Actually, that first line is my problem with Universalism
Joel Send a noteboard - 28/01/2011 01:54:00 AM
Your post really only makes sense if you treat our time on earth as utter dross before the total end goal of creation, which is heaven. That's one of the obvious (and damaging) end results of damnation-based thinking, to my mind.
Might not be post-mortem. Maybe there will be reincarnation. I kind of like that idea (I also am enjoying imagining you twitch/squirm/roll your eyes as you read that ).
In any case, the reason I preach and live the Gospel is because I think it enhances the value of human existence. If you think the Gospel's only virtue is that it contains all things necessary for salvation, well, that's sad. And surprising, to be honest. I don't think that's what you believe, though.
Might not be post-mortem. Maybe there will be reincarnation. I kind of like that idea (I also am enjoying imagining you twitch/squirm/roll your eyes as you read that ).
In any case, the reason I preach and live the Gospel is because I think it enhances the value of human existence. If you think the Gospel's only virtue is that it contains all things necessary for salvation, well, that's sad. And surprising, to be honest. I don't think that's what you believe, though.
If all roads lead to eternal and complete communion with God, the rather limited and comparatively brief time we spend here is trivial to the point of insignificance. In terms of "damage" if all roads DON'T lead to eternal and complete communion with God what we do here and now has great bearing on whether we receive that communion for eternity, or something else altogether. As for reincarnation, it is, by definition, post mortem so, meh.
No, I don't think the gospels only value is that it contains all that's necessary for salvation. I do, however, think its chief value lies in testifying the glory of God, and containing all that's necessary for salvation the chief way it does so. At its heart, the gospel is about God doing the impossible, sacrificing Himself in the carnal flesh to satisfy the dual demands of Absolute Love and Absolute Justice, neither of which he can deny and BE God. Salvation is undeniably involved in that, it's the fullest expression of Gods inestimable glory and the reason I think sin was allowed to come into being, but it remains very much a God centered thing to which man is subordinate.
The relationship with God Roland mentioned above is likewise about man not only accepting but rejoicing in that, but it also means that what we do now has lasting value in the hereafter rather than being a mere collection of things that God will "fix" or not as needed. We can take works out if it entirely if you like; I think they remain quite significant, but we can set that aside for the nonce: If nothing else the here and now matter because it is here and now that we have the opportunity to choose a relationship with God for His sake rather than our own, because it is right and pleasing to Him rather than on the basis of what we have to gain or lose and without being confronted with undeniable proof we literally cannot exist without Him. That's my ultimate problem with Universalism, the idea that once a person is shown his place in creation and sees his own need for God he'll inevitably accept it; not only do I dispute that that's always the case, else real free will would be impossible, but far more importantly it's not acting from love for God, but rather enlightened self interest.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Ted Haggard Would Be Bisexual If He Was a Hot 21-Year-Old
27/01/2011 05:01:12 PM
- 1260 Views
Not sure what the point of this post was *NM*
27/01/2011 06:50:59 PM
- 464 Views
It was something that made me laugh?
27/01/2011 06:53:09 PM
- 778 Views
yeah you were only insulting people's religion, no reason to get worked up. *NM*
27/01/2011 09:24:55 PM
- 467 Views
Er, pretty sure just laughing at what one guy said, plus a pun on the word "hard"
27/01/2011 09:40:29 PM
- 699 Views
I am an athiest so I don't care
27/01/2011 10:10:26 PM
- 763 Views
Or he'd still be closeted because of twisted, hateful strains of Christianity. *NM*
27/01/2011 06:56:04 PM
- 374 Views
If your religion states homosexuality is wrong, then it is a position of principle...
27/01/2011 06:59:04 PM
- 844 Views
Wow, you really don't understand what it is to be human
27/01/2011 08:51:17 PM
- 703 Views
I'm sure you'll agree that a religious debate is not really called for here...
27/01/2011 09:10:38 PM
- 792 Views
Homosexuality =/= homosexual sex.
27/01/2011 09:16:50 PM
- 729 Views
Err...no.
27/01/2011 09:23:54 PM
- 962 Views
Re: Err...no.
27/01/2011 09:42:00 PM
- 914 Views
You seem to want to argue about what is allowed and what is not allowed...
27/01/2011 10:08:10 PM
- 783 Views
Nah, I know better than to argue with you. I just thought your phrasing was rather silly.
27/01/2011 10:14:50 PM
- 665 Views
I completely and utterly disagree
27/01/2011 10:39:10 PM
- 720 Views
The carnal nature of the flesh just happens to be the way we're all innately broken.
27/01/2011 11:30:09 PM
- 875 Views
Replace "Christian Faith" with "hardcore Calvinism" and I'll go away.
28/01/2011 12:35:36 AM
- 684 Views
Is it possible to have faith, but not agree with your church's stance on subjects?. *NM*
27/01/2011 09:15:14 PM
- 426 Views
Of course. Faith is a broad concept. But...
27/01/2011 09:20:54 PM
- 864 Views
I was thinking along the lines of Christans who are gay or or believe in gay rights.
27/01/2011 09:29:50 PM
- 740 Views
Well, at least you're not disputing the nature of my claim.
27/01/2011 10:23:24 PM
- 725 Views
I thought acceptance meant rejecting anything with which you're uncomfortable?
27/01/2011 11:39:48 PM
- 868 Views
Don't even know what that means.
28/01/2011 12:31:23 AM
- 643 Views
Actually, that first line is my problem with Universalism
28/01/2011 01:54:00 AM
- 837 Views
"Carnal flesh" is redundant, you know.
28/01/2011 04:27:30 AM
- 720 Views
Point of emphasis.
28/01/2011 05:52:28 AM
- 827 Views
Agreed. *NM*
28/01/2011 06:33:55 AM
- 406 Views
Then I'm confused, either about what you believe or how you reconcile it with my second paragraph.
28/01/2011 10:54:13 PM
- 908 Views
At the risk of simplifying: All roads don't lead to Cleveland, nor do they lead to God.
01/02/2011 03:47:57 PM
- 908 Views
...I can't believe of the three posts, this is the only one with replies
27/01/2011 09:48:14 PM
- 641 Views
It is nothing new, there are always people "who protest too much"
27/01/2011 10:26:49 PM
- 682 Views
This guy needs serious mental help, in my humble laymans opinion.
27/01/2011 11:42:00 PM
- 738 Views