Getting swarmed in a debate

[Samuel Cripps]

I sent this pm to RoyS as an inquiry into the reasons for my ban.

Roy,
So what is the official reason I was banned? Because I'm purported to be the spawn of Satan? Because I lied to y'all years ago?

You say that I mocked the members at CWS, but where did I do that?  I looked over at the EU thread and didn't see anywhere that I mocked you fine folks. (Noting that an argument is asinine is not tantamount to attacking the person making the argument).

And I note also (and so does everyone else that I had read over the discussions at CWS) that I was polite in my discussions, in stark contrast to the manner in which your members (and especially you) were treating me.

So what's the deal?

I also note that when I was answering all your questions and allowing you to set up your argument against universal salvation, you promptly abandoned your argument and opted to call me a liar and a child of Satan.  Aside from noting the fact that you made yourself look a little insane there, I am wondering why you didn't just finish your argument?  Is it because you realized it was a weak argument?  If so, rest assured that your choice of insults made not only your reasoning skills look weak; it made you look weak.  In fact, your general demeanor towards me made yourself look most unfit to be a mod at a Christian board.  You said that you have no hard feelings about me, but the way you conducted yourself made it most clear that you have hatred towards me.  I'll pray that you repent and chance your ways, for the sake of yourself and others.  God bless you, RoyS.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.christianwebsite.com/forum/showthread.php?p=45100#post45100

In post # 160, HisDaughter wrote:

God's purpose doesn't "change" yet what you understand as His purpose is incorrect. Desire doesn't equate to purpose.

Someone might want to quote Ephesians 1:9-10, which reveals that God's purpose is to unite the entire creation under Christ.

Lemme guess, their interpretation is:
Ephesians 1:9-10, which reveals that God's purpose is to unite all believers of creation under Christ.

I don't know what exactly they believe but it may be that they oppose UR not just because it's a save all doctrine.
I'm following some (former) TM members on another forum and there is someone that in about every post he makes mentions trinity.
Not being allowed to discuss that concept here I will just say that one of the main reasons he opposes UR is because (in his mind) it clashes with his view on Trinity. So there are many (unspoken) reasons to deny UR.

Maybe a little off-topic but not to much I think is that I recently am coming a little towards the believe that words like Aion and Aionian are over analyzed. I long expected it but now I have strong proof the first 3 (or more) books were written in Hebrew. Maybe we are fighting to much over words in perhaps not divinely inspired translations. And that automaticly leads to unresolveble conflicts. Dunno :dontknow:

[WhiteWings]

I sent this pm to RoyS as an inquiry into the reasons for my ban.

Roy,
So what is the official reason I was banned? Because I'm purported to be the spawn of Satan? Because I lied to y'all years ago?

You say that I mocked the members at CWS, but where did I do that?

The way I understand it is becaus eyou are rejecting their fine doctrine. That's an insult to their great intelect. By not following the status quo you are causing strive like satan...

And I note also (and so does everyone else that I had read over the discussions at CWS) that I was polite in my discussions, in stark contrast to the manner in which your members (and especially you) were treating me.

So what's the deal?

It's just a strawman argument. I'm sure Legoman will put up a good fight. When they starting to feel cornered they will start with their child of satan game. I hope not but I think that's how it will end.

[Molly]

Ah, too bad, gabe.

But I'm sure ww can resurrect you. :happygrin:

If these people are legitimate, which I have trouble believing [for the mods anyway, because they are so nasty, but then I lead a sheltered life], they need a reason why God would save people beyond death and a reason why they are saved now.

Therefore, I think the best approach is that thread which never touched on it--why are the elect saved in this age?  It is clear that God has predestined some to be saved now.  But, why?  What do they think THEY are going to be doing after death for eternity?

If you could prove to them that they are being saved now for a reason, that they will have a job to do after death, and that it will involve ministering to the other dead and living as God's plan of the ages--ruling and reigning with Christ--inheriting with Christ--they might understand why they are being saved now.



If people cannot be saved after death, what does this mean?--

37They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

38(Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

--Heb 11

[Samuel Cripps]

Check out this bewildering post from Sissy in the "does God love everyone" thread:

Universalism does not take into account that Christ needed to become a natural flesh & blood human being in order in order to be an atoning sacrifice for natural flesh & blood human beings. (Kind after kind).

The problem with Universalism attempting to carry this over into the next world is that Christ made no atoning sacrifice as a spiritual being in the next world.
Unless you enter the next world as an already atoned for being (already forgiven and justified), then there will be no longer be an atonement available for you at all.

Never heard that one before.  do these people just make this stuff up as they go?

[WhiteWings]

Universalism does not take into account that Christ needed to become a natural flesh & blood human being in order in order to be an atoning sacrifice for natural flesh & blood human beings. (Kind after kind).

The problem with Universalism attempting to carry this over into the next world is that Christ made no atoning sacrifice as a spiritual being in the next world.
Unless you enter the next world as an already atoned for being (already forgiven and justified), then there will be no longer be an atonement available for you at all.

The first remark is either a lie or someone discussing things they know nothing about. I can tell you that's fun :mshock:
The second part is very wrong. Jesus did make an atonement in Heaven. It's a huge hole in Sissy's doctrine.
http://www.thywordistruth.com/questions/qa066.html
^YLTHeb 9
23  It is necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these;
24 for not into holy places made with hands did the Christ enter--figures of the true--but into the heaven itself, now to be manifested in the presence of God for us;
25 nor that he may many times offer himself, even as the chief priest doth enter into the holy places every year with blood of others;
26 since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested;

In my limited understanding I would say the above verses are about Heaven.  and, I think, even exclude earth.

[Molly]

In my limited understanding I would say the above verses are about Heaven.  and, I think, even exclude earth.

I think the whole thing is about heaven and a rebellion in heaven that man unwittingly became a third party to because of the reason why man was created.

The rebellion happened in heaven first. 

It is the reason that Paul talks about putting on a theatre for both heaven and earth.

9For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world [kosmos], to angels, and to men.

--1 Cor 4


"spectacle"


G2302
θέατρον
theatron
theh'-at-ron
From G2300; a place for public show ("theatre"), that is, general audience room; by implication a show itself (figuratively): - spectacle, theatre.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.christianwebsite.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3732&page=16

While God loves the world, He is also a Just God
Please give us the scripture that says God does not "change" so that we can examine what this "change" entails.
God will always be God, He is a Just God, a Righteous God, a God who is Love, a God of Mercy and a God of Grace. In this God will never "change".

If God doesn't extend His mercy/grace towards the sinners after hey die He did change from a God giving mercy to a God refusing to give mercy.

Desire doesn't equate to purpose. Does God changes his mind regarding His desire?

Everything about God is perfect. So He has a perfect desire and He has a perfect purpose.
If two perfect things are not the same they contradict. That simply means one or both are not perfect.
So they must be the same.

Who is the "thee" in this scripture? If you go back a look at the context you will see it is Israel. If God will cause those who strive with Israel to perish how much more will he do to those who strive against Him? That word "perish means to "break, destroy, not escape, fail, lose," The next vs 12 brings it into context.

The parble of sheep, coin, and prodical son are all about perished things that got recovered.
:2c:

[Samuel Cripps]

HansC the moderator writes:

Good post Sissy. It's really pretty simple and not hard to understand. I often wonder why the geniuses of universalism find it so difficult to understand.

[legoman]

Well I responded a bit more this evening... I have a feeling this is going to turn bad quickly.  Apparently my "tone" is not loving, or I need to repent, or I need to not impose my fallen man's view of justice onto God (LOL as if eternal torture in fire is not a "fallen man's view" of justice)

Not sure how this will proceed, or if I should even continue - things fall on deaf ears and then you get tied to the virtual burning at the stake. (at least that is what it feels like) LOL

But I find it hard to sit by and let them get away with some of the things they are saying.  Perhaps it is better to stay away as Shawn and jabcat and others have said.

[Molly]

4And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

5And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

6And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

--Mark 3

[WhiteWings]

And there is nothing "lifted up" for spiritual/celestial beings to look upon (ie. no cure), and they will forever remain WITHOUT Christ.

The above quote is about healing those who look up to Jesus (or the snake lifted up in the wilderness)
But... there is also a healing tree in Jerusalem

^YLTRev 22
2 in the midst of its broad place, and of the river on this side and on that, is a tree of life, yielding twelve fruits, in each several month rendering its fruits, and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations;

The crime we are talking about is one against the infinite and Holy GOD.
Eternity hardly seems long enough, but since it is the longest duration there is, it will have to do.

:mshock:

[WhiteWings]

Well I responded a bit more this evening... I have a feeling this is going to turn bad quickly.  Apparently my "tone" is not loving, or I need to repent, or I need to not impose my fallen man's view of justice onto God (LOL as if eternal torture in fire is not a "fallen man's view" of justice)

Look at it from the bright side, Roy has nothing to refute your posts.
On that forum you are free to discuss everything as long it's done in a loving way.
Not agreeing with the mods is unloving....

Not sure how this will proceed, or if I should even continue - things fall on deaf ears and then you get tied to the virtual burning at the stake. (at least that is what it feels like) LOL

Hang on buddy. I won't be long  :winkgrin:
Perhaps it's wise to prepare  some posts and all submit them at the same time before you get banned. Also put all the things you intend to mention in those posts.
It won't convince them. But it could be useful for people with a defrosted heart.
For that reason I would also like to suggest you reference (including URL) to some articles on one of the better UR sites. Again not for the crew mods but for lurkers who possibly click on the link. Or in your signature.
A little seed so to speak... :winkgrin:

But I find it hard to sit by and let them get away with some of the things they are saying.  Perhaps it is better to stay away as Shawn and jabcat and others have said.

Now you know how Jesus must have felt when constantly being swarmed by the Scribes. He died. You will be banned. But the teaching lives on.... :winkgrin:
I know I would lose my temper very quickly on that forum.
It would be the ideal place for WillieH. They want verses. I'm sure Willie is able to give them 10 for each line he writes :icon_jokercolor:

[WhiteWings]

 Quote:

Originally Posted by Pil (http://www.christianwebsite.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif)  Thanks for that response Titus. I appreciate it and apologise for not answering. I will openly admit that I like to hope that universalism is true and I believe it to be ONE legitimate interpretation of scripture. However, please believe me that my initial question is genuine because I am still trying to settle this one in my own mind. That Romans text seems very worrying to me along with some others. One christian friend even suggested that because John3 16 is in the past tense, it implies that God lovED the world but does not now (since Jesus was crucified I suppose).[/t][/t]  Quote: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. [/t][/t] Note: "God so loved the world that He gave... " Of course this is past tense; John was writing after the event of Christ's crucifixion. Read on: "...whosoever believes...". Present and future tense. KJVJohn 3 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. There is a lot that can be said about that translation. First a small list of the tense, voice and mood as they are listed in the lexicon I use. Loved + Gave Tense-Aorist    See [G5777] Voice-Active    See [G5784] Mood -Indicative    See [G5791] Believeth Tense-Present    See [G5774] Voice-Active    See [G5784] Mood -Participle    See [G5796] Perish Tense-Second Aorist    See [G5780] Voice-Middle    See [G5785] Mood -Subjunctive    See [G5792] The most striking of them all is the middle voice of "Perish". It's for the persons own benefit. I'm unable to see how classic hell benefits a person. Perish sounds negative. We also are told it's best to not perish. It is something negative that should be avoided if possible. But the persihing is not used as punishment. The person is in a bad state and perish is a tool used for healing the person. ---- Love and especially Gave is interesting too. Aorist tense is a bit strange because it's basicly no tense at all or a neutral tense. The way I see it possibly can mean any combination of past, present and future. (Not completely accurate...) We are told God loves the world several times so it's clear God at least loved in the past. But it just as well can be an ongoing action. I think most believe so. Voice-Active seems to agree with that. But what about "gave His Son" That's exactly the same tense, voice and mood construction. Does it mean Jesus is still being 'given' to us. I think that's the case but also think it's problematic for some because it can be reasoned Jesus is still on the cross. (Which I do not say) Perhaps the Aorist is a bit to vague to draw firm conclusions. But the above mentioned "perish" clearly is part of the verse. Perish looks into the future. So does the eternal (age-during) life. So for me that means the aorist also looks into the future (+past and present) And because "perish" is after judgement to me it means the love and sacrifice of Jesus also extents to the other life. :2c: Tense-Aorist The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time.  There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians.  The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist").  The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only.  The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases. Tense-Second Aorist The "second aorist" tense is identical in meaning and translation to the normal or "first" aorist tense.  The only difference is in the form of spelling the words in Greek, and there is no effect upon English translation. Voice-Active The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action.  e.g., in the sentence, "The boy hit the ball, " the boy performs the action. Voice-Middle The middle voice indicates the subject performing an action upon himself (reflexive action) or for his own benefit.  E.g., "The boy groomed himself."  Many verbs which occur only in middle voice forms are translated in English as having an active sense; these are called "deponent" verbs, and do not comply with the normal requirements for the middle voice. Mood-Indicative The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact.  If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood. Mood-Participle The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting "- ing" or "- ed" being suffixed to the basic verb form.  The participle can be used either like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed a "verbal noun." Mood-Subjunctive The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality.  The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances.  Conditional sentences of the third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses, such as those beginning with "hina."

[Aleax]

The crime we are talking about is one against the infinite and Holy GOD.
Eternity hardly seems long enough, but since it is the longest duration there is, it will have to do.

[/quote]

With great power comes great responsibility.

Let's say I adopt a cat. He is supposed to pee in the litter box. However, since he's in a new environment and with a new owner, the chances are that at first, he sometimes takes a pee elsewhere. Now, the cat's understanding of things is a lot more limited than mine. In that light I'm obliged to cut him some slack. If I, after finding out the cat had peed on my carpet, grabbed him by tail and swung him against the wall time after time until he died, excusing my actions with "He was free to choose. He could've chosen to pee in the litter box. He disobeyed." everyone would probably call me a monster.

I think this scenario is analogous to an infinite God putting a carnal and broken creature in the world. There are different religions and holy books to choose from, but only one of them is the correct one. There isn't even general consensus on how the correct holy book should be interpreted. However, despite of that mainstream Christianity argues that men are without excuse, and everyone failing to accept Christ in this life will be sent into an eternal incinerator. "They were free to choose. They could've chosen to follow Christ. They disobeyed." And, for that, they aren't calling God a monster, but a Perfectly Just God.

With infinite power comes infinite responsibility.  :2c:

[micah7:9]

As for me, sites like the one you speak of, cling to old things and only when the Holy Spirit's time is readied will they hear...
Luk 15:4  `What man of you having a hundred sheep, and having lost one out of them, doth not leave behind the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go on after the lost one, till he may find it?

Without the belief that He will find "that one," then His Love has not yet been established in what they believe.  "They (that one)" has yet to be found.

[Samuel Cripps]

Sissy called Legoman her "little Universalist".

Such tender words....


LOL

[thinktank]

It would be the ideal place for WillieH. They want verses. I'm sure Willie is able to give them 10 for each line he writes :icon_jokercolor:

More isn't necessarily better. I found with willie, when I sometimes checked his verse references many were irelevant to the topic.

[WhiteWings]

It would be the ideal place for WillieH. They want verses. I'm sure Willie is able to give them 10 for each line he writes :icon_jokercolor:

More isn't necessarily better. I found with willie, when I sometimes checked his verse references many were irelevant to the topic.

Lemme just say, each his/her own style/opinion. And right now while WillieH banned and can't respond I find it "not done"done to discuss.
BTW no hard feelings TT :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Another glorious set of posts with lots of UR concepts in it Lego.
Pil is doing good too.
They seem to agree with a quite a few things. Their problem is that they think all grace ends at death (and therefore hell must be eternal)
That's nonsense (see reply #161 in this thead) but it seems Sissy's main argument.
I wonder what happens if you debunk that argument.

@Samuel: If you want an another shot; pm me for an activated account  :footmouth:

[Samuel Cripps]

I've enlisted some URs from City-Data.    :bigGrin:


I sent a pm to you, whitewings!  :Sparkletooth:

[legoman]

Another glorious set of posts with lots of UR concepts in it Lego.

Thanks WW!  I had a busy afternoon.  I function much better when its not 1:30am...

Pil is doing good too.
They seem to agree with a quite a few things. Their problem is that they think all grace ends at death (and therefore hell must be eternal)
That's nonsense (see reply #161 in this thead) but it seems Sissy's main argument.
I wonder what happens if you debunk that argument.

There is a lot of non-answers.  They aren't wiling to see - but maybe something will sink in.

The problem is to believe in UR you have to give up a lot of "sacred cows"

1.  people deserve to burn forever
2.  God can't save everyone
3.  man's free will overrides God's desire
4.  certain words are misinterpreted/mistranslated in the English bible
etc.

Its a multi-front war, and the moment you gain an inch on one side someone throws another front at you.

[Samuel Cripps]

Lego, you are doing a fine job.  I appreciate it.   Hang in there.  Reinforcements are coming.  Perhaps even I'll be back.

[jabcat]

You guys are better men than me.  God bless.

Peace, strength, comfort.  James.

[Samuel Cripps]

Legoman,

Please address this nonsense.

http://www.christianwebsite.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45205&postcount=125

As I reread the account in Acts, Paul did not see Jesus at that moment on the Damascus Road. What he saw was a brilliant light that instantly blinded him; he was knocked from his horse; and he HEARD a voice that asked, "Why are you persecuting Me?" Instantly, even as he asked the question, Paul knew who he was talking to because he asked, "Who are You, Lord?" Those with him saw the light and heard a noise like thunder, but not a voice.

Paul did see Jesus, but that was after his conversion when he was in the desert apparently being directly instructed in the faith by the Holy Spirit.