanding that it is a kind of thought process. There is nothing inherently illogical about what you describe: it just makes no sense to you because your perception is of god as a being who demands worship and punishes finite crimes (or doubt, or sincere belief in the "wrong" thing) for all eternity, who claims to love his creation yet deems them all inherently worthy of this unimaginable fate, a god who created us all who only communicated with one tiny tribe for most of human history, then holds the remaining 99% of the world at a distinct disadvantage for coming up with their own answers in total absence of divine guidance.

 

It is your beliefs that violate logic far more than universalism.

Yet many European languages DO capitalize pronouns referencing a Deity.

Well I don't, because a pronoun is a pronoun. The idea of a "divinity clause" is silly in my opinion.

Actually, your "point" as you call it asked for a simple honest answer. Do you honestly....?" And my honest answer was yes. Nothing more needed to be said. If that spoke volumes to you, then so be it.

Read what you will into it (such as "simple" when I asked for no such thing), you never seem to have any problem elaborating on your views under normal circumstances.

Have a good day.

You too!

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Mate, you're really grasping at straws here.

 

Considering you just made two huge errors in this sentence, alone, you should not be lecturing me on grammar.

 

I do not think you really know what logic means beyond some vague understanding that it is a kind of thought process.

 

There is nothing inherently illogical about what you describe: it just makes no sense to you

 

It is your beliefs that violate logic far more than universalism.

 

you never seem to have any problem elaborating on your views under normal circumstances.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

:lmao:

 

Thank you for the kind words as I drink my morning coffee.

 

I did enjoy them. Since there is not much left to discuss in your post, I do want to say that despite our differences, I enjoy these discussions. For fear of causing this thread to be closed on Chris, we had better move back to universalism.

 

As for universalism, I wanted to add a link for the general public who reads this thread. If there are any left, then they can go to the following site and find the many objections that most Christians have with universalism. Personally, I think it says it better than I could. So if there is any rebuttals or disagreement, I think they can provide adequate answers.

 

http://www.carm.org/universalism.htm

[Storyrider]

I just heard an interesting story on NPR, This American Life, about a black evangelical preacher who was excommunicated from his church when he eventually came to hold Universalist beliefs. Here is a link.

 

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=304

[chris250]

I just heard an interesting story on NPR, This American Life, about a black evangelical preacher who was excommunicated from his church when he eventually came to hold Universalist beliefs. Here is a link.

 

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=304

 

I talked about Carlton Pearson in one of my other threads. I'm just about finished reading his book "the gospel of inclusion." I also added him to my myspace page. I commend him for his courage. He may have lost everything he worked for during his life but he was being true to himself.

 

Only religious people oppose his message of inclusion because it's a message of freedom. Religion has to use fear and guilt to control people. Most people in the secular world love his message of inclusion just as the secular world loved Jesus. It was the religious folks of His day that persecuted Him.

 

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/150reasons.html

 

Here's an article that gives 150 reasons for believing in universal salvation.

[disgracian]

http://www.carm.org/universalism.htm

I found it of very poor quality actually, and that has nothing to do with my disagreement with their conclusion. The article was even more brief than some of our posts here, completely subjective at times unintentionally ironic.

 

It's likely Chris will be along shortly to point this out in more detail, but it doesn't seem to offer a lot to the discussion that hasn't already been said.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

I found it of very poor quality actually, and that has nothing to do with my disagreement with their conclusion. The article was even more brief than some of our posts here, completely subjective at times unintentionally ironic.

 

It's likely Chris will be along shortly to point this out in more detail, but it doesn't seem to offer a lot to the discussion that hasn't already been said.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

I suspected that you would. A surprise would have been that you found an opposing site filled with great responses. Yes, no one here uses irony or sarcasm.

 

My point was to hopefully bring this back to a discussion of the topic without taking the time...that I did not have...to place all of the arguments on the table.

 

Carlton Pearson...that was his name. I watched a piece on Dateline awhile back about him. I had forgotten his name, but when Chris started this thread, I was wondering if his name would be brought up. I remember that he had a large church which dwindled down to a few hundred after he publicized his view of universalism.

[Moose]

It's amazing how christians cannot agree on what the requirements are for salvation but they all come together and agree when someone says that Jesus met all of the requirements and that there is nothing left on our part.

The Bible is clear. Believe in Jesus, and you will be saved. "Nothing left on our part", is FALSE.

Most christians will agree that believing is a requirement for salvation. However they will disagree as to whether or not that is the only requirement. There's all kinds of requirements depending on the denomination. Some stricter, some more laxed.

I won't disagree....there is NOTHING else that needs done.

There's something very wrong when christians cannot agree on what it takes to be saved but they can all come together and say that Jesus did not really fulfill all the requirements.

Another false statement. You MUST read the Bible as a whole. You wouldn't read the first few chapters of a novel, then skip to the last few chapters....would you?

But if another christian came in tomorrow and said "you must believe and castrate yourself to be saved" I doubt the christians on here would come against that.

Scripture mentions NOTHING about this, therefore, I would tell that person to go back into the Word of God.

They argue among themselves and they'll all agree "yes you gotta believe" some will say believing is not enough. Well if believing is not enough then why worry about atheists and agnostics when you have a lot of work to do yourself to ensure you're going to make it?

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 believe Jesus fulfilled all the requirements for us including the requirement to believe. All the requirements you can think of have already been fulfilled in His death, burial & resurrection.

Are you saying that since Jesus believed, we ALL are saved? I'm sorry.....that isn't logical to me at all......