um… you totally quoted your own post in followup, John, but didn’t seem to add anything. Did you mean to add something else? (And why would it be necessary to quote the totality of your own post in follow-up as an introduction to it, especially since it’s the immediately preceding post?)
Just curious. Sometimes I hit a button thinking I’ve done one thing when it actually did something else, and I don’t find out for a while. 
More like the supreme inaction since you believe there was no atonement of God. He’s still, so you say, filled with wrath, unchanged in His Justice even by the blood sacrifice of His only son. The LAST sacrifice. Does the cross matter?
If one believes that one can turn away God’s wrath (propitiation) by something they do - they make Christ superfluous.
Sorry, I wish I had more time to write more detailed responses, but between work and chasing around our little ones at home, a few lines is all I can usually type out.
I appreciate all the reponses that have come in on the topic. As I’ve read them and searched scripture again more intentionally on the subject, I wonder if, like all of us, I want to nail down the significance of the cross to one single purpose, when it possibly had an infinite number of effects. Mabye it was a blood sacrifice to atone ‘legally’, but also was a means of destroying the powers of evil, as well as a visual picture of God the Father and His love etc. Certainly I can’t just say, well everyone is right-some of the theories are mutually exclusive, but, that being said, I wonder if there’s more cross-over than at times seems apparent.
By the way, I think Jason asked if Denver was a masculine name-yes, the name Denver is supposed to invoke a tough, rugged, mountain man…except that I’m none of those things…but I am a dude!
Denver
Maybe? Christ is called the Last sacrifice - and without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness. You can plead, you can repent but without blood sacrifice there can be no forgiveness. You will remain dead.
The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of world. His spotless Lamb - His BLOOD offering - not ours. The new-agers around here don’t like that - deny it and call what’s left, Christian - which is nothing but another gospel - the chatter of wolves.
**Who is Jesus.? Who is Christ? **
Paul, on the road to Damascus found the answer when he was querried, “why do you persecute me?”
Yes my friend, Christ is the first and last sacrifice and we find themselves in Jesus, as part of that sacrifice. The sacrificial system continues and is working within the lives of God’s sons, even today. We are God’s sacrifices and offerings for the church and a dieing world.
We present our bodies, a sacrifice.
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
One gives sacrifice by dieing. We die daily
1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
The only way to have Christ’ Spirit living within us is to be crucified with Christ. We are crucified with Christ.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me
We suffer for the church. We fill up the afflictions of Christ.
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
We are God’s continuing offering and even the sin offering. We are as He is.
1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
Jesus said, “He who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also” (John 14:12). We assume He meant that we would work His miracles, but Jesus did not limit His definition of “works” to the miraculous. The works He did–the redemptive life, the mercy cry, the identification with sinners, rendering Himself a guilt offering–all the works He did, we will “do also.”
In his Sweet Lord Jesus,
John
PS. and you will never hear such from a a New Ager!
My take on it is that of course the cross matters, or it wouldn’t have happened. Don’t confuse the end with the means.
Not the first sacrifice - except in type. The comparison of Christ to animals is real but paltry. Is there anything special about Christ? Must you all insert yourself into the atonement? Some here think THEY propitiate God and want me silenced. Fools and wolves. The propitiating, self-righteous forces run their crap here. Gene gives them an inch and they take a mile. Ruin.
Whatever. If you think you usurp Christ in any way, say so.
Where is that stated? Just die and shut up. It’s the way of all flesh. No sinner is special. Just be glad that you have been shown something. A little gratitude (and humility) will go a long way.
A little humility will go a long way…
You said it Ran 
When I first joined these boards I was so impressed with the civility and humanity in which people of varying views could discuss matters that are so central to the human heart and God’s heart. My feelings have been altered here slightly. I find it ironic that my question about the significance of our Saviour’s death has illicited name calling, attacks, labeling, and hurtful remarks. Let us remember that these are the very things that brought many of us to this board, because we received such negative reactions from non-universalists. I’m sure we all feel our points are crucial, but let us also remember that “love covers over a multitude of sins.”
Denver
Well said Denver.
OK. You got me there. I’ll be nice. I go overboard now and then. Forgive me.
With pleasure Ran 
I understand your passion.
Ran,
I’m not aware of anyone one the boards who thinks they propitiate God. (I know I have stated multiple times, as clearly as I possibly can, that I do not believe any sinner can propitiate God. You can disagree with my pointing out that in the NT Greek use of the verbs it is God who, as surprisingly as that may be, propitiates us; but that is not at all the same thing as us propitiating God.)
Be that as it may. Did you just tell John to just die and shut up?
Because that is the kind of thing we “fools and wolves” who run “this crap here” want silenced. Not dispute about various technical matters.
You apparently haven’t even noticed that one of those “fools and wolves” actually agrees with you, as far as I can tell, about the truth and importance of penal substitution. If he sends you a warning, it isn’t because he feels threatened by your awesome ability to demonstrate (in terms of vitriolic wrath!) that God has no wrath in Him at all anymore toward anyone. Gene gives him, and you, and all other members (not just me) as much milage as you want to spend time and effort on using. Actually, Gene and Jim worked together to create this board, not only where universalists can share resources, but where Christians (of any theology) and non-Christians can meet together and discuss our rationales, each of us making the best case we can make.
But telling someone to die so that they will finally shut up (whether or not they are terminally ill, as John says he is), goes way way waaaaaaaaaay hugely over the line.
When I brought up to the mods and admins that another member has asked for us to consider moderation action, I voluntarily rescinded myself from voting; restricting my recommendation to exactly what I talked about here (moving your longer post to a more appropriate thread with links both ways for interested readers), with the promise that I would abide by the majority vote of the other admins and mods and not take independent action on my own. Which, by the way, is why that long post critiquing me, in pretty strong language no less, instead of discussing your position with Denver, is still in this thread: they didn’t vote to move it somewhere else.
And I’m not going to start taking action now, for the same reason: because I don’t think it would be fair for me to do so, as having a possible conflict of interest.
But I recommend you take the initiative in convincing the other admins and mods that you can be trusted not to create the kind of atmosphere here that Denver (as well as Jeff) has also now begun complaining about. Because I know that the patience of the other admins (if not all the other mods) on this, is near an end.
You are entirely welcome to continue presenting and making the case for your position (or positions) the best you can.
Telling a terminally ill man (or anyone else) to just die already so he’ll shut up, is not welcome here.
John,
If you’re still reading: I’m sorry that happened. He shouldn’t have said that to you, or launched rhetorical impugnings of your character in other ways either. We could have banned him (temporarily or permanently) earlier, but we didn’t. We share the responsibility for what happened.
I will however point out that, though you’ve been better about Ran (at least recently) on this topic, there have been times you’ve indulged in rhetorical spitting on other people here, too. This is the kind of thing it leads to. You aren’t under warning yet–you’ve done much better about it since first arriving–but tolerance for that kind of thing among both the authorities and the general population is starting to run low. Please, dial back your own rhetorical denunciations of people you don’t agree with around here. Neither I nor the other admins and mods want to be consoling another reader (including RanRan, who has exactly as much right to be addressed civilly on this board as you or anyone else) because we could have acted more directly to stop you but didn’t.
Denver (and other readers): we’re sorry for letting this go so far for so long; but the admins and mods are dedicated not only to having a board where readers and writers are free to speak without having mud slung at them, but also to having a board where readers and writers are free to speak without being censured for their beliefs. Obviously, those two dedications have points of tension. Typically, if we’re going to err, we try to do so in favor of freedom of speech. But warnings have now been given, and the reasons for the warnings have now been given, and action one way or another is going to be taken, whether it’s by us or by the members in question, to rectify the situation. Thank you for your patience in this matter.
I’m afraid to my chagrin I had forgotten John’s illness in all this. I am hopeful, however that Ran was refering to the concept of dying daily to sin that John’s post mentioned.
[size=200]**OH MY 
**[/size]
Good point; and I hope that’s the case, too.
But one of the (several) drawbacks to the practice of salting one’s comments with rhetorical denunciations, is that it can be hard to tell for sure what an attitude is for a comment. (The “shut up” obviously doesn’t help with this, in the… um… exhortation to “just die”.)
What ever the meaning of Ranran’s words “just die”, they slayed me 
Don’t go a worryin bout me boys cause dem words were ordained by Another to demonstrate flesh burns.
Surely we tread in the Lake of Fire, here on the forum, and our anguish must be released here and there.
One day we will see Him as He is and there will be only silence, but for now we suffer each other, as we say the damndest things.
Truth be told it’s suffering them dang moderators that kills me
That was a good one. 
Well, we’re also ordained to care about everyone (especially when we’re in authority under Another), whether that’s you or RanRan. So we do worry when hurtful language is thrown around (especially as a rhetorical tactic), whether it’s against you or against RanRan or against anyone else.
But I very much appreciate you forgiving Ran on that; and I know the others do, too.
Which is one of several reasons why we allow rather more leeway on that in practice, than we’ve set up in the rules.
Nevertheless, this particular forum isn’t supposed to be a place for people to be anguished. We know some of that can’t be avoided when discussing sharply opposed positions–and we want people to be free to discuss opposing positions, including sharply. Which again is another reason why we try to be lenient when people, anguished as a result, release that anguish consequently–even when it’s against those of us in authority on the board. (Personally, I’d rather it be released against me than for it to be released against anyone else. It’s when other people start to get bothered by it that I get bothered about it.)
But there are other forums to go anguish other people with insulting ad hom personal attacks, if that’s what anyone thinks they are called by Another to do.
And we ask you (and everyone else) to respect that. Please.
OK. To me, debate is fun. But this place was Sleepy Hollow for months - and pretty much a one man show (Jason) for pure volume. He kept it going.
Now there’s some real debate going on and that’s what? Shocking? But, really, isn’t this more fun?
I don’t mind being put up against the wall for what I believe is the truth. What I can’t stand is quasi, watered-down positions that are too safe or meant not to offend. The mushy kind of statements that mean little and are contradicted with the next statement. If it can’t be stated in a direct straightforward manner, then it’s not good theology as far as I am concerned. i.e. It’s good to be pinned down and then stand your ground.
And for what’s it’s worth, I’m not angry at anyone or hate anyone here. Some of what I say is tongue-in-cheek - but I like shockingly direct statements - both giving and taking - in any debate.
Oh my, double post again. I’m begiining to think the sovereign God believes that which I am writing is of such importance, it must be repeated. 