I've been on the internet forums in various places long enough now that I have found a consistant transition with some believers in Eternal Torment who stick it out and at least go beyond the cookie cutter responces that keep them from intellectually engaging in the debate.
The arguments I have seen some people used, in my opinion, to keep themselves at arms length intellectually are as follows.
First one is the context argument, no matter how many posts and scripture is given, they simply say that you are not educated in heurmunetics and all the scriptures you use are taken out of context.
The second one is that since they believe universalists are heretics then they certainly are not giften with the spirit, since their point of view must be spiritually discerned then we who believe in UR simply cannot spiritually discern the message.
The third is that since they cannot truthfully deny that Universalists are promoting the name of Jesus Christ and we believe in him as Savior, then they just chalk it up as immaturity just trying to get a rise out of people and that we like to argue.
Well, I like a good debate, so I suppose there is some partial truth in there. :laughing7:
Anyway on to the subject matter. For those Christians who are a bit more flexible and get their feet wet by contemplating this manner of scriptural belief I often see a transition.
For those that fit the profile they start out very hard core on eternal literal fire. then they might give a bit as they try to rationalize the many scriptures of Love for enemies and can end up saying the God doesn't torture anyone directly and that separation from him may be eternal, but, it is more like a deep sorrow.
Well to those of us, maybe anyone, who has experienced even a moment of great sadness can understand that torture comes in many forms.
Over time, I usually see a position they come to that they find where they can dig in and still believe in eternal torment but get God off the hook for being a demented being.
That position is that We fail God and therefore choose that separation by denying Christ, since Christ still Loves us that love is there, but we must choose to accept it. And since some never will then it is their fault not Gods.
Now, To me its not that hard to refute that point of view, but in fairness they have picked a spot to where their opponent cannot imply how sick and twisted a God is who tortures anyone for eternity.
However, there is a verse that I have heard over and over in a Rock metal Song from the 80's and I saw it again in one of Willies posts. I realized this verse changes that little resting spot they have.
Re 1:18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
This is from the Authorized version. The concordant uses the word "unseen" instead of HELL.
However, I suggest that this verse keeps anyone from picking that comfortable spot of the passive God who loves us but lets us AHEM "choose" Hell.
If this loving and merciful, kind, caring GOD, the sovereign entity of existance has the KEYS, then what kind of SICK demented Freak would not open the door once in a while to at least see if we had ENOUGH?
I'm shocked at the audacity of those who say that since the resurrection, His love is less passionate and more passive. It's the same underlying assumption that He's been hardened by the circumstances and is at the breaking point with everyone. A husband that's been through too much and is less passionate and more passive is honestly two steps away from beating his wife senseless!
"Just let her open her mouth one more time!"
It's the same line of reasoning as those that'll say that He showed you His love 2000 years ago and that's all He's going to do about it! And how is this God supposed to be different from the guy that listens to his crying wife tell him that he never tells her that he loves her any more, to which he replies: "I told you I loved you 29 years ago! If things ever change, I'll let you know!!" That's a good Vaudville joke, but it doesn't work in the real world of relationships.
The Creation groans and travails....
Why would anyone want to spend eternity with such a passive God? We're predestined to be comformed to the image of passivity, according to Romans 8, right?! All of the parables of Jesus tell us otherwise, not only about our heavenly Father, but about what's expected of those who are being comformed to His image. If the parable of the prodigal son is too cliche for some Christians, then listen to the rest of the parables! Did Jesus say that passivity will be accepted, acknowledged, and embraced in His Kingdom? Did Jesus call passivity praise-worthy?
Are there any great romances in literature where someone sure is loved, and they sure better appreciate that 'cause the best thing that could have ever happened to them isn't going to do a thing about it?! And then some will try to again retort, but Jesus did it all 2000 years ago. I've answered that above with the husband and his sobbing wife over her passively loving husband.
If Jesus tarries, this "survival of the fittest" Christianity is a dying breed. It won't work in the new millenium with people who use even half of their brain. This:
"in the end, He's only as faithful as you were; He's there for people every time but the last time,"
pseudo-brand of Christianity must die because everything that can be shaken will be shaken by God's heart-ravishing love! If that's lousy hermeneutics, then that's just a reflection upon the "Authorized Version" not being in line with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Holy Bible. It's not a reflection upon God, nor the image that each and every single one of us are predestined to be conformed to. Jesus is still asking, "Are you calling Me unjust for doing what I want with what's Mine?" If that's lousy hermeneutics, then hermen can just go to Hell. Let God be true and every hermeneutic a liar!
:icon_jokercolor: My appologies if anyone who comes to these boards is actually named Hermen. I honestly wasn't telling you to go to Hell. :icon_jokercolor:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 18, 2008, 08:42:06 PM
I've been on the internet forums in various places long enough now that I have found a consistant transition with some believers in Eternal Torment who stick it out and at least go beyond the cookie cutter responces that keep them from intellectually engaging in the debate.
On Rays e-mail section of his forum there is a letter from someone doing his masters thesis on hell.
He stated that you shouldn't look in dictionaries either new or ancient. Neither other kind of 2000 year old writings.
The Bible should define its own words. :wacko2: :tease:
So the apostles thought they understood Jesus when he spoke about adultary but perhaps He was just speaking about cell phones. The e-mailer promised Ray to send him his thesis when finished. :gamer:
Hi paul another point is this seperation bit, David says if we make our bed in hell He is there with us, don't sound like hell is seperation from God to me, and of course Rev. states they are tormented IN the presence of the lamb.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 19, 2008, 02:00:22 PM
The Bible should define its own words. :wacko2: :tease:
Then it may seem reasonable to this person that the disciples being in one Accord were actually driving a Honda. :happy3: :icon_king: :laughing7:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on August 21, 2008, 07:02:58 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 19, 2008, 02:00:22 PM
The Bible should define its own words. :wacko2: :tease:
Then it may seem reasonable to this person that the disciples being in one Accord were actually driving a Honda. :happy3: :icon_king: :laughing7:
Mmm, so that dude was actually right.... :grin:
But serieusly what do you, think about such an approach?
I think it's unrealistic because that means Jesus' teaching only got there value after the Bible was written and analised.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 21, 2008, 07:15:04 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on August 21, 2008, 07:02:58 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 19, 2008, 02:00:22 PM
The Bible should define its own words. :wacko2: :tease:
Then it may seem reasonable to this person that the disciples being in one Accord were actually driving a Honda. :happy3: :icon_king: :laughing7:
Mmm, so that dude was actually right.... :grin:
But serieusly what do you, think about such an approach?
I think it's unrealistic because that means Jesus' teaching only got there value after the Bible was written and analised.
I do not take that very seriously. Scripture can interpret scripture as far as making a biblical context for what is being said. For me this means that while I can attempt to convey my meaning through human analogy, I cannot take human experience and apply it to the bible for the purpose of interpretation.
However, in most cases, what we have defined words to mean has to be considered since the manuscripts have been translated into a different language and that translation used certain words that had a defined meaning outside of them in the first place.
This is one reason I always refer to the documents that provide word for word translation whether or not it makes coherant english sentances because we must start from that basis to avoid translational bias that says "this word is ok because of concept"
Does the whole "WE CHOOSE HELL" argument really get God off the hook? All it does is make God to be a neglectful creator, who created someone fully knowing that they would never want to love him, and can only choose to suffer.
The Context argument. If you ask me, those "Prooftexts" are pretty clear, its the Churches who water them down to being something a little better from "Nobody" to "Few". Wow, instead of 100% damnation, now its 95% Damnation. But they go off blatantly taking their Judgment text out of context.
On Ignorance, I will only say, on hermeneutics, its based on the trained Theologians interpretations. So I cant say I care to be educated in the Theologians opinions.
QuoteDoes the whole "WE CHOOSE HELL" argument really get God off the hook? All it does is make God to be a neglectful creator, who created someone fully knowing that they would never want to love him, and can only choose to suffer.
Yes! But at least we do know that its not what God wills, He wills for all to be saved (1 Tim 2: 4), and that is literally every single person cuz in verse 6, that's what "all" means....
---
I dont think the "Sheol" (David) or "keys of Hades" verses necessarily apply to eternal torment in fact I don't make associations with that at all...
In Revelation, John clearly writes the (allegorical or metaphorical?) composition of the place where unbelievers and the wicked are tossed - fire and brimstone.
And in the gospels, Jesus clearly only uses Gehenna... except when He says, "Fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna." - are we to interpret this as linked to a future judgment? Or did He simply speak of complete obliteration (of the body and soul, and even one's reputation and social status) in the Valley of Hinnom?