|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 8, 2008 13:31:04 GMT -8
STEVE WROTE THIS RESPONSE TO RODGER ON THE SIGHTINGS SUB-FORUM. I'M STICKING IT HERE TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
STEVE WROTE:
Hello Roger,
Interesting take. I've never heard it before. I had a brief stint with annihilism, but then settled on a different view. Of course the idea of Jesus the torturer of billions doesn't really sound too appealing. It's a terrible marketing slogan, and mentioning it over the pulpit is sure to get a few people making there way to the door.
Like you, I have a fairly unorthodox view of hell.
I believe that all humans living or dead who are cut off from God, have the kingdom of hell within them, just as we have the kingdom of heaven within us. When we die, or wake up (however you want to call it) we see things as they really are. If we, as sentient, free-willed beings, have rejected light and love throughout the course of ours lives, than we have let the darkness grow within us until we are full citizens of that hellish country. C.S. Lewis said, "in the end, the kingdom of hell is a successful revolution, and it's gates are locked from the inside." He also said, "that hell is the ultimate monument to the free will of man". Having breeded darkness in the very core of your being, the damned will only be to happy to get as far away from God and Light as possible.
However, I personally believe that one can stand up and walk out of hell at anytime if one wanted to.
Waddaya think?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 8, 2008 14:23:48 GMT -8
Great, my favorite topic ;D.
Steve said:
Steve,
Do you see God as still working in the lives (or after lives) of people in the same He works in our lives now, in order to draw us to Him?
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 8, 2008 15:39:34 GMT -8
Having breeded darkness in the very core of your being, the damned will only be to happy to get as far away from God and Light as possible. However, I personally believe that one can stand up and walk out of hell at anytime if one wanted to. Waddaya think? [/color][/quote] Do I get you right? Do you think I'll be able to change my mind and turn to God once I'm sick and tired of hell and then just leave that place? That's a really comfortable thought. I guess I got you wrong  sincerly yours, Mo (breeder of darkness and future citizen of Hell county, Hawaii) haha, I'm nasty |
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 9, 2008 8:54:10 GMT -8
Robin, I hadn't thought it through that far. It's an interesting question thought. Interestingly enough, you had a George Mcdonald quote in your box. I believe my views of heaven and hell came about by reading some of his stuff. Don't ask me which book. I don't remember. Moritz, For someone who doesn't believe in hell, why are you so interested what a bunch crazy christians have to say about it? Read the post a little more closely. You will notice the quote from CS Lewis alludes to the high probability that people who live only for themselves eventually become so allergic to love that they want to get as far away from it as they possibly can. Hence, hell is a refuge from God and those inside aren't really going to want to come out. However, I maintain that it is possible. By the way, you did a real good job in that play! I was impressed. I are you going to keep acting?  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 9, 2008 14:04:30 GMT -8
Moritz, For someone who doesn't believe in hell, why are you so interested what a bunch crazy christians have to say about it? Good question. It's not easy to find the right path to the true answer. If I think about it, I have to acknowledge that for somebody who not only doesn't believe in hell but also doesn't believe in god I'm really dedicating a lot of my time to discussions with crazy christians ( ) I guess it bothers me when I think or read about hell because I know that you guys are putting me there and I don't feel like I deserve that. I mean, I understand that I'm a sinner in the Christian world. Yet I can't relate to christian morality. I don't understand why somebody should deserve to be tortured just because he doesn't believe in God. It makes no sense to me. This is a topic of it's own, I could give many more examples. Anyway, I wasn't familiar with your views on hell and my assumption that I probably missinterpreted your words was honest even if my final words were sarcastic. That still hasn't answered your question entirely. Hm. I'm searching for truth. I like to think about issues that matter. Religion isn't just something that happens in peoples' privacy. It is there and it has consequences. 9/11 is one example for real consequences. Destructive ones in this case. I don't want to be polemic, that's why I chose a muslim example and not a christian. I could have also mentioned positive examples. Anyway, it's there and it's got to be taken seriously. Yes, many things christians claim, maybe most of them seem absurd to me. But religion has to be taken seriously. We all have to deal with it. And hell plays a big part. It's interesting what concepts people have of it. I'd like to know what you are basing your view on hell on. Is there scripture that indicates something like that? And who is going to hell? I mean, what about those people who don't just live for themselves but still don't believe in God? Or does not believing in God already imply that you are only living for yourself? By the way, you did a real good job in that play! I was impressed. I are you going to keep acting? Thank you, Sir  I'm glad you came to see the play. When are we gonna make music, brother? |
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 10, 2008 12:25:33 GMT -8
Moritz, you said, I guess it bothers me when I think or read about hell because I know that you guys are putting me there and I don't feel like I deserve that."" No one's putting you there. I can't presume to know the depths of your heart and where you are on your journey in this life. I would never dream of putting you in some sort of category. You are the only one, and God of course, who knows what is going on inside your soul.
You said, "I don't understand why somebody should deserve to be tortured just because he doesn't believe in God." There's so much here, I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll start with the torture issue. I don't view hell as a torture chamber. At least not primarily. It may end up being torturous, but that is just a side effect. I don't think people end up there because they did any particuliar sin or because they didn't go to church enough on Sundays. That's all religious nonsense. Hell is a divorce. It's a horrible seperation. It is where all mankind was doomed to be because mankind chose evil in the beginning and has been choosing it ever since. Jesus is the bridge over that seperation. He is the key to reconciliation and salvation.
Yes, I know you're thinking, "what about the little children who die? Do they deserve hell too?" The answer is NO. I think if they die before they reach the age where they can consciously choose good or evil, they get a pass and go straight to heaven. Somewhere in the Bible, there is some verse that supports this, but I have no idea where.
I think there are levels of hell and one can go further into the outer darkness where there is more weeping and more nashing of teeth. I think that hell is a direction that people go away from God, and because God will not force Himself upon someone, He allows this one place to exist where He simply is not. Hell is a complete vacuum and absence of God, love and light. It is around us now in this world. It is the endless obsession with self which threatens to suck any in who have not made their foundation in Christ.
The bible says that "God is love, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God". Love is the opposite of selfishness. It always thinks of the other first. Love does not seek it's own glory. God, in His very nature, is love and to truly pursue love is to pursue Him and vice versa. I think that people in almost every religion can honestly pursue Love. The devout Muslim who seeks for Allah with all his heart will indeed meet God. There may be some confusion about names, but I don't think that is terribly important. Jesus is always knocking at the doors of our hearts. Each time He knocks we can choose to draw nearer, or to go further away.
There are people in the world who become very evil, but it never started out that way. It was always one decision after the next which turned their souls a little bit darker each time. At ever point along the way, Jesus offers them forgiveness and salvation. One need only stretch out their hand like a beggar and receive it. I don't think it is ever too late, but that is just my personal opinion. I can't support it very well with the Bible.
It may help, Moritz, to forget everything that you learned from your catholic upbringing about heaven and hell. Most of it stems from the middle ages and wanders far away from anything that Jesus actually said. Just ask yourself if you believe in good and evil. You've no doubt noticed that these two things seem to be present in our world. When this reality melts away like a dream and we are face to face with the truth, heaven and hell are simply the bare manifestations of good and evil in our souls.
SO to answer your question: Who goes to hell? Only those who don't particularly want to go to heaven.
By the way, you needn't remind me that this is all only my opinion. I know. I don't really even get to much of kick talking about this, but I wanted to welcome Rodger to the discussion forums. After reading his website I realized that he simply copied and pasted it to start a discussion link. I doubt that he has returned to see how this discussion has developed.
As far as making music together goes, what are you doing tomorrow night? I'm free. 0176 64305794
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 11, 2008 7:00:16 GMT -8
Thanks for your elaborated reply. The way you see things is really interesting. I'd like to ask you more about it. And throw in my two cents worth too. But I fear I won't be able to do that before monday. Maybe we'll be able to talk about this face to face next week, having a beer or two. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 11, 2008 7:42:30 GMT -8
In the meantime a short question:
Do you think that somebody who loves but doesn't believe in God in reality isn't cut off from God eventhough he denies his existence? Or do you say that you can't love without believing in God and hence it's impossible for a non-believer to really love?
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 11, 2008 13:29:00 GMT -8
Moritz,
you asked, "Do you think that somebody who loves but doesn't believe in God in reality isn't cut off from God even though he denies his existence? Or do you say that you can't love without believing in God and hence it's impossible for a non-believer to really love?"
I assume that to a certain extent someone can be intellectually opposed to the existence of God and yet still, in other parts of there being, possess a deep self sacrificing Love. However, I believe that at some point this will lead them to the creator. We must no forget that the love we are speaking about transcends this world. We must believe that love has a higher origin and meaning. If it is simply a product of this dimension, than we can reduce it to biological impulses which, in the end, have no objective meaning at all. This is exactly what the determinist's philosophy attempts to do. So, if love is indeed an intrinsic part of God's nature, the one who loves will at some point meet God and recognize that it was Him all along. I personally think that this is possible even after death.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 3:32:52 GMT -8
We must no forget that the love we are speaking about transcends this world. We must believe that love has a higher origin and meaning. If it is simply a product of this dimension, than we can reduce it to biological impulses which, in the end, have no objective meaning at all. This is exactly what the determinist's philosophy attempts to do. So, if love is indeed an intrinsic part of God's nature, the one who loves will at some point meet God and recognize that it was Him all along. I personally think that this is possible even after death. Thanks again for elaborating, Steve. It's really interesting and I'd like to hear more. At the time being it's hard for me to grasp what exactly you understand as "transcendental love". Or even love in general. There are so many different definitions of love, the word is really used inflationary. So what is true love in your opinion? You said the opposite of selfishness. That's questionable. I would say that there's a fair amount of selfishness in love but this could also mean that I have a misconception about what true love really is. Since we are discussing your opinion here and not mine, I'll assume that I don't know what true love is. Maybe you can tell me. When do you know that you really love in a way that transcends this world? How can I differentiate between the love I feel for my girlfriend or my parents and true love? What I'm feeling for them can't be true love in your definition because I need these people. I need my parents; I need their advice, protection, backing and support. I need my girlfriend; I need the feeling of security, of being accepted and "loved", her affection and cuddlings. I need to talk to her and share my life with her. And so much more. I NEED. This combination of words is truely selfish. And selfishness is the opposite of love according to your definition. Now it doesn't matter that I don't know anybody who wouldn't agree that he needs the persons he loves. I guess that Christians would also agree that they need God. I need you to help me out here, cause I can't seem to be able to imagine non-selfish love among humans.  |
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 15, 2008 14:30:59 GMT -8
Moritz,
The fact that we need things or people does not mean selfishness. Simply because we ourselves also benefit from love does not mean that it is really self-motivated. When I use the word selfish, I am referring to a self-orientation that only considers itself first above all others.
You mentioned that you need your girlfriends "affection and cuddlings". I assume that you also wish to give her affection and cuddlings. This is good and right and it is something that God gives us as a tangible evidence of His love for us. These romantic feelings, the Eros love, are one dimension of love, and certainly not the highest form. Eros by itself cannot last. The reason for this is that it will at some point in a romantic relationship be put to the test. The love will not survive without the highest form of love called "Agape". This form is unconditional and does not depend on the object being in anyway lovable. We consider this form of love to be a Christian virtue. At some point. your beloved may become in your eyes unattractive. Eros will, at this point, decline and you will be forced to make a decision to either love this person further, or to find another object which inspires these feelings. This is the problem with our society today. People marry, make children and than the magic wears off. Usually the man decides to look around for some younger woman who will make him feel that way again. He forget the oath which he took before man and God to love, honor, and cherish till death do we part. This reveals that there wasn't very much, if any, Agape love in his Eros. It got too difficult and he considered his own hormones over the one to whom he had committed himself to. To love in an Agape way requires faith in the magical nature of love. I believe that when one perseveres through dry season of love, that the romance will be rekindled even stronger that before, and with a new depth. Most marriages shipwreck before they ever reach that point.
You may also want to ask yourself if, put in the situation where it was necessary, would you sacrifice your own life for your girlfriends? If so, than this is true Love. The Bible says, "Greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for another." If you lose your life, you can no longer enjoy the benefits of being in a relationship with her. You would have to be fully concerned about what is the very best thing for her.
As far as love being transcendent, I give you an example from CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity": If you are walking through the woods with a slightly slower and weaker friend and suddenly find yourselves being chased by a bear, you will be faced with three different tensions. The first that will probably enter your head is the survival impulse. You are faster hence your friend will be eaten by the bear. The second will probably be the herd instinct. This instinct gives us a sympathy for others of our species. Determinists will say that the stronger of these two impulses will determine you actions. But there is a third higher thing which say that you ought not to run away but you should go back and help your friend. This third thing does not come from nature, it comes from above. If we obey it than we are showing true love. That is why it is transcendent above this world.
I don't feel like I explained that well, but I have to go to bed. I'll try it again tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 15:59:04 GMT -8
Did you get all the Eros/ Agape stuff from Papa Ratzi? It sounds familiar. Maybe needing someone isn't entirely selfish, but it has definetly elements of selfishness in it. You may also want to ask yourself if, put in the situation where it was necessary, would you sacrifice your own life for your girlfriends? I don't think one can really estimate a thing like that if one is not in the particular situation. I'm tempted to say that I would do it but that doesn't mean I really would. The survival impulse is not to be underestimated by romantic philosophy. You would have to be fully concerned about what is the very best thing for her. But you wouldn't do it if you weren't fully convinced that it's what you have to do. You're doing yourself justice by sacrificing yourself. I think there is also an element of selfishness in that. The second will probably be the herd instinct. This instinct gives us a sympathy for others of our species. But there is a third higher thing which say that you ought not to run away but you should go back and help your friend. What's the difference between the second and the third impulse? This third thing does not come from nature, it comes from above. If we obey it than we are showing true love. That is why it is transcendent above this world. I don't know if I understood that last point. How do you know that the impulse that makes you help your friend doesn't come from nature? It would make perfect sense in that context too. Only that it would take away the transcendent love aspect. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 15, 2008 17:28:28 GMT -8
Ha- we just can't escape morality, eh?
The third thing isn't an impulse. It's a choice between imulses motivated by a sense of morality. Determinism should predict that the stronger of the two impulses will win out (self-preservation), but often we find that that is not the case. Why? Because a) we are able to make moral choices and b) we are aware of a certain "oughtness" beyond our mere impulses that we often feel we must obey regardless of our instincts.
Really, you should read Mere Christianity for a good start on this. That will give you a good basic introduction to the angle we're coming from and then we can debate finer points.
Steve, well done on the Eros/ Agape stuff, btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 23:49:38 GMT -8
The third thing isn't an impulse. It's a choice between imulses motivated by a sense of morality. Determinism should predict that the stronger of the two impulses will win out (self-preservation), but often we find that that is not the case. I think this is an oversimplification of the process actually happening in your brain when you have to take a decision without being able to really weigh the alternatives. As far as I know it, there are many factors influencing your decision: The individual assembling of your nervous system, individual experience, drives or impulses, etc. Take a look at the following video: Here we have a slightly modified example of the bear-situation. A typical spanish festival: A bull is set loose and regular people (not professional bullfighters) are mocking it. There's also a dog running around. When a bull finally hits a man and won't let go of him, the dog immediately attacks! This video doesn't prove anything. But it indicates that a) the dog probably didn't take a moral decision and hence b) whatever caused his attack, it was stronger than his survival impulse. Watch! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2008 8:44:51 GMT -8
Steve and Mo, These last couple threads are awesome, but getting far afield from the Universal Reconciliation topic, so I've transferred them over to the Morality sub-forum. Please take this link so we can explore this further: Morality and Instincts |
|
|
|
Post by rodgertutt on Jul 21, 2008 10:41:12 GMT -8
THE GRAND ASSERTION
ALL OF MANKIND WAS DECLARED RIGHTEOUS BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST AND ALL OF
MANKIND WILL COME TO BELIEVE IN JESUS AS LORD AND GOD AS SAVIOR FOLLOWING
THE NECESSARY DISCIPLINE OF THE CONSUMING PURIFYING FIRE OF GOD.
Mal 3:2b "For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap;”
SUB-ASSERTION #1
MANKIND WAS DECLARED RIGHTEOUS BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST HAVING BEEN
RECONCILED TO GOD BY HIS DEATH
Rom 5:6-10 “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died
for the ungodly. But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while
we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have
now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from
God's wrath. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God
through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled,
will we be saved by his life?
Note that a summary of these verses could be the following:
While we were helpless ungodly sinners who were His enemies, Christ died
for us, declared us righteous by his blood, will save us from God’s wrath,
and reconciled us to God through His death.
Helpless ungodly sinners who were enemies of God and Christ may be words
written to those of Rome who were currently believers, but here Paul is
obviously referencing their status with God prior to their becoming
believers. Therefore the being reconciled to God and declared righteous
occurred prior to belief since these descriptions are hardly of believers.
At the foot of the cross were many helpless ungodly sinners who were the
enemies of Jesus, yet He said, “Father forgive them for they don’t know
what they are doing”. I believe the Father was in agreement with this
prayer of Jesus and so their sins were or will be forgiven on the merits of
Jesus alone. Mankind was declared righteous, or justified on that day.
Paul reinforces the fact of being declared righteous was for all mankind a
few verses later in Rom 5:18, “Consequently, just as one offense resulted
in condemnation for everyone, so one act of righteousness results in
justification and life for everyone.”
SUB-ASSERTION #2
NO “PUNISHMENT”, “DESTRUCTION”, “PERISHING”, “LOSTNESS” IS ETERNAL; RATHER
GOD’S “PUNISHMENTS” OR “DESTRUCTION” ARE CORRECTIVE IN NATURE
Now, we do need His discipline to make us fit for His kingdom. This
discipline will not be “eternal”, but it will be “aeonian or eonian”, the
English equivalents of the Greek “aionios”. “Aeonian” punishment as
referred to in Mt. 25:46, one of the proof texts for those who hold to the
heresy of the eternal torment of non-believers, is the type of correction
that God will administer to the unbeliever. The noun being modified by
aeonian is the word punishment, which is the Greek “kolasis” which has been
used in reference to “pruning” a plant for the purpose of better
production. “Kolasis” punishment is the corrective type, whereas, “timoria”
punishment is the retributive type. The “aeonian” life in Mt. 25:46 is the
life given to the believer by God beginning at the point of belief. This
is that life we enjoy as believers which blesses us now as we deal with
this physical life and also blesses us with the promise of immortality and
therefore everlasting communion with our Father.
Aeonian destruction as referenced in 2 Thess. 1:7-9, “…who will be punished
with aeonian destruction from the presence of the Lord,…”, is the kind of
destruction necessary for God to administer for the fulfillment of His
purposes. Destruction is equivalent to death in that it is “from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power”. Jesus was
“destroyed” at the cross, but as in His case, so with all cases of
destruction or death, there is no sense of “eternal” associated with them
as Jesus rose to life and “the last enemy to be eliminated will be death”.
The “lost” sheep, coin, and son of Luke 15 referred to a condition that did
not last forever. The word “lost” is the translation of the Greek
“apollumi”, from which we have the translations lose, lost, perish,
destroy, etc. As we can see in Luke 15, the sheep, coin, and son were only
“lost” until they were found. This harmonizes with the fact that Jesus
said He came to “seek and save the lost”.
Note that the following verse tells us that there is a special benefit for
becoming a believer now, but that God will save all of the “lost”
unbelievers also. 1Tim 4:10 “For to this end we toil and strive, because
we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men,
especially of those who believe.” The Greek word that got translated
“especially” here is “malista”. Checking its usage in other verses makes
it clear that especially is a good choice for English since it does refer
to extra special attention to something, but not to the exclusion of other
items mentioned in the context.
The Hebrew word “olam” has as its Greek equivalents “aion” and “aionios” in
the Septuagint. An analysis of the approximately 440 occurrences of olam
in the Old Testament suggests that it means a period of time without the
end in sight but not necessarily “eternal”, or “everlasting” or “forever”,
if it should ever be. Olam was only 3 days in the case of Jonah’s duration
in the fish, even though the “traditional” translation has been “forever”.
Also, the length of time a person would be the slave has been referred to
as “forever”, which we know is literally only for their physical lifetime.
Some versions never use eternal, everlasting, or forever for olam. Have
you noticed some versions use the phrase “forever and ever”. Have you ever
given thought to the absurdity of adding the words “and ever” after you
have already said forever? What’s more than forever? That’s like saying
something lasts for an eternity and then for another eternity. The
absurdity of this should add to our awareness of the bias of those
translators who consistently translate olam, aion, and aionios as eternal,
everlasting, forever, or the absurd “forever and ever” phrase.
An analysis of the word “hell” is quite revealing. Jesus used the word
“geena” or “hades” and tradition (KJV, Catholic church, etc.) has had the
ignorant audacity to use this Anglo-Saxon word “hell”, which means
“unseen” (a-des), corresponding to the Hebrew “sheol” and attach to it a
meaning out of pagan mythology of a place of eternal torment. Dr. Thomas
Thayer in his book “The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless
Punishment” traces this myth of eternal torment that became associated with
the word hell to ancient Egypt. Geena (sometimes Gehenna) was the Valley
of Hinnom which became a garbage dump on the outskirts of Jerusalem where
carcasses of criminals were burned which Jesus metaphorically referenced as
a future potential punishment with no sense of “eternal” punishment
inherent in its meaning. This refers to aeonian punishment which again is
God’s corrective punishment. Gehenna should have been left untranslated
because it is a geographical location that the Jews of Jesus’ audience knew
exactly what he was referring to. Hades should have also been left
untranslated or translated as “unseen” or “the grave” as some versions do,
as Hades definitely has no inherent punishment connotation. There are a
number of versions that don’t use the word “hell” even once, realizing the
bad rap the word has gotten with the erroneous connotation.
SUB-ASSERTION #3
ALL HUMANITY WILL COME TO BELIEVE IN GOD AND WILL WORSHIP HIM SOONER OR
LATER
The following are 5 witnesses (scriptures) from 4 of God’s servants: DAVID,
ISAIAH, PAUL, and JOHN.
NOTE: Nowhere in the Word do we have any evidence that one must come to
belief in this lifetime, which is another myth of man; contrariwise, we
have much evidence in the following verses and many others that some will
only come to belief after their physical death. At this point some might
think of the Rich Man and Lazarus parable. Parables must be discerned
spiritually as they are not to be taken literally since they are fictional
stories to convey a spiritual message. Consider this, Rich Man = Jews and
Lazarus = Gentiles and the spiritual message is that the Jews will be
disciplined for their attitude toward and treatment of the Gentiles.
Keep in mind that belief is granted by God in His time not in man’s. God
grants belief to some in this lifetime and others after their physical
death. The myth that one must come to belief in this lifetime is something
man dreamed up or more than likely got from the pagans and added to his
traditions, but God’s word does not speak of it.
John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him;
and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Phi 1:29 “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you
should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,”
THE MASTER PLAN OF THE MASTER COULD BE SUMMED UP IN A COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY
OF HIS WORD AS FOLLOWS AS ATTESTED BY MANY WITNESSES.
“ALL IS OUT OF ME AND ALL WILL COME BACK TO ME.” --- GOD
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him
be glory forever. Amen.
1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will
also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that
God may be all in all.
GOD WILL BE ALL IN ALL = GOD WILL BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE
OUR SPIRIT CAME OUT OF GOD AND WILL RETURN TO GOD
DAVID was inspired to write:
Psalms 22:27-28 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the
LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For
the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations
ISAIAH was inspired to write:
Isa 45:23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in
righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.'
Isa 45:24 "Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and
strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against
him.
PAUL was inspired to write:
Phi 2:10-11 “…so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow
— in heaven and on earth and under the earth — and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”
Rom 14:11 For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee will
bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God."
JOHN was inspired to record:
Rev 5:13 “And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the
earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on
the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might
forever and ever!"
SINCE AFTER A CERTAIN TIME DEATH WILL CEASE TO BE, LEAVING ONLY LIFE AND
HENCE NO MORE SEPARATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN, ALL OF THESE WITNESSES CAN
TESTIFY TO THE SAME THING:
NOTE: The feeble attempt to downplay this worshipping, bowing, and
confessing as somehow “forced”, is born out of bias for eternal torment.
Note particularly in Phil. 2:11 the phrase “to the glory of God the
Father”. It is obviously not giving God glory to say Jesus is Lord without
meaning it and you might also recall what Paul said about saying that Jesus
is Lord, that “…no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.”
(1 Cor. 12:3b)
EVERY CREATED BEING WILL SOME DAY PRAISE AND GLORIFY GOD
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 13, 2009 11:53:57 GMT -8
So, since this topic has resurfaced, I re-read through this thread and actually think we made some good progress. I know I'm really open to learning on this topic some more.
One thing I'd like to do is test drive the different afterlife theories in interpreting specific passages of scripture.
There are several that I've already begun to see how they could be interpreted in light of Christian universalism. But I think there are some others that I'm still fuzzy on how they couldn't be seen as direct challenges to the view.
Let me dig around and find one to discuss.
|
|
