Hell In This Life As Correction


#1

I was reading a bit about the Primitive Baptist Universalists and their view of hell. If you don’t already know, PBUs believe that the punishment of hell exists in this life alone. At the end of this age, all will be raised up to eternal life in an egalitarian heaven. This got me thinking about the more common view of hell among Universalists, that afterlife punishment is aimed at correction and healing to those alienated from God. But what’s to say that the correction and healing of hell could take place while in a heavenly state, by being conscious of the contrast with hell (which was the life on Earth apart from God)? Could a person in the next world, the heavenly state get the same benefit of correction without experiencing punishment, but rather comparing their past carnal life on Earth with their “current” state in heaven?


#2

The view that “, PBUs believe that the punishment of hell exists in this life alone.”, raises many philosophical and theological questions. Now a person like Trumpenstein, is raised in a charmed life. He’s a billionaire and now a US president. But it’s hard to determine, whether he is a Christian or not. Or just a CINO (i.e. Christian in Name Only).

And what if he causes others to massively sin, like this Christianity Today article suggests, at
christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/speak-truth-to-trump.html

Then **contrast **this with folks, who are born into the untouchable classes of India. And born under the North Korean dictatorship or under ISIS.

Why all the suffering and pain for some? But a charmed life for others?
Is it just the luck of the draw?
And does Saint Teresa have the same eventual heavenly status, as Adolf Hitler?
Etc.

And I wonder if you understood their theology correctly? Perhaps so. Look at the Wiki article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Baptist_Universalist

This statement is confusing to me. Can anyone here, clarify it?

Is the PBU theology the same, as what is called Ultra-Universalism?


#3

Obviously then, if Christianity Today advised against Trump, then by default it was suggesting we don’t vote at all - since surely the mag could NOT mean for us to allow a criminal, a liar, and a sexual predator enabler to take the W.H.?


#4

I’m sorry, maybe they did! At least there were a number of ‘evangelical’ leaders on the C.T. site who said things somewhat like this one did:

“There is no question in my mind or spirit that with the overwhelming challenges the next American president will face, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person who has ever run for the Oval Office. On the issues of our national security, economic stability, seeing that healthcare reform continues to move forward, and tackling domestic challenges of poverty, inequality, and racism, we need her to be the person occupying this office.”

The lying, cheating, deception, criminality and enabling of Billy’s bad behavior - somehow did NOT make it into this assessment.

But at least there is no question in her —Spirit???


#5

The lying, cheating, deception, criminality and enabling of Billy’s bad behavior - somehow did NOT make it into this assessment.

Not to mention Hill fully supports late term abortions, that is until the fetus’s can vote!


#6

Right on!


#7

Looks like you are already experiencing hell on earth; your candidate of choice didn’t win and you are stuck in the “anger” stage of grief. I should be sympathetic, but I’m more amused. :laughing:

I had to check the top of the screen to make sure I was on a UR board, because your comments sounded exactly like the arguments made by ET proponents against UR.

Why didn’t you just ask me?

Anyway, I’m putting the guy on “FOE.” Its just not worth it, not here.


#8

AndreLinoge;

Concerning your comments:

No, he’s not my “candidate of choice”, nor was the other candidate, my “candidate of choice”. Christians were presented in the US election, with a moral or ethical dilemma. But he is a good example, to contract with the opposite extremes - untouchables in India, as well as those living under ISIS or the North Korean dictator.

It matters not who brings up the philosophical and theological questions and concerns. Whether folks in the ECT camp, annihilation camp, universalist camp, etc. You asked for feedback and I gave it to you. Or are you just asking these questions to yourself? .

Or do you prefer to just sweep Socratic type, philosophical and theological questions and concerns - under the rug? Especially after you requested them?

I don’t have to just ask the original presenter, to clarify something on a Wiki article. Unless that person is an SME (i.e. Subject Matter Expert), in their field. So it is sound policy, to ask it as a general question - to everyone on the board. Or are you claiming to be an SME? If so, then why don’t you put your qualifications, in your profile?
Since the Wiki article said:

, there must not be too many SMEs, regarding this topic.

Who are you putting on foe? Me, for asking a general question, regarding a Wiki article? Or bringing up the philosophical and theological questions and concerns, when you requested feedback? If so, how is that practicing Christian ethics and good Christian behavior?

To Dave B:
I found Trumpenstein a good example, to contract with the opposite end of the spectrum - which are the Indian untouchables, and folks under ISIS and the North Korean dictator. As you discovered upon reading the article, it does present a balanced perspective. Unfortunately, Christians were presented with a moral or ethical dilemma, when picking between the 2 “outstanding candidate choices”. It’s unfortunate, that the other, earlier Republican candidates, appeared to come straight from the Morgue.


#9

That is in the same general direction of my beliefs: At death we stand naked before the enthroned Christ. In Him we experience what we should have been, in contrast to what we were, and the glory of His Godhead instantly obliterates all imperfections in us, thus freeing us from the bondage of sin.