Wouldn't "Good News" have been God forgiving the first couple their 1st mistake?

[LordsDaughter]

I was in a poster shop this week and in the "Demotivational" poster section there was a poster featuring the "Passion of the Christ" Jesus actor in his character role on the cross, followed by the following text:

Christianity - The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

I wrote it down so as to have it for future reference. And this seems to be the right time.
I think what captured my attention about that poster was how the script succinctly outlines in raw language the bare bones platform of Christianity and what it asks us to accept as truth from the beginning.
And I recalled in reading that script Isaiah 45:7. How God is the darkness and the light, both the evil and the good. That all that transpires is by his act and his will.  Wouldn't then the fear paradigm or threatening scriptures this particular forum discusses have been abated had the "Good News" first been that God forgave the first mistake Adam and Eve made in the garden of Eden?


(P.S. Unrelated to this post but finding it necessary to ask as I haven't yet seen this information in the new member info board posts: Do we always have to enter the verification's every post we make? Or does that step eventually subside after we have enough posts to our credit? Thank you. )

[jabcat]

Your question seems to me to be one of those things a believer can struggle with.  One of those things for which we're either given a satisfying answer, or given the answer of "trust and believe in Me anyway".

As far as the actual quote though, I believe I hear the voice of the adversary. 

Remember, the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, but to those of us being saved by it, it is the power of God.  I Cor. 1:18

[Molly]

This reminds me of the statement that either Jesus was mad or he was who he said he was.  Of course, even those who don't believe he is who he said he was tend to love him and do not think he was crazy.  Go figure.  He is one of the most beloved figures in world history by all religions and even non believers.  I think that's testimony enough by a darkened world.  If only they would have enough light to believe their own testimony.

[reFORMer]

People die.  Without victory over death we don't have any answers.  If we used some kind of technology, maybe genetic engineering, to create something that could never die based on whatever we flesh creatures are, it would be horrible.  Its already inconceivably bad for so very many of us through disease, injury or old age.  The idea of a zombie human that never dies is something we should recoil from as unacceptable.

Of all the notable people in human history so far, who would we say is most likely to attain immortality?  Not only is Jesus the only one, He's far and away the best pick.  The surprise is He is at the center of just such a belief in victory over death.  To then recognize His immortality is of a kind that is inextricably linked to moral perfection, it's incorruptible immortality, and a result of special intimacy with God, it is definitely inspiring to us, quickening us to believe His promises to include us.

[jugghead]

  If only they would have enough light to believe their own testimony.

This one hit home, it reminded me of a conversation I had with an ET'er. I am a truck driver, I was parked and he came up to me and another guy I was talking to and started to talk about ( I have to use the words "his view" here) his view of God.

God had already brought me to understand UR after first understanding ET so I had a knowledge of both views. Anyway, I kept saying that God will forgive all, he kept saying He wouldn't. It actually got a little heated and it was at that point I said, "God is love", it was at that point he really burst out with anger and said, "God is not love"

Those were the last words out of his mouth as he walked away and I prayed that God would reveal to his own mind what he had actually said. Did he walk away thinking about his last words to me? I do not know, but I hoped he would, I hoped he would have enough light to believe his own testimony in who he had become through hearing his own words.

[shawn]

Anytime I see something like that...and it bothers me...I must ask myself why.  I suppose some of its ego...not wanting to have to check my brain in at the door in order to be a man of faith.  I also don't like my faith belittled...partly because it's a reflection on God but mainly because it's a reflection on me.  Then last if I'm real honest...is because it shakes my faith a bit.  Thankfully, I haven't had this issue for awhile...but I distinctly remember battling stuff like this often in my faith walk.

Let me give you my understanding...I don't claim my truth is THE truth...but it's where I am today and I will share it with you.

1). I would no more take the Creationist account in Genesis as literal as I would assume the man faced, woman haired, lion teethed locusts of Revelations are literal.  The problems come into play when we take stories filled with spiritual symbolism and attempt to turn them into literal accounts.

2) Give me just about anything magnificent...and I can make it sound absurd.  Think about describing the moon landing to people 200 years ago.

I take the story of Adam and Eve and the question you propose like this...Adam and Eve represented man and womans desire to break fellowship with God, by becoming their own gods.  God allowed it, and there were very literal consequences for this breaking of fellowship.

As for your other concerns...there is no darkness within God...nor does God tempt any man.  I believe what Isaiah is saying is that God is the author of creation...even our ability to chose evil (absence of God) comes from Him. 

[LordsDaughter]

Your question seems to me to be one of those things a believer can struggle with.  One of those things for which we're either given a satisfying answer, or given the answer of "trust and believe in Me anyway".

As far as the actual quote though, I believe I hear the voice of the adversary. 

Remember, the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, but to those of us being saved by it, it is the power of God.  I Cor. 1:18

I appreciate your insight. :) Ever the seeker I pose the following in reply.

The adversary, the Devil, the antithesis. Would anything that exists be able to be anything but God?
When God is the Alpha and the Omega,the beginning and the end. When God, genderless and yet usually referred to using male pronouns, is the sole/soul? creator of all that is, was or ever shall be, can anything that exists be anything but God?

And God being omniscient, would he not then be not only the Adversary but also know, as architect of all that transpires according to his plan,everything that the Adversary is doing? And would it be able to be done without God's knowing or permission?

[LordsDaughter]

  If only they would have enough light to believe their own testimony.

This one hit home, it reminded me of a conversation I had with an ET'er. I am a truck driver, I was parked and he came up to me and another guy I was talking to and started to talk about ( I have to use the words "his view" here) his view of God.

God had already brought me to understand UR after first understanding ET so I had a knowledge of both views. Anyway, I kept saying that God will forgive all, he kept saying He wouldn't. It actually got a little heated and it was at that point I said, "God is love", it was at that point he really burst out with anger and said, "God is not love"

Those were the last words out of his mouth as he walked away and I prayed that God would reveal to his own mind what he had actually said. Did he walk away thinking about his last words to me? I do not know, but I hoped he would, I hoped he would have enough light to believe his own testimony in who he had become through hearing his own words.

Just a thought regarding the gentleman you encountered. Perhaps he was a literalist. Taking the Bible literally and thus came to the conclusion God was not love because of all that he'd personally suffered, regardless of his faith in the word and it's relation of God in it's manner and as he accepted was truth.

Always a guess of course, as the gentleman is the only one who could say for sure. If he even knows. Bless his journey to better days.
Just for clarification. What is an ET?

[LordsDaughter]

As an aside, I greatly appreciate the time you all take to answer my questions. I have many as I am ever the seeker. Your patience is a blessing to me.

Blessings Abide in us all.

[shawn]

Your question seems to me to be one of those things a believer can struggle with.  One of those things for which we're either given a satisfying answer, or given the answer of "trust and believe in Me anyway".

As far as the actual quote though, I believe I hear the voice of the adversary. 

Remember, the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, but to those of us being saved by it, it is the power of God.  I Cor. 1:18

I appreciate your insight. :) Ever the seeker I pose the following in reply.

The adversary, the Devil, the antithesis. Would anything that exists be able to be anything but God?
When God is the Alpha and the Omega,the beginning and the end. When God, genderless and yet usually referred to using male pronouns, is the sole/soul? creator of all that is, was or ever shall be, can anything that exists be anything but God?

And God being omniscient, would he not then be not only the Adversary but also know, as architect of all that transpires according to his plan,everything that the Adversary is doing? And would it be able to be done without God's knowing or permission?

While I believe philosophical religious debate often unfruitful and bloated with ego...I do find it entertaining.  As long as I don't rely on it to "understand" God...it's a luxury I allow myself. 

If God is love...meaning He defines himself by agape love...then every other characteristic of God must be congruent...complementary...stemming from agape love.  Is there love without choice?  Can true love be dictated?  Can it be forced?  Love by its very definition involves voluntary decision.  If God orchestrates all the players, and moves all the pieces...He merely plays chess with himself and defies His very nature which is love.  Therefore it's logical to assume that choice must be a part of the equation...and within choice is individual actions which are not of God...but are used by God for His ultimate purposes.  He predestines by foreknowledge not by foremicromanagement.

With this as a background, people can choose absence.  Cold is not an entity...it's reality comes from absence of heat.  Evil is also not an entity...it's an absence of God, which he allows man to choose.  Anything short of this suggests God is the author, creator and supporter of evil...which we who know God through relationship...know He is not.

[Molly]

  If only they would have enough light to believe their own testimony.

This one hit home, it reminded me of a conversation I had with an ET'er. I am a truck driver, I was parked and he came up to me and another guy I was talking to and started to talk about ( I have to use the words "his view" here) his view of God.

God had already brought me to understand UR after first understanding ET so I had a knowledge of both views. Anyway, I kept saying that God will forgive all, he kept saying He wouldn't. It actually got a little heated and it was at that point I said, "God is love", it was at that point he really burst out with anger and said, "God is not love"

Those were the last words out of his mouth as he walked away and I prayed that God would reveal to his own mind what he had actually said. Did he walk away thinking about his last words to me? I do not know, but I hoped he would, I hoped he would have enough light to believe his own testimony in who he had become through hearing his own words.

lol

I think maybe what your fellow meant to say was God was not just love, or, as Paul puts it

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.  Rom 11

But, I have to say, apropos of nothing, that it gives me a great feeling of safety to know that somewhere in my country a bunch of burly truck drivers are standing around talking about God.  It gives me hope, that God will hold his remnant fast and not turn his back on us.

[jugghead]

I have no idea what that man has gone through or is going through, I did not judge him for what he said, for I remember the words of Christ, forgive them Father, for they know not what they do, for I was once where he was, lacking understanding in the grace of the Father.

If he meant that God is not only love, then we also have to understand where he is coming from in his beliefs, is it based on eternal torment (ET) or is based on universal reconciliation (UR), in other words is it based on punishment or forgiveness. I do not believe it can be both. I can believe in correction and forgiveness, but not punishment just for the sake of inflicting pain because of disobedience.

[LordsDaughter]

I find philosophical debate something that challenges what I believe I already know or hold as true. It engages my point of view to reconsider at times, and realize that perhaps things are not as I thought them to be. Philosophical debate, in my opinion, helps to inspire me to learn more about myself and in the same regard others as well.  Whereas, bloated unfruitful egoism, in my opinion, would be reflected in refusing to engage in such a discourse. Because I somehow imagine I can remain comfortable, proud and resigned in my present opinions and thus can not learn more than I think I already know.

In my opinion the concept of "Agape Love" is challenged as a constant when sin and evil remain as such in the world.

Whereas, Isaiah 45:7 is a succinct description of what an omnipotent, omnigenetic, omnipresent creator/source/god of all that exists eternally would have to be in order for there to be those things that exist or are faithfully thought to exist due to it's creation of them.

Your question seems to me to be one of those things a believer can struggle with.  One of those things for which we're either given a satisfying answer, or given the answer of "trust and believe in Me anyway".

As far as the actual quote though, I believe I hear the voice of the adversary. 

Remember, the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, but to those of us being saved by it, it is the power of God.  I Cor. 1:18

I appreciate your insight. :) Ever the seeker I pose the following in reply.

The adversary, the Devil, the antithesis. Would anything that exists be able to be anything but God?
When God is the Alpha and the Omega,the beginning and the end. When God, genderless and yet usually referred to using male pronouns, is the sole/soul? creator of all that is, was or ever shall be, can anything that exists be anything but God?

And God being omniscient, would he not then be not only the Adversary but also know, as architect of all that transpires according to his plan,everything that the Adversary is doing? And would it be able to be done without God's knowing or permission?

While I believe philosophical religious debate often unfruitful and bloated with ego...I do find it entertaining.  As long as I don't rely on it to "understand" God...it's a luxury I allow myself. 

If God is love...meaning He defines himself by agape love...then every other characteristic of God must be congruent...complementary...stemming from agape love.  Is there love without choice?  Can true love be dictated?  Can it be forced?  Love by its very definition involves voluntary decision.  If God orchestrates all the players, and moves all the pieces...He merely plays chess with himself and defies His very nature which is love.  Therefore it's logical to assume that choice must be a part of the equation...and within choice is individual actions which are not of God...but are used by God for His ultimate purposes.  He predestines by foreknowledge not by foremicromanagement.

With this as a background, people can choose absence.  Cold is not an entity...it's reality comes from absence of heat.  Evil is also not an entity...it's an absence of God, which he allows man to choose.  Anything short of this suggests God is the author, creator and supporter of evil...which we who know God through relationship...know He is not.

[shawn]

I find philosophical debate something that challenges what I believe I already know or hold as true. It engages my point of view to reconsider at times, and realize that perhaps things are not as I thought them to be. Philosophical debate, in my opinion, helps to inspire me to learn more about myself and in the same regard others as well.  Whereas, bloated unfruitful egoism, in my opinion, would be reflected in refusing to engage in such a discourse. Because I somehow imagine I can remain comfortable, proud and resigned in my present opinions and thus can not learn more than I think I already know.

In my opinion the concept of "Agape Love" is challenged as a constant when sin and evil remain as such in the world.

Whereas, Isaiah 45:7 is a succinct description of what an omnipotent, omnigenetic, omnipresent creator/source/god of all that exists eternally would have to be in order for there to be those things that exist or are faithfully thought to exist due to it's creation of them.

Your question seems to me to be one of those things a believer can struggle with.  One of those things for which we're either given a satisfying answer, or given the answer of "trust and believe in Me anyway".

As far as the actual quote though, I believe I hear the voice of the adversary. 

Remember, the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, but to those of us being saved by it, it is the power of God.  I Cor. 1:18

I appreciate your insight. :) Ever the seeker I pose the following in reply.

The adversary, the Devil, the antithesis. Would anything that exists be able to be anything but God?
When God is the Alpha and the Omega,the beginning and the end. When God, genderless and yet usually referred to using male pronouns, is the sole/soul? creator of all that is, was or ever shall be, can anything that exists be anything but God?

And God being omniscient, would he not then be not only the Adversary but also know, as architect of all that transpires according to his plan,everything that the Adversary is doing? And would it be able to be done without God's knowing or permission?

While I believe philosophical religious debate often unfruitful and bloated with ego...I do find it entertaining.  As long as I don't rely on it to "understand" God...it's a luxury I allow myself. 

If God is love...meaning He defines himself by agape love...then every other characteristic of God must be congruent...complementary...stemming from agape love.  Is there love without choice?  Can true love be dictated?  Can it be forced?  Love by its very definition involves voluntary decision.  If God orchestrates all the players, and moves all the pieces...He merely plays chess with himself and defies His very nature which is love.  Therefore it's logical to assume that choice must be a part of the equation...and within choice is individual actions which are not of God...but are used by God for His ultimate purposes.  He predestines by foreknowledge not by foremicromanagement.

With this as a background, people can choose absence.  Cold is not an entity...it's reality comes from absence of heat.  Evil is also not an entity...it's an absence of God, which he allows man to choose.  Anything short of this suggests God is the author, creator and supporter of evil...which we who know God through relationship...know He is not.

While I believe we should all be open to challenges to what we believe...philosophical debates are rarely iron sharpening iron.  They tend to founded upon humanistic reasoning rather than the Holy Scriptures or even experience with God through relationship.  That is my experience with these type of debates...hence my opinion.  But, we welcome debate...that is often what we do. 

As for your comments about agape loving being a variable based upon situation...I would disagree.  Unconditional love defines itself, and everything else becomes a variable under it's umbrella of influence.  I would love further explanation as I'm sure my understanding of agape love can be challenged.

[LordsDaughter]

While I believe we should all be open to challenges to what we believe...philosophical debates are rarely iron sharpening iron.  They tend to founded upon humanistic reasoning rather than the Holy Scriptures or even experience with God through relationship.  That is my experience with these type of debates...hence my opinion.  But, we welcome debate...that is often what we do.

In a discussion forum such as this, I would imagine so. In fact the mere notation of 'Discussion" forum invites same. 
As for iron sharpening iron, as found in Proverbs 27:17 that too is accomplished in discussion and debate. Though I will say the 'humanistic' reasoning you refer to seems an attempt to dismiss open dialog and cordial discourse.
When I joined this forum I was given to understand by the Tent Maker site itself that not much stock was given to the "holy" scriptures, for the reasons noted in the articles afforded on that site. Whereas "God's Word" is that which is communicated by the Holy Spirit unto the believer as part of an innate communion or relationship between creator and created. This is also noted on the TM site.

As for your comments about agape loving being a variable based upon situation...I would disagree.  Unconditional love defines itself, and everything else becomes a variable under it's umbrella of influence.  I would love further explanation as I'm sure my understanding of agape love can be challenged.

I believe you are confusing "agape love" with omnibenevolence.
agape love is derived from the Greek and refers to brotherly love. Whereas omnibenevolence is a Deific characteristic or a Godly characteristic indicative of perfect kindness, or eternal benevolence.

[shawn]

While I believe we should all be open to challenges to what we believe...philosophical debates are rarely iron sharpening iron.  They tend to founded upon humanistic reasoning rather than the Holy Scriptures or even experience with God through relationship.  That is my experience with these type of debates...hence my opinion.  But, we welcome debate...that is often what we do.

In a discussion forum such as this, I would imagine so. In fact the mere notation of 'Discussion" forum invites same. 
As for iron sharpening iron, as found in Proverbs 27:17 that too is accomplished in discussion and debate. Though I will say the 'humanistic' reasoning you refer to seems an attempt to dismiss open dialog and cordial discourse.
When I joined this forum I was given to understand by the Tent Maker site itself that not much stock was given to the "holy" scriptures, for the reasons noted in the articles afforded on that site. Whereas "God's Word" is that which is communicated by the Holy Spirit unto the believer as part of an innate communion or relationship between creator and created. This is also noted on the TM site.

As for your comments about agape loving being a variable based upon situation...I would disagree.  Unconditional love defines itself, and everything else becomes a variable under it's umbrella of influence.  I would love further explanation as I'm sure my understanding of agape love can be challenged.

I believe you are confusing "agape love" with omnibenevolence.
agape love is derived from the Greek and refers to brotherly love. Whereas omnibenevolence is a Deific characteristic or a Godly characteristic indicative of perfect kindness, or eternal benevolence.

Philia connotes brotherly love...agape is covenant love of God towards humans. 

1 John 4:8, ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, "God is Love" agapao is used to describe God himself.  We are to emulate Christs sacrificing love towards our brothers...but make no mistake it's not brotherly love.

So if God is agapao...agape love...and God never changes...then agape love nor God changes because evil exists in the world.  God is not variable as agapao is not variable.

As for your comments about me attempting not to engage a "cordial debate" then you have misread my intent.  I love a healthy debate, but they should always be based upon the Holy Scriptures and revelation through relationship.  We take the Holy Scriptures probably more seriously than your average evangelical Christian.  We just get to the bottom of what they are saying in the original languages.  If you read anything other than that here at tent...I would be greatly surprised.

[LordsDaughter]

Perhaps I arrived at the opinion regarding your seeming attempt at dismissing cordial debate is due to your remarks that attempted to dismiss the validity of debate. "Iron sharpening Iron", etc...

With that being said and as I take your word that you are interested in cordial discourse let us continue in that vein of cordiality. :)

I love a healthy debate, but they should always be based upon the Holy Scriptures and revelation through relationship.  We take the Holy Scriptures probably more seriously than your average evangelical Christian. We just get to the bottom of what they are saying in the original languages.  If you read anything other than that here at tent...I would be greatly surprised.

Perhaps I am confusing the Tent Maker website itself and it's articles having anything at all to do with the theme present in the Tent Maker Discussion Forums. If the two are completely unrelated in philosophy, etc... I apologize for my misunderstanding. As it is from the information contained at the Tent Maker website and it's articles that I sought to enter into discussion at the Tent Maker Discussion Forums.



Excerpt from Article The Myth of "The Bible" By Gary Amirault
(Sic)"...The true word of God comes via Jesus' Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the Anointing. Jesus is the "Christ," that is, the Anointed One -- the One with the fullness of God's Spirit. The true word of God is anointed with God's Spirit. The Spirit and Truth bear witness to each other.

We should always remember that is it NOT those who have their favorite translation memorized who are the sons of God, but those who are led by His Spirit.

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Rom. 8:14, NKJV)

I say all this to say that Satan is perfectly able and more than willing to quote scriptures. And most of the time he'll quote them through another Christian, perhaps even your own church leader. He used them to try to trip up Jesus during His tribulation period. Memorizing verses from your favorite translation is NOT putting the true word of God inside you. Quoting one's favorite wrath-filled verse against someone you don't like is NOT obeying God unless He clearly directs you to do so via the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit!

So the next time, because of habit, you want to say, "the word of God says, or "the Bible says," bite your tongue til it hurts. The odds are very great that God never wanted to say a word of it in the first place!" (End excerpt)

Re: Agape love. I would dare presume then that per your reference to scripture that it appears Agape love may be perceived as one and the same thing relating to omnibenevolence.
While Philio refers to friendship and affection or the brotherly sisterly love.

And yet, if Agape love is the constant beneath which you say all things come to exist, it still makes for the remark regarding sin and damnation.
Humans quickened with the pure soul sent from Heaven to inhabit condemned flesh by God's will, according to what the Bible describes as God's preordained plan for all existence including humanity, makes for quite a conundrum in my opinion.

Pure Agape love creating a paradigm wherein there are two factors present for the human consciousness to endure, while made manifest and surviving within the omnipresence of an omniscient omnipotent father, to either find redemption or damnation by design.

How does pure love manifest damnation and sin? And how then is it described as a matter of choice, when humans, according to scripture are born bearing the deficit of sin first? Before choice, as newborns, and like unto the first couple Adam and Eve, could ever become a factor.

[shawn]

You stated...

Re: Agape love. I would dare presume then that per your reference to scripture that it appears Agape love may be perceived as one and the same thing relating to omnibenevolence.
While Philio refers to friendship and affection or the brotherly sisterly love.

And yet, if Agape love is the constant beneath which you say all things come to exist, it still makes for the remark regarding sin and damnation.
Humans quickened with the pure soul sent from Heaven to inhabit condemned flesh by God's will, according to what the Bible describes as God's preordained plan for all existence including humanity, makes for quite a conundrum in my opinion.

Pure Agape love creating a paradigm wherein there are two factors present for the human consciousness to endure, while made manifest and surviving within the omnipresence of an omniscient omnipotent father, to either find redemption or damnation by design.

How does pure love manifest damnation and sin? And how then is it described as a matter of choice, when humans, according to scripture are born bearing the deficit of sin first? Before choice, as newborns, and like unto the first couple Adam and Eve, could ever become a factor.



Since I don't believe in damnation we have no common ground to debate.  Nor do I believe God preordained man by design to live in a fallen state.  That is a Calvanistic view that IMO doesn't represent the Scriptures.  No wonder you have issue with seeing God as agape love. 

Instead I believe God because he is agapao...allowed man to choose...still allows man to choose...and gives grace to choose Him.  Without choice there is no love.  How can God deny himself by taking away choice?  And even though this was set in motion before you were born, and you were born into flawed flesh...it doesn't deny the love of God.  It merely puts Gods love on display through the Cross, and through His plan to redeem ALL mankind.  And even this flawed, diseased flesh becomes a vehicle for spiritual education.  The flesh is intricately involved in the threshing process...wheat from chaff. 

[LordsDaughter]

I greatly appreciate your saving me the time of further discourse on this subject.
I was led to believe you presented your side of the "argument" from a scriptural point of view. I did not realize at that time that your declaration applied to selective scriptures rather than all scripture.

It is no wonder you can not argue the concept of Agape love, while defending Jesus mission on earth, as denoted on the header of these forums in fact, as the savior of the whole world, which naturally begs the question; from what? And that paradigm then coming into the discussion in reply. All of which calls for debate of what you perceive as "agape love". One of the many loves described in scripture.

  Thus I would concur. We do not have a common ground so that this discussion may continue. Thank you for your time. And thanks again for saving me from wasting mine.

God Bless.

[shawn]

Savior from ourselves...Savior from being our own god.  Savior from the consequences of sin.  Savior from our own self destruction.  It's certainly not Savior from damnation...which God preordained.  I would really struggle with the faith if that was my concept of God.  That may be the reason you come across so angry and disagreeable.

I know that when I served God and my understanding of Him was a taskmaster...I suffered through this life.  Maybe the reason you feel so restless, and irritable is because your view of God is so difficult to line up with loving.  Its hard to enjoy life when we fear damnation and live in spiritual confusion.

[LordsDaughter]

Oh, my. Reading what your taskmaster has inspired you to demonstrate yourself to be through the inspiration you glean from your personal belief as you deem to now levy personal judgment against myself, after all that you've demonstrated prior I will simply say,may God forgive you.
And good night.

[LordsDaughter]

Let me say I would hope those others who would like to engage in dialog on this issue would continue to do so.
Please do not let conflict be cause of a thread kill.

God Bless.

[LordsDaughter]

 

"There is a great difference between nominal Christianity and real Christianity, and this is generally seen in the failure of the one and the continuance of the other." Charles Spurgeon






I thank you all for demonstrating what I had only read as other peoples opinions of "The Tent" and it's membership. I quite simply did not quite believe it and so I had to join and read it for myself. I found it's all true. It's extraordinary that a people who cling to the notion of "universal repentance" , gleaned from dissecting the KJV they decimate with criticisms while arguing their philosophy is derived from interpreting to their liking what otherwise is condemned in it's traditional scripture.
Elective salvation.
The only problem is, what are you being saved from?
Agape love some here claim is what God is. And yet they believe in Jesus. And they believe Jesus doesn't save them from Hell, but rather saves them from themselves. Whom Agape love God created to be exactly as is.

It's a conundrum that is untenable in the realm of rational criticism and basic logic.
And yet for many here, it's livable.

What is fascinating however, and what gives the greatest testimony of a philosophy like that is what the person who cleaves to it becomes in the process.

To believe in 'universal repentence' while collectively treating any one member of choice like garbage because they dare not to 'baahhhhh' like others in the herd, says it all.

You believe you are saved from God. Period! No matter how you cut it you believe what you are by birth needed to be redeemed in faith it can get better because what you are by nature needs to be saved ! But what you are, when you believe in God, is exactly what God created you to be.

There is nothing so tragic as to witness a rational intellect compromise itself willingly by cleaving to a slave mentality that is faith in a God created in one's own image and likeness.
The Universalism this site professes to be credible by scripture is demonstrated by it's membership to be a rewriting of the scripture to something they can choose to live with because they still can't handle simply being human. 
And lack of belief in hell isn't evolution out of monotheistic ET.  Of course hell is a myth. But so too is God.
What you accept as true in the faith it's worth living as if your soul depends on it after you die is reflected in how you treat other people while wearing the label, "Universalist Christian".
It's the new elitist exclusivist cult ideal. How you treat people here that aren't part of your clique' shows every visitor watching, and those new members, exactly what your faith has done for and to you.

I thank you all for proving what one finds in a search of the keywords; "Tent Maker" provides.

Matthew 25:40.

I doubt you'll read that verbatim. It'll probably be interpreted according to your "universalist" needs. Because you certainly don't live it verbatim by example here. 

 "Universalism as an ideal is as old as nay, is probably much more ancient than the Christian ideal."
Arthur Keith


"Nowhere is Universalism welcomed and encouraged by a people; everywhere governments have forced and are forcing Universalism upon unwilling and resistant subjects. "
Arthur Keith


"Civilization, we shall find, like Universalism and Christianity, is anti evolutionary in its effects; it works against the laws and conditions which regulated the earlier stages of man's ascent. "
Arthur Keith

[Molly]

Elective salvation

Elective salvation is most certainly supported by scripture.  It is just not the end of the story.

 

Of course hell is a myth. But so too is God

Have you decided to finally out yourself as a nonbeliever?

believe you are saved from God.

from the wrath of God, among other things

How you treat people here that aren't part of your clique' shows every visitor watching, and those new members, exactly what your faith has done for and to you.

If you are a true seeker, stay and break bread with us.  But if your purpose is to attack belief in God, and attack the Bible, and attack us, I'm not sure what you hope to expect from us.  There are people here that do not believe in God, but they are respectful of our belief.

[j.]

"There is a great difference between nominal Christianity and real Christianity, and this is generally seen in the failure of the one and the continuance of the other." Charles Spurgeon






I thank you all for demonstrating what I had only read as other peoples opinions of "The Tent" and it's membership. I quite simply did not quite believe it and so I had to join and read it for myself. I found it's all true. It's extraordinary that a people who cling to the notion of "universal repentance" , gleaned from dissecting the KJV they decimate with criticisms while arguing their philosophy is derived from interpreting to their liking what otherwise is condemned in it's traditional scripture.
Elective salvation.
The only problem is, what are you being saved from?
Agape love some here claim is what God is. And yet they believe in Jesus. And they believe Jesus doesn't save them from Hell, but rather saves them from themselves. Whom Agape love God created to be exactly as is.

It's a conundrum that is untenable in the realm of rational criticism and basic logic.
And yet for many here, it's livable.

What is fascinating however, and what gives the greatest testimony of a philosophy like that is what the person who cleaves to it becomes in the process.

To believe in 'universal repentence' while collectively treating any one member of choice like garbage because they dare not to 'baahhhhh' like others in the herd, says it all.

You believe you are saved from God. Period! No matter how you cut it you believe what you are by birth needed to be redeemed in faith it can get better because what you are by nature needs to be saved ! But what you are, when you believe in God, is exactly what God created you to be.

There is nothing so tragic as to witness a rational intellect compromise itself willingly by cleaving to a slave mentality that is faith in a God created in one's own image and likeness.
The Universalism this site professes to be credible by scripture is demonstrated by it's membership to be a rewriting of the scripture to something they can choose to live with because they still can't handle simply being human. 
And lack of belief in hell isn't evolution out of monotheistic ET.  Of course hell is a myth. But so too is God.
What you accept as true in the faith it's worth living as if your soul depends on it after you die is reflected in how you treat other people while wearing the label, "Universalist Christian".
It's the new elitist exclusivist cult ideal. How you treat people here that aren't part of your clique' shows every visitor watching, and those new members, exactly what your faith has done for and to you.

I thank you all for proving what one finds in a search of the keywords; "Tent Maker" provides.

Matthew 25:40.

I doubt you'll read that verbatim. It'll probably be interpreted according to your "universalist" needs. Because you certainly don't live it verbatim by example here. 

 "Universalism as an ideal is as old as nay, is probably much more ancient than the Christian ideal."
Arthur Keith


"Nowhere is Universalism welcomed and encouraged by a people; everywhere governments have forced and are forcing Universalism upon unwilling and resistant subjects. "
Arthur Keith


"Civilization, we shall find, like Universalism and Christianity, is anti evolutionary in its effects; it works against the laws and conditions which regulated the earlier stages of man's ascent. "
Arthur Keith

And...

Your agenda is open and complete. Play one side, then espouse the other. And you accuse people on this site of duality?

Please.

Have you an understanding of the concept of "cognitive dissonance"? I think not, based on what you have posted. It's the ability to hold two divergent ideas in one's head and give equal consideration to them both.

You obviously do not practice this.

The KJV can be incorrect in its translation and be the best bridge back to the ancient texts (which it is). is that a contradiction? Nope. It is the way the text has been passed down through history. We have to deal with a legitimate text in the context of itself.

You can claim that God is a myth, and I won't argue with you, as you are at that point in your life. Fair enough. However, I will argue that you are incorrect, and will do so using history, science, and multiple texts.

If you are here to argue your viewpoint, then please, bring it on. I'm game, and I'll call on my good friend WillieH to join in the fray. If you are here to seek answers (which is what I suppose), the let's get down to business.

My goodness, do you really believe that believers of ultimate reconciliation haven't heard every argument against it (including an atheistic approach)?

My friend, we have heard it all, and we have answers.

Bank on it.