Christian Universalism: A threat to Christianity. (Eden, evolve, quotes, unicorn)

[mitchellmckain]

Originally Posted by nateswift

"Of course there are also good habits which can break us free of the self-destructive ones"

"Discovering that we are wrong is far far easier and more likely when we are in this world where there is an objective reality"

Do these statememts not contradict your assertion that there can be no change for those who have gone the path of destruction?

I never made such an assertion. I stand by these things which I actually said and not the things which you insist on putting in my mouth in order to manufacture a contradiction. However, the fact that there are also good habits which can break us free doesn't mean that everyone has them.

The issue is UNIVERSALISM, which means that EVERYONE is saved without exception. This is what I think is wrong because some people do not have enough of these good habits and have given themselves over to self-destructive habits which annihilate their free will and ability to change altogether.

Originally Posted by nateswift

Yes, people can even become addicted to their own misery, but addictions can be broken, and there is an eternity for it to happen.

Mostly addictions are NOT broken. It is practically miraculous when they are, usually taking herculean efforts by themselves and others. One of the typical patterns is that they hit rock bottom in some way. That is part of the confronting of reality which happens only because the imposition of an external physical reality. But the truth is most often that if their desire is given free reign then it never stops. This is what friends and family are frequently advised -- do not facilitate their addiction.

This is not simply a matter of trying something out and getting tired of it. This is a matter of doing things which actually destroy who you are and your capability to be anything else. Free will is not absolute but highly dependent on things like awareness and the willingness to learn and change. We are talking about habits which destroy these things.

[nateswift]

I'm sorry, what does "It is sin itself which takes away the capability of change" mean then?

[mitchellmckain]

Originally Posted by nateswift

I'm sorry, what does "It is sin itself which takes away the capability of change" mean then?

Sin consists of self-destructive habits such as willful ignorance and blaming others for your own mistakes. It should be obvious that they therefore take away from our ability to learn and change. However, this should not be read as... removing all possibility of change. Like I said there are good habits which can break us out of this dead end such as asking others for help. Indeed it is the essence of the gospel that we need to the help of God to break us out of enslavement to the self-destructive habits of sin, therefore we find salvation in a personal relationship with Him. That is a way in which we can internalize a connection to something outside of ourselves which offers the best hope of all. I do not rule out other possibilities (such as in more communal idea of salvation where the all the connections we have to others can effectively connect us to God) but a personal relationship with God is clearly the best way out of our predicament.

Regardless, the existence of such possibilities do not equal a guarantee of salvation which endorses universalism. Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, which is much more consistent with words of Jesus and the Bible. All point to the traditional imperative need to "wake up" -- words which I find particularly to the point because of the critical need for awareness in order for free will to be functional.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

He is espousing most of the things in my views and yours, nate, so I suspect we are talking past one another yet again. His rejection of Universalism seems to rest on the idea that you touch on, nate - there is no changing our minds. He thinks Universalism is about God's love becoming an exercise of power rather than an enlightenment during refinement, It has nothing to do with power. We will each see our lives and our effects on others through the pure agape love of God and will be changed through experiencing the hurt and harm inflicted on others (whether deliberate or through obliviousness). That is how we will reap what we sow. I think he believes once we are dead there can be no change, which is not consistent with a God who IS agape love.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But that is incorrect. "Changing our minds" is a self-serving edit of what I said. The difference has more to do with understanding the basic nature of sin and knowing that your optimism about everyone having a basic will to life and goodness is terribly naive and misplaced. Greater awareness of the world shows that human beings are quite adept at becoming not only incapable of recognizing the poverty of their lives but even becoming addicted to their own misery and despair. Perhaps you just haven't seen it -- but I have!

I have no such optimism or naivete. It is not a matter of "everyone having a basic will to life and goodness." It is that we will all know the reality by reviewing our lives in the glare of the pure love of God after our death. Now we see darkly but then we will see clearly. Since such an experience of God's love is the impetus for my conversion from atheism to theism, I have a small inkling of the power of such unconditional love and acceptance.

Ah yes! This magical imparting of awareness and vision to all who die is common among Christians of all types and not just universalists: the bad guys with regret and the "good guys" with vindication. I certainly do not believe in any such thing. Discovering that we are wrong is far far easier and more likely when we are in this world where there is an objective reality constructed of fixed mathematical laws which care nothing about what we want.

I understand your lack of belief and have no answer since my understanding of it is not through magic but the knowledge gained through experience. I discovered I was wrong instantly.

Absolutely incorrect! I am saying that there most certainly is change and it can go in two different directions. But this is nothing so trivial as being wrong about what makes us happy -- like choosing the wrong career. This is about life and death itself: choosing between learning and self-destruction. But certainly changing directions from death to life is great deal harder after passing on. It is like running out over ice. This world operates according to external rules. It is why we are subject to decay, but it also provides resistance to our desires and thus the traction that makes changing our direction a whole lot easier.

It will not be harder after we pass on because the sensory blinders of this physical womb will be removed. I cannot prove that to you since my certainty is experiential.

We can say this is the reason for the physical universe and physical life in the first place. It is like a womb protecting us -- and what we most desperately need protecting from most is our own immature desires. Indeed the balance of good evil in human life is typically a race between gaining power to achieve our desires and learning regard for the well being of others.

This is absolutely true and we are in complete agreement.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Regardless, the existence of such possibilities do not equal a guarantee of salvation which endorses universalism. Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, which is much more consistent with words of Jesus and the Bible.

Here we part company. Eternal damnation is completely inconsistent with the revelation of God's TRUE NATURE in the teachings, life, and especially death of Jesus. It is consistent with the primitive barbaric beliefs about God of our ignorant ancestors prior to Jesus. It is the bogus attempts to merge Christ's revelation and Gospel with the barbaric and superstitious nonsense of our ancestors that have corrupted Christ's Gospel beyond recognition. What possible role would an eternal ANYTHING play as a consequence of our finite life?

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius
I really like how you think nateswift.

I am curious though what you think regarding all mankind being made sinners due to Adam's one act as Paul wrote in Romans 5:12,18,19?

Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 & 17 that in the evangel, God's righteousness is revealed.
In Romans 5 Paul brings up how all mankind were affected by Adam's one act. How is that fair? How can God be righteous in just letting that go? Paul answers that dilemma by bringing in Christ's one act which more than undoes Adam's. Have you noticed this?

Originally Posted by nateswift

Actually, that part of the creation myth has never stood up as expressive of real conditions. "Adam" as represesntative of mankind actually grew up and became aware that sometimes the things he wanted were harmful to others or to his community. The simple fact is that we have feelings and desires that may be in conflict with each other, and it is our choices that make one "sin" or selfishness at the expense of others.
Jesus made the choice to demonstrate that forgiveness that is the hallmark of the Way He taught: how to regain community when it is broken by such selfish acts.

So you think Paul and Christ got it all wrong about Adam?

And you think mankind has to undo sin and death given us from Adam's act? that Christ need not have been obedient to the cross to undo what Adam did?

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

So you think Paul and Christ got it all wrong about Adam?

And you think mankind has to undo sin and death given us from Adam's act? that Christ need not have been obedient to the cross to undo what Adam did?

I think Paul and Jesus used the ethnic mythology to make a point. If you take "Adam's act" to be the simply selfish actions we all take, yes, we need to do our best to rectify harm we have done and to change our way of acting. Christ did not need to undo what Adam did, we all need to learn what is in our actual best interest and hurting others for the sake of our own gratification is not it. However we also need to recognize that we are all alike in this respect and leave open in our lives the forgiveness that Jesus demonstrated.

[mitchellmckain]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is that we will all know the reality by reviewing our lives in the glare of the pure love of God after our death.

Right there you have the tyranical God of universalism who forces his way of thinking on everyone. No I do not believe in such a God and no I do not believe that is an accurate description of love. This is exactly the oxymoron of "love" as a means to power. It is logically inconsistent and it is no wonder you have to resort to some sort of magic forcing people to agree with you when they die.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Now we see darkly but then we will see clearly.

1 Cor 13 says nothing about any revelation at the point of death. What you quote its preceeded by, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways." Making it clear that what it is speaking of is the understanding that comes with maturity and maturity is quite clearly something which eludes many people. It is not saying we will see clearly in a magical instant when we die proving you are right and I am wrong. It is saying that when (and if) we learn the truth then what we see dimly and only accept on faith will become quite clear. This is indeed an advantage of those having a connection with God. But the truth is that inspiration of God rains down upon us in a torrent and many remain quite oblivious to it.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Since such an experience of God's love is the impetus for my conversion from atheism to theism, I have a small inkling of the power of such unconditional love and acceptance.

What you call love and make into a means to power is not love. It is much more like the rape which no amount of insistence by the rapist will ever turn into love.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I understand your lack of belief and have no answer since my understanding of it is not through magic but the knowledge gained through experience. I discovered I was wrong instantly.

This sort of magical event is the typical refuge of the person who no rational grounds to stand on. "Well you will find out that you are wrong and I am right." This simply does not match the reality of human existence and I see no justification for imagining some magical event to contradict this. Notice that I am not saying any such thing myself. I don't think those who are wrong will necessarily ever find out that they are wrong -- and that goes for both myself AND those who disagree with me.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It will not be harder after we pass on because the sensory blinders of this physical womb will be removed.

Sensory blinders? For what rational reason would there be such a thing. Frankly this is a blatantly Gnostic notion.

You have already agreed that there is a rational reason for there being resistance to our immature desires. That makes sense. But why in the world would be need "sensory blinders?" It frankly sounds like the invention of those who believe this life is some kind of test, which I think is totally nonsensical.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I cannot prove that to you since my certainty is experiential.

Using your terminology my response is to say that I cannot prove you are wrong because my certainty is experiential as well. But I would use a slight different terminology for this. The things of religion are found in the irreducibly subjective aspect of our existence and thus we must accept considerable diversity of opinion as unavoidable. But notice that while you only accept this temporarily expecting a magical event to annihilate it, I expect this diversity of thought to endure.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Here we part company. Eternal damnation is completely inconsistent with the revelation of God's TRUE NATURE in the teachings, life, and especially death of Jesus. It is consistent with the primitive barbaric beliefs about God of our ignorant ancestors prior to Jesus. It is the bogus attempts to merge Christ's revelation and Gospel with the barbaric and superstitious nonsense of our ancestors that have corrupted Christ's Gospel beyond recognition.

Since you have established none of these claims, I can only take this to mean that you don't like this idea. But on the contrary it totally consistent with the nature of our existence which begins in the very primitive and ruthless reality of evolution. That God is motivated by love cannot change the uncompromising nature of our very existence as living beings which requires us to make choices about what we become -- something which we can never escape from.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

What possible role would an eternal ANYTHING play as a consequence of our finite life?

It is the nature of life. We do not get redos like Bill Murphy in "Groundhog Day." (I love the film, but it is a fantasy) What is done is forever. That is the basic nature of our life and existence. And the reason is that what we do counts -- it matters. For if we can simply erase and redo then nothing really matters. The rejection of this basic fact is another way in which people reject life itself. People are always saying, "it isn't fair" and "I didn't choose to be alive." But of course not since that is nonsensical. The only relevant question is what are you going to do now -- will you embrace the challenge of life, ... or not.

So.... it is eternal life (where if we embrace the challenge of cutting out our bad habits in order to learn and grow so there is no end to what God will give and what we can receive, making an eternal existence worthwhile) or eternal death (choosing to squat in the comfort of our sins, which will slowly eat away at everything good in us until there is nothing left).

[nateswift]

You may not like sci-fi, or even fiction, but a fun read on the subject you might enjoy is Inferno by Niven and Pournelle.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have no such optimism or naivete. It is not a matter of "everyone having a basic will to life and goodness." It is that we will all know the reality by reviewing our lives in the glare of the pure love of God after our death. Now we see darkly but then we will see clearly. Since such an experience of God's love is the impetus for my conversion from atheism to theism, I have a small inkling of the power of such unconditional love and acceptance.I understand your lack of belief and have no answer since my understanding of it is not through magic but the knowledge gained through experience. I discovered I was wrong instantly.It will not be harder after we pass on because the sensory blinders of this physical womb will be removed. I cannot prove that to you since my certainty is experiential.This is absolutely true and we are in complete agreement.
Here we part company. Eternal damnation is completely inconsistent with the revelation of God's TRUE NATURE in the teachings, life, and especially death of Jesus. It is consistent with the primitive barbaric beliefs about God of our ignorant ancestors prior to Jesus. It is the bogus attempts to merge Christ's revelation and Gospel with the barbaric and superstitious nonsense of our ancestors that have corrupted Christ's Gospel beyond recognition. What possible role would an eternal ANYTHING play as a consequence of our finite life?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Right there you have the tyranical God of universalism who forces his way of thinking on everyone. No I do not believe in such a God and no I do not believe that is an accurate description of love. This is exactly the oxymoron of "love" as a means to power. It is logically inconsistent and it is no wonder you have to resort to some sort of magic forcing people to agree with you when they die.

I must admit to a certain frustration at your adversarial stance since I see so much convergence in our views. Nevertheless, you seem to have a real hang-up about power tied up with your rather odd notion that a God of universalism is somehow a tyrant. I can understand that the religious interpretations that form most people's exposure to the God concept do tend to breed a certain rebelliousness against tyranny. But I developed my views sans those religious views and only came to them after decades of study of science and the spiritual fossil record. I do not hold to the Omni-dude conceptions of God.

1 Cor 13 says nothing about any revelation at the point of death. What you quote its preceded by, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways." Making it clear that what it is speaking of is the understanding that comes with maturity and maturity is quite clearly something which eludes many people. It is not saying we will see clearly in a magical instant when we die proving you are right and I am wrong. It is saying that when (and if) we learn the truth then what we see dimly and only accept on faith will become quite clear. This is indeed an advantage of those having a connection with God. But the truth is that inspiration of God rains down upon us in a torrent and many remain quite oblivious to it.
What you call love and make into a means to power is not love. It is much more like the rape which no amount of insistence by the rapist will ever turn into love.

Here again I see mostly agreement and I am seeking to tease out the sticking points. I approached this discussion largely in agreement with your overall views because they intersect mine (and nate's) significantly. My desire was to clarify the areas of apparent disagreement or inconsistency with an eye toward exposing the sticking points, not proselytization. I confess to confusion at the adversarial stance you seem to have adopted, especially toward the concept of agape love. I see no coercion or power issues in it, ever. I understand that you do for some unknown reason and that is one of the things I am trying to understand.

This sort of magical event is the typical refuge of the person who no rational grounds to stand on. "Well you will find out that you are wrong and I am right." This simply does not match the reality of human existence and I see no justification for imagining some magical event to contradict this. Notice that I am not saying any such thing myself. I don't think those who are wrong will necessarily ever find out that they are wrong -- and that goes for both myself AND those who disagree with me.

We have no clue what the next stage of existence will be like other than it will NOT be like this life. That makes most of this discussion moot. My experience of an unconditionally loving and accepting consciousness as the Source of our reality is controlling my expectations, but I seek no refuge and I eschew all forms of magical thinking. So I do resent the repeated implications.

Sensory blinders? For what rational reason would there be such a thing. Frankly this is a blatantly Gnostic notion.
You have already agreed that there is a rational reason for there being resistance to our immature desires. That makes sense. But why in the world would be need "sensory blinders?" It frankly sounds like the invention of those who believe this life is some kind of test, which I think is totally nonsensical.

It is not a matter of needing sensory blinders. They exist because of the circumstances of this existence and its relationship to the next. I see this existence as a "Spiritual Pregnancy" and this physical reality is the womb existence providing the cognitive (spiritual) experiences to develop and mature our embryo Spirit. To understand the conundrum this presents I resort to analogy. Analogously, if we had been aware as embryos in our mother's womb, how much of our experiences in the womb existence would have aided in discerning what this physical life would be like? What we are "maturing" is our "Spiritual embryo" for subsequent birth as Spirit upon our death into a spiritual existence we can only guess about.

Using your terminology my response is to say that I cannot prove you are wrong because my certainty is experiential as well. But I would use a slight different terminology for this. The things of religion are found in the irreducibly subjective aspect of our existence and thus we must accept considerable diversity of opinion as unavoidable. But notice that while you only accept this temporarily expecting a magical event to annihilate it, I expect this diversity of thought to endure.

Okay. But since I see the next stage as a "Birth" into existence as Spirit, there is plenty of room in the new life for development beyond that achieved to warrant birth instead of miscarriage.

Since you have established none of these claims, I can only take this to mean that you don't like this idea. But on the contrary it totally consistent with the nature of our existence which begins in the very primitive and ruthless reality of evolution. That God is motivated by love cannot change the uncompromising nature of our very existence as living beings which requires us to make choices about what we become -- something which we can never escape from.

Continuing the analogy, yes, we are in the unique (and dangerous) position of deciding what our Spiritual "body" (character) will be like when born. This would be like an embryo infant actually "deciding" how its body and brain would form instead of having no say in it.

It is the nature of life. We do not get redos like Bill Murphy in "Groundhog Day." (I love the film, but it is a fantasy) What is done is forever. That is the basic nature of our life and existence. And the reason is that what we do counts -- it matters. For if we can simply erase and redo then nothing really matters. The rejection of this basic fact is another way in which people reject life itself. People are always saying, "it isn't fair" and "I didn't choose to be alive." But of course not since that is nonsensical. The only relevant question is what are you going to do now -- will you embrace the challenge of life, ... or not.
So.... it is eternal life (where if we embrace the challenge of cutting out our bad habits in order to learn and grow so there is no end to what God will give and what we can receive, making an eternal existence worthwhile) or eternal death (choosing to squat in the comfort of our sins, which will slowly eat away at everything good in us until there is nothing left).

Again we are largely in agreement, but you see this womb existence as the end product of life. I see it as just a newborn entering into the next stage.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by nateswift

I think Paul and Jesus used the ethnic mythology to make a point. If you take "Adam's act" to be the simply selfish actions we all take, yes, we need to do our best to rectify harm we have done and to change our way of acting. Christ did not need to undo what Adam did, we all need to learn what is in our actual best interest and hurting others for the sake of our own gratification is not it. However we also need to recognize that we are all alike in this respect and leave open in our lives the forgiveness that Jesus demonstrated.

Neither Paul nor Jesus spoke of Adam as ethnic mythology. They spoke of Adam and Eve as historic figures. In fact, Adam is in Christ's genealogies. You don't put a mythical person in your genealogy.

Paul's point is that due to what Adam did, death entered into all mankind and for that, all sin. God's response was to send His Son into the world and undo all we get from Adam, i.e. sin and death. This is the major thesis in Paul's writings. If one misses this, one misses the main gist of the evangel. The evangel is not about humans having to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is concerning Christ being the Saviour of the world and Saviour of all mankind. He is the One Who saves, not we.