Universalism

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

There is no explanation - it's just more avoidance.

I'm giving him a chance. He's using a legitimate spiritual term as an insult and I want to see him justify it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain what this means please.

It means that Hillside expects the mere use of the word to win him any argument.

Hillside + word = what can possibly go wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm giving him a chance. He's using a legitimate spiritual term as an insult and I want to see him justify it.

In which case I apologise to shamans for demeaning their profession by comparison to what Hillside does.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It means that Hillside expects the mere use of the word to win him any argument.

Hillside + word = what can possibly go wrong?

That's PRICELESS!

If not for "mere" words, how else do you think an argument can be won? By racing raindrops down a window pane perhaps? How about by dropping pooh sticks into a stream and seeing which one wins?

Do tell...

[Rhiannon]

In which case I apologise to shamans for demeaning their profession by comparison to what Hillside does.

I see. You used it as an attempt at cheap point scoring.

[Shaker]

Really? Do you have any idea what an egotistical bully you make your god sound?

https://onsizzle.com/i/let-me-in-why-so-i-can-save-you-from-1058508

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I see. You used it as an attempt at cheap point scoring.

More avoidance than point-scoring I'd say, but either way can't you see where you've gone wrong here? You've only gone and made your point using "mere words" haven't you. What a bozo eh? Of course what you should be using is "Vlad's Patented (But Still Entirely Secret) Magical Method of Winning an Argument Without Using Words" instead.

Hope that helps!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://onsizzle.com/i/let-me-in-why-so-i-can-save-you-from-1058508

Other theologies than antitheist caricature are available.

[Shaker]

Other theologies than antitheist caricature are available.

Yup, and they're all on an equal footing as regards evidential support.

[wigginhall]

https://onsizzle.com/i/let-me-in-why-so-i-can-save-you-from-1058508

That's very funny, and it also captures the Mafia qualities of salvation, according to some Christians anyway; God will make you an offer you can't refuse, and if you do refuse, it's the horse's head for you.   

You will be saved, if ...   Well, the if seems to vary according to different theologies.   So you have to get things right, and then you will be alright, but if you don't get things right, then you won't be alright.   Something like that. 

Well, a cross between the Mafia and the Stockholm syndrome.

[Shaker]

Typically I use the example of the Krays, but yes, same thing exactly.

"Pay us protection money."

"Protection from what?"

"From us, if you don't pay protection money."

[wigginhall]

For many Protestants, it's the wrath of God that has to be averted.   But hang on, if God wasn't wrathful, then we wouldn't need protection, would we?   

So salvation in this view is a kind of protection racket by the Gangster in the sky.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For many Protestants, it's the wrath of God that has to be averted.   But hang on, if God wasn't wrathful, then we wouldn't need protection, would we?   

So salvation in this view is a kind of protection racket by the Gangster in the sky.

Shouldn't that be "Gangsta"?

[Alan Burns]

Really? Do you have any idea what an egotistical bully you make your god sound?

I am simply stating that it would not be logical for God to offer eternal salvation with Him in heaven to those who refuse to accept His love and mercy.  We were given free will for a purpose, and this is the ultimate purpose.

Today our priest offered up the consecrated host, saying "Behold the lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sins of the world".  The lamb in this context is not the fluffy thing bouncing around in a field, but the sacrificial lamb used by the Jews to offer as an atonement for their sins.  I was able to say with all my heart and soul that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.  My ability to say this is not due to the unguided deterministic chemical activity in my brain.  It comes from my soul which gives me the conscious awareness and free will to say this.

[Rhiannon]

I am simply stating that it would not be logical for God to offer eternal salvation with Him in heaven to those who refuse to accept His love and mercy.  We were given free will for a purpose, and this is the ultimate purpose.

Today our priest offered up the consecrated host, saying "Behold the lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sins of the world".  The lamb in this context is not the fluffy thing bouncing around in a field, but the sacrificial lamb used by the Jews to offer as an atonement for their sins.  I was able to say with all my heart and soul that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.  My ability to say this is not due to the unguided deterministic chemical activity in my brain.  It comes from my soul which gives me the conscious awareness and free will to say this.

Gosh, thanks for explaining that it wasn't a fluffy lamb that your priest was referring to. I'd never have got it otherwise. 

So your god is so puny he can't forgive those who haven't been able to change their minds? How utterly pathetic you make your God out to be.

I used to be a universalist because the god I believed in was so big, so full of love that he rejected nobody, and no one could reject him in the end, however evil. It meant sharing heaven with utter shits, and that didn't seem fair, but that's what a truly loving god is - endlessly merciful. All loving.  All powerful. And certainly not a god that rejected people because they didn't get on their knees in front of him. Yours sounds very...human. And not especially pleasant.

[ippy]

Typically I use the example of the Krays, but yes, same thing exactly.

"Pay us protection money."

"Protection from what?"

"From us, if you don't pay protection money."

Funny that, I'm doing a re-read of Murder Inc about the Mafia, it was a lot of years ago I first read it, I suppose a lot of its content it shares with the bible, hadn't thought of that on the first read, thanks for that fellers.

ippy

[Shaker]

I used to be a universalist because the god I believed in was so big, so full of love that he rejected nobody, and no one could reject him in the end, however evil. It meant sharing heaven with utter shits, and that didn't seem fair, but that's what a truly loving god is - endlessly merciful.

No doubt I've got this all wrong, but presumably, according to universal reconciliation, by the time the utter shits are in heaven they're no longer utter shits, by definition.

But hey; que sais-je, as Mickey Montaigne was known to say when he'd been on the turps.

All loving.  All powerful. And certainly not a god that rejected people because they didn't get on their knees in front of him. Yours sounds very...human. And not especially pleasant.

Very human; in fact, as David "Dave" Hume put it, a god with an endless appetite for applause.

[Rhiannon]

No doubt I've got this all wrong, but presumably, according to universal reconciliation, by the time the utter shits are in heaven they're no longer utter shits, by definition.

But hey; que sais-je?
Very human; in fact, as David "Dave" Hume put it, a god with an endless appetite for applause.

There's not much in the Bible about life in heaven beyond we are supposed to be 'like the angels' engaged in perpetual worship - there's next to nothing to justify the notion of being reunited with auntie doris in the afterlife - and to be honest that sounds as dull as shit. But universalism means 'knowing' that the bastards you read about torturing kids in the news get in too, and in this life - the only one we have, probably - that doesn't necessarily seem fair.

[Shaker]

There's not much in the Bible about life in heaven beyond we are supposed to be 'like the angels' engaged in perpetual worship - there's next to nothing to justify the notion of being reunited with auntie doris in the afterlife - and to be honest that sounds as dull as shit. But universalism means knowing that the bastards you read about torturing kids in the news get in too, and in this life - the only one we have, probably - that doesn't necessarily seem fair.

You make a strong case, grasshopper. I shall ponder further.

I am just going outside, and may be some time.

[wigginhall]

Gosh, thanks for explaining that it wasn't a fluffy lamb that your priest was referring to. I'd never have got it otherwise. 

So your god is so puny he can't forgive those who haven't been able to change their minds? How utterly pathetic you make your God out to be.

I used to be a universalist because the god I believed in was so big, so full of love that he rejected nobody, and no one could reject him in the end, however evil. It meant sharing heaven with utter shits, and that didn't seem fair, but that's what a truly loving god is - endlessly merciful. All loving.  All powerful. And certainly not a god that rejected people because they didn't get on their knees in front of him. Yours sounds very...human. And not especially pleasant.

Yes, the protection racket aspect of Christianity is amazing really, when you look at it.   God has to make the threat, in order to remove it - but hang on, how about not making the threat?  Or why not just help people?  Why punish?

I don't think all Christians have this view - off the top of my head, the Orthodox are different, and there are universalists scattered about - but then they have a problem, because salvation isn't needed, is it?

Also, I think many Christians conceal the punitive aspect, don't they?

[Alan Burns]

So your god is so puny he can't forgive those who haven't been able to change their minds? How utterly pathetic you make your God out to be.

Forgiveness is a two way thing.  You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.

[wigginhall]

Forgiveness is a two way thing.  You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.

Nonsense.  Of course you can.  I can let go of hurts done to me by others, even if they don't regret it.  What is the point of hanging on to them?

[Shaker]

Forgiveness is a two way thing.

That's about as wrong as a wrong thing can be wrong while still being a wrong thing.

You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.

Why not, Alan? You make forgiveness seem conditional. "If X, then forgiveness."

I can think of a great many examples - a lot of them associated with that troubled but often ridiculously lovely nugget of territory called Northern Ireland; not all of them - of exactly that phenomenon.

I'm not a Christian; I'm not even a theist. Yet even I have heard of, respect, admire, don't entirely 'get' but respect people like the recently deceased Jill Saward and Desmond Tutu, who have forgiven unspeakable (figure of speech: no evil is unspeakable) wickedness. Unconditional forgiveness. No strings, no ifs or buts, no small print, no T & C's. I think that that can very likely lead to a slightly happier, somewhat more peaceful state of being, done right.

Why don't you?

[Rhiannon]

Forgiveness is a two way thing.  You can't forgive someone who does not repent for what they have done.

In that case there are a lot of misguided Christians out there who have forgiven those that have wronged them unconditionally - rapists, murderers, suicide bombers, abusers... your god doesn't forgive those who don't believe in him. Well, ok, if that helps you sleep better.

[wigginhall]

Yes, you have to earn forgiveness, in this warped view.  Other people go around letting go of bad stuff which was done to them, but God hangs on to it for grim death, and exacts punishment.    I had an Irish friend who used to say, the IRA never forget an injury done to them, and they plan payback over years, but of course, ordinary Irish people forgive stuff all the time.   So guess which one God is like?