The Evangelical Universalist Forum

In-depth Thesis on "Rejoicing seeing people suffer in ECT"

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#21

“Seriously Bro, I da man!” said the wind to his friend the sun. “You be sittin’ up there in the sky – what do you do? You just shine. If you’re happy you shine; if you’re lonely you shine; if you’re tired you shine; if you’re angry you shine; if you’re sad you shine. You just shine. Whoo hoo! Not too excitin’. I’m way more powerful than you, Bro. You go ahead and shine, but no one’s gonna see you when I blow a bunch of clouds across your happy sappy face.”

The sun just smiled, and the world got brighter. “Tell you what, ol Frien’,” he said. “See that ol’ boy down there, just a’walkin’ down the trail? I’ll bet ‘cha fifty bucks – can you get that ol’ ratty coat off his back?”

The wind just laughed. It sounded like a howling nor’easter. “Sunny Jim, I don’ need no fifty bucks to do that. ‘Sides – what would I do with that chit? Blow it around into a dust devil, that’s what. But I’ll get the ol’ boy’s coat off all right. Sit back and see how it’s done, Son.”

The wind commenced to howlin’. He blew a black bank of clouds over his friend the sun so he could blow even harder. He blew so hard he blew all the heat out of that ol’ boy’s blood and even started the ground to freezin’. But no matter how hard he blew, the ol’ boy just wrapped his coat around hisself the tighter, bent over with his head down, and hurried the more.

After a half hour of that, the sun tapped him on the shoulder (metaphorically speakin’) and said. “Havin’ trouble, Son?”

The wind spluttered. “I’d like ta see you do it better then,” he said. “That ol’ boy ain’t never gonna let go that coat a hisn.”

The sun smiled and the black clouds melted away. The heat and light stopped the wind in his tracks. “Now this is how you do it, Friend Wind,” he said, and started chuckling down at that ol’ boy walkin’ along the trail all hunched over. In no time at all, he straightened up. The sun kept grinnin’ and soon the walker took off his gloves and shoved them in his pockets, then his hat followed the gloves, and he shook out his hair. He unzipped the jacket and turned his face to the sky. Ol’ Sun, he just kept a smilin’, laughin’, chortlin’ even. Pretty soon out came a handkerchief and the ol’ boy commenced to moppin’ his brow. Then don’t you know he was shruggin’ outta that jacket and drapin’ it over his arm.

Well, Good Buddy," the sun said. “So who da man now?”

Sorry . . . I know you’ve all heard that story, but it’s still a good one.

#22

Not to worry Jaelsister, 95% of homosexuals AND their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents, cousins, etc. HAVE already left THIS forum after this last round on homosexuality. Not your fault, but just a bit late. They have gone on their way to “other” places. Pretty sad, but true. As Jason basically said, EVERYONE IS allowed their own beliefs…

#23

And I’m going the same way Bret. I’m so sorry that you had to wade through that pile of offensive horseshit Jason posted. Not offensive to me directly - I’m big enough and ugly enough to look after myself. But to any of the few gay people who might still be brave enough to venture onto the site. There has long been a covert agenda of homophobia on this site, but Jason has done us all a favour by bringing it out into the open.

Admitting you’re a homophobe is one thing, swanning in and giving your fellow homophobes a slap on the back for broadcasting their homophobia is another. But coming up with two pages of homophobic bollocks just to try and win an argument is beneath contempt.

#24

Dear Bret

I’m not surprised and I’m so sorry to hear that. I did stand up for my lgbt brothers and sisters last time, but didn’t have online access during the debate as a whole. I only hope that those lgbt people who are feeling strong and confident in themselves remain on board. It is such an ancient, well established prejudice that I think many usually fair minded people will only change their heart if they see and experience the amazing example of the lives of people like yourself, chipping away bit by bit at the preconceived ideas people have.

I find it mind boggling though that we are so concerned that people might feel insulted if you critique Calvinism in the extreme negative, but can’t see that when calling gay people unnatural or ill etc. One is a belief system, the other is part of the essence of whom someone is. One is chosen, the other innate. One speaks of members of humanity as being destined for evil no matter what, the other just wishes to be left alone and doesn’t affect other people’s lives. The body of Christ still has much to learn before it stops rewhipping its own members or renailing its own limbs. I just hope believers like yourself remain around to teach us

#25

Quoted directly from you, of course. I just changed the topic around.

That’s how Calvinist visitors see what you’re saying.

But as you might say: admitting you’re a Calviphobe is one thing, swanning in and giving your fellow Calviphobes a slap on the back for broadcasting their Cavliphobia is another. But coming up with several pages of Calviphobic bollocks is beneath contempt.

It’s okay if I call you a Calviphobe for your attitudes about Calvinism, right? That’s very fitting and appropriate to what you actually believe and do regarding Calvinists, right? I’m not being unfair to call you that, surely.

I wouldn’t write those things about homosexuals, because I believe it would be wrong for me to treat them that way, despite my belief that homosexual activity and promoting it is also wrong.

I wouldn’t write those things about Calvinists either, because I believe it would be wrong for me to treat them that way, despite my belief that Calvinism and promoting it is also wrong. (Nor would I actually dismiss anti-Calvinist concerns by calling them Calviphobes, as though they’re at best suffering from an irrational mental neurosis.)

What you’re writing about the Calvinists, is what you’d utterly reject if the same attitude was taken toward homosexuals, here or anywhere else. Whether you leave here, or try to dodge the point by imagining (very, VERY wrongly) I was taking an opportunity to spew my own filthy hate on homosexuals, isn’t going to change that.

I’d try to get someone who actually wrote that about homosexuals to tone it down (or since this forum isn’t intended for the purpose of discussing homosexual issues I’d suggest he should go somewhere else if that’s what he wants to talk about); and I’m trying to get people who actually write that sort of thing about Calvinists to tone it down.

But if you can’t stand to be here unless you’re allowed total freedom to treat Calvinists the way you’d be appalled at homosexuals being treated, then I agree you should leave so you can go do that elsewhere. You can tell yourself that Calvinists deserve to be treated like that (like Phelps is absolutely sure in his heart homosexuals and those who might protect them from him, including myself, deserve to be treated like that), and so that makes all the difference.

#26

Without getting into the question of the merits or demerits of either one, homosexuals do develop belief systems dealing with their various conditions; and arguments could be made that Calvinists are only attempting to rationalize and so validate internal pressures they were born with which are part of the essence of who they are.

In fact, the vocal New Atheism movement leans hard on that kind of explanation for all Christian belief, ours included, although Calvinism lends itself especially to being explained as an effect of evolutionary instincts for identifying and preferring the clan or group and competing to the death with other groups in control of resources and breeding rights.

Moreover, since opposition to homosexuality can be explained quite easily as an irrational evolutionary instinct to prevent the unfit from breeding and to keep those who breed improperly from access to limited resources, such opposition can be rightly described as homophobia, a neurosis that ought to be resisted by the person against their biological essence for various reasons. Or legislated against and treated if they won’t agree to resist their own essence.

Reducing the issue to belief vs. nature is too simple. We all have impulses running around in us by birth, and unless all impulses are to be given free rein (which would include the natural impulse to oppress homosexuals) we’re expected to cultivate some impulses under various circumstances and suppress or remove others. The proper question is whether homosexual impulses, as such, are among the impulses which ought to be fully suppressed and/or removed, or whether it’s permissible or even proper to cultivate them in various circumstances. And whichever way we answer those questions involve beliefs. (The same could be said for genetic impulses toward theistic belief or atheistic disbelief or sceptical doubt.)

Personally I believe instinctive emotions against homosexuality, including the instincts I myself was born with, should be suppressed or even removed rather than risk them leading to uncharity to homosexual persons. I don’t regard evolutionary biology to be a justification or even an excuse for promoting those impulses. (Others would disagree.)

On the other hand, I don’t believe all arguments against homosexual activity are merely rationalizations of instinctive anti-homosexual urges; and those arguments convince me to suppress any homosexual urges of my own rather than act to cultivate them.

On yet the other hand, I don’t regard those arguments as easily accessible and understandable, and accepting them requires accepting a large number of difficult theological positions first.

Consequently, I wouldn’t base governmental policy on those arguments. In fact I don’t believe a secular government has the right to force consensual adults to stop the behavior. Nor do I believe a secular government has the right to punish people who oppose that behavior. So I don’t believe governments should stop priests from marrying homosexual couples, nor should force priests to marry homosexual couples. (A priest’s religious organization is in effect a private organization, and he should be expected to abide by the decision of authority in the group or leave the group.) Relatedly, I wouldn’t perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple. On the other hand, I don’t believe homosexual couples need my permission to marry one another, and other things being equal I vastly much more approve of faithful homosexual conjugal union (in what I would agree to acknowledge as marriage) than casual sexual behavior of any kind. I am entirely prepared to vote in favor of governmental rewards for such stable relationships as for heterosexual ones. (I have also somewhat cynically joked that people who want to remove genetic dispositions to homosexuality from a population without violating the rights of the persons involved ought to vigorously approve and promote monogamous unions so as to minimize the spread of the relevant genes!) I understand why people who want to legislate against homosexuality altogether are angling for a constitutional amendment in order to get around judicial legislating-from-the-bench, which violates the checks and balances of our governmental system; but I am on record in a couple of places saying I would regard such an amendment as “an abomination”, and challenging its sponsors to stop couching it as though all they’re doing is affirming heterosexual marriage: dare to make the proposal clearly an amendment about denying rights to people ruled by the government, and then see how much support there is for it as an extension of our Bill Of Rights!–but don’t expect any support from me on it.

Such a position is guaranteed to make no one happy, and it ranks just about at the bottom of my theological priorities or even interests, so I don’t talk about it much; especially on this forum, where the owners would rather the administrators take positions on Christian Universalism (which this forum was set up for discussion and dispute on) than to lend our weight to other controversies.

Since I’m being accused of indulging in “homophobia”, though, for acting to protect Calvinists from the kind of linguistic attacks made by pseudo-Phelps against homosexuals, I figured I had better take a minute to talk about that.

#27

Jason

I offer you an unreserved apology for throwing unwarranted, unfair and untrue accusations at you, particularly that of homophobia, which I retract with shame. I was angry and upset, but nothing excuses such unkindness and unfairness to a brother in Christ (or to anybody, actually) – one whom, I might add, I have always respected and liked.

This debate, such as it is, has very quickly spiralled out of control, to a place where it does nobody any credit – least of all me. The last thing I want to do is to throw further fuel onto the fire, or drag the forum, and with it the glorious truth of EU, any further through the mud. So it is indeed time for me to pick up my chips and find another game. But I feel it would be wrong of me to do so without at least explaining why. So here goes.

My hope has always been (and I know this hope is shared with others here) that one day we will live in a world where people’s sexual orientation is no more an issue than the colour of their hair. We will all be ‘judged’ not by who we love, but by how we love – or don’t love. I had hoped that this forum would be a place where that might happen now, a kind of microcosmic precursor of that better world to come.

But it seems this is not to be. For me the ‘facts’ of the situation are very clear. The Bible is first and foremost a signpost to the Living Word, which is Jesus. Everything God truly is is shown to us in Jesus - who befriended sinners, healed the sick, showed love and compassion to outsiders and the poor and the oppressed, and who never spoke one single recorded word against same sex relationships. For Jesus - and hence for God - being gay simply isn’t an issue. (In fact, there is a view that Jesus actually tacitly endorsed same sex relationships by healing the Centurion’s ‘slave’, who scholars believe was likely to have been his lover, but I wouldn’t press that.)

I see the Bible as a faithful and accurate record of the life and teachings of Jesus, plus a whole bunch of other stuff thrown in - history, myth, poetry, prophecy, legislation, romance, the works. All written by human beings, some of it wonderful and good and literally true, some of it wonderful and good and embodying truth that can only be expressed through story. And then some stuff which is either just plain wrong, or downright hateful crap which reflects the failings of the human beings who wrote it. It doesn’t matter that many of those men and women were very ‘godly’ like Moses or St Paul. Even the godliest of men get it wrong sometimes, have their own faults and prejudices. And some of those faults and prejudices have made it into the Bible – because faulty human beings were the only medium God had to work with. And he patently worked with and through some very faulty people, as we all know.

So what we have to do is apply the truth we know about God as revealed in Jesus to our reading of the Bible. And whenever there is a conflict between that and what the Bible actually says - or appears to say - Jesus trumps the Bible every time. So it is with sexual orientation and practice. There are a tiny handful of verses which appear to teach against same sex relationships. Most of these, when translated and understood correctly, probably don’t actually condemn loving same sex relationships. But even if they did, they would still be trumped by Jesus – in a similar way to how the stuff about God commanding genocide or stoning adulterers to death is trumped by Jesus.

And so it is my firm belief that there is no reason for any follower of Christ to be ‘anti-gay’, to not embrace full, unequivocal equality for all people regardless of where they are on the spectrum of sexual orientation and practice – none, that is, except their own personal negative feelings. Why some of us have those feelings, and whether we can change them, are questions we could and should look to answer. Personally I suspect there is very likely some evolutionary genetic component to all this negativity about gay relationships, in particular male gay relationships, but like you said in your last post this could and should be fought against, as we should fight against other instinctual drives which may lead us to act in contravention of the moral code.

It seems that my belief is not shared by most people on this forum. If both the overt opposition to full equality for LGBT people, combined with the deafening silence of the majority, is any measure of the general consensus, then I am in a very small minority. That makes me very sad. It makes me very sad that I don’t feel I can invite my gay brother here to learn something about the glorious doctrine of UR and be sure that he will feel welcome. I know that there have been gay people who have felt that way themselves.

The point has been made that some of the things I have said might well create a similar situation for Calvinists. So be it. There is simply no escaping the hatefulness of Calvinist dogma. But even the most vocal opponent of full sexual equality would concede that the two issues are of an entirely different order. And of course, as JaelSister has pointed out, there is no parallel here, because – and I acknowledge what you say on the matter, without necessarily agreeing with you, at least not in full – Calvinism is a belief system, something we choose to embrace or (hopefully) reject. Our sexuality is part of us – a vital, essential part of us. And we do not choose it – nor should we wish to, or ever feel like we ought to wish to.

All the best

Johnny

#28

That’s perfectly okay, Johnny. In hindsight, I wish I had gone with my original plan of building a set of quotes against Christian universalism from a pseudo-“True Disciple” (maybe spiced with a few similar things from the real TD last weekend), and I’m certainly very sorry people were upset by it.

I’m also sorry you’re disappointed in this forum not being a microcosm precursor of the better world to come–and I know there are many people looking for such a thing (according to their expectations), and that’s a very proper thing to be looking for, even though by the very nature of things such a search is bound to fail and disappoint short of the actual better world to come.

But the intention for this forum was never that high to begin with (regardless of what shape any of us thinks the better world to come will be and what will or won’t be allowed in it). This isn’t a church. But many people don’t have a church (me neither at the moment) and are looking for one. I’m sorry if this forum doesn’t turn out to be the kind of church people are looking for, for various reasons, because I know people become upset when that happens–but that was always going to happen because we aren’t a church. We’re a more-or-less academic discussion forum with some social capabilities. Someone presents an idea, we chew over it pro and con for a while, each of us figures out what best to take away from the discussion, maybe we learn something new to improve our perception of the truth more accurately, hopefully some resources for future research and help are provided along the way.

The staff takes a few doctrinal positions related to the purpose for the forum’s existence (which is debating various forms of Christian universalism pro and con, and non-universalistic alternatives), but leaves everything else up to the members so as to exclude as few people as possible from the discussion of the forum’s main topics.

If you don’t think you should be discussing Christian universalism on a forum where the staff doesn’t come down solidly 100% on the side of approving of homosexual relationships, then okay, don’t discuss CU here. We also don’t come down solidly 100% on the side of disapproving of the systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of biological humans every year who by any standard are too young to choose between doing good or evil, and there are people who would never participate here because of that. Or because we don’t take a stand 100% approving of it (for whatever reasons), on the other hand. Maybe because each type of person wants to be in a microcosm precursor of the better world to come where one or the other of those things is fully supported.

I don’t blame anyone for that. I’m just trying to explain (as we have to explain to people’s disappointment on occasion) that we aren’t a church and we don’t take official sides (regardless of our personal beliefs) on those issues in order to create a community where those issues go one way instead of the other.

Clearly there is plenty of interest in making an online Christian universalist church congregation. So, go make one!–or two or three of different flavors. Stop by here every once in a while like a scholastic library to pick up something you find useful, take it back to your church and make use of it. Let us know where you set up the church, and we’ll post links for visitors; those of us looking for an online CU congregation may gladly join. :slight_smile:

God’s grace and peace to you, whatever you do. {bow!}

#29

As an addendum to my previous post on what I actually believe about homosexuality:

I recall being asked (by a member named Bret, whom some of you here will know, who has given me full permission to use this example with his name and significant other included) whether I would recommend for two homosexual men already in a gay committed marriage to be celibate.

My answer, word for word, with Bret’s permission:

I will also add that, for various obscure technical reasons, I have less problem with two women entering such a relationship than two men. So what I said there would also apply to a lesbian relationship, in case there’s some question.

Edited to also add subsequently: I also believe, and have told homosexuals this on occasion, that I DO NOT believe most homosexual behavior will be punished for impenitence, only behavior which is used uncharitably or otherwise toward the fulfillment of non-fair-togetherness – which is exactly the same principle on which I expect anyone else to be punished, first and foremost Christians who insist on being uncharitable. In most other cases, I fully believe some adjustments will be made as God sees fit and then the people will be free to love one another even moreso than before, probably even conjugally (or a post-resurrection equivalent). Or if I (and various scriptural authors) are wrong about it being a problem at all, then there will be no problems at all (except for those who apply it uncharitably, but as with anything else the uncharity and injustice will be the problem), and I certainly won’t have any problems at all with that in principle. On the contrary I expect my own feelings on the topic to be adjusted by God in the resurrection.

(But then, neither do I defend those feelings now by claiming they are the essence of who I am–even though a merely biological argument might be made along that line–therefore I have a right to feel and express them without critique or any possible expectation of adjustment.)

#30

Thank you Jason. I’m sure I will drop by from time to time. There are many truly lovely people here.

May God’s blessing be with you - all of you - always.

Love

Johnny

#31

This is fine, so long as “time to time” means every day or two. :slight_smile:

Cheers.

#32

Dear Johnny,

Quoting your first post below on this topic, you will notice I have chosen to highlight a couple of pieces in black which between one Brit and another would seem rather over the top; and not very helpful for potential converts from Calvinism or even convinced Calvinists coming on to the Forum . As a Brit I cannot help supporting an under-dog even if he were to be a Calvinist against such an onslaught, and I guess that’s more or less why Jason, quite rightly in my view, has taken the time and care, very thoughtfully and calmly, to steady the boat, and why Cindy has told us that lovely story, as brave and effective way as any in explaining our belief vs ECT.
Read your and their posts again brother and stay with us!

Love to all

Grandpa Michael in Barcelona!

The trouble is, of course, that an atheist or agnostic reading this - or more likely encountering this sort of thinking in a Calvinist friend or colleague - isn’t necessarily going to know that this sort of vicious cruelty is not only unbiblical, but is in fact the polar opposite of the true gospel message. And hence, unless exposed to a balancing Universalist or Arminian view of scripture and God, they are highly likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject the gospel altogether.

Which is why t**his sort of ‘religious’ Calvinist pornography needs to be rooted out and flushed swiftly down the toilet where it belongs. **I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Calvinism is a far greater evil, and far more damaging to the spread of the Kingdom, than even the most militant forms of atheism. Indeed, if Calvinism were the only religious show in town, the only right and moral thing to do would be to become an atheist.

Cheers

Johnny

#33

I praise God to see peace between brothers! Thank you both for your humility and for taking the time to reconcile - I think it is a good witness.

[tag]johnnyparker[/tag] it would be a shame to see you leave, and if you’re able to stay that would be great. However, if you do feel it’s time to move on, know that you’re always welcome to come back.

Thank you for explaining your views on LGBT people, as it’s really helpful to someone like me who’s on the fence - I’d honestly like to just agree with you, but I’m still uncertain how to deal with some of the NT passages on the matter, particularly given I grew up in a conservative church. Hopefully one day I’ll have time to look into it more deeply, ideally finding a book on it by someone I trust (e.g. Parry, Talbott, Dickson, etc.). I have friends who are LGBT & I’m not phased by them at all, I tend not to even think about them as LGBT, just as people :slight_smile:

#34

Johnny
I’ve been taking a break from posting on this forum but I cannot allow this to pass.
Jesus said “The truth shall set you free”. When we stop proclaiming the truth, then we are failing Christ himself and all other people, both believers and non-believers.
I have absolutely no doubt that Calvinism is an evil doctrine and we have a bounden duty to state as much as plainly as we can. I thank you for honouring God in this way at no little cost to yourself. Personally I am convinced that it is a doctrine of demons and if I fail to say this, then I am not showing true Love to those who are ensnared in such a wicked and harmful belief system.
Why anyone should want to make comparisons with how we handle the essence of personhood (including sexual orientation) and a chosen belief system such as the one popularised by the murderer Calvin is totally beyond my comprehension.
As it happens,my views on homosexuality are very close to your own but that is irrelevant to the OP and your desire to shine the light and Love of Christ onto those who perpetuate a sinister discriminatory theology. Such a theology is driving countless thousands of skeptical, but more morally righteous people, away from any possibility of being able to follow Christ. I find the sycophantic approach of some, who claim to believe that God loves all and yet would pussy-foot around those who promote a demon of a god to be, at the very least nauseating and more probably hypocritical. Is it really a cultural thing to regard such an approach as dishonest? And is it really a cultural thing to regard straight talking as actually more Loving and kind to those with whom we disagree? I cannot answer those questions but I DO believe that if people like you play less of a role on this forum, then the fog will descend somewhat on the Good News that Christ died for ALL people of ALL beliefs and orientations.
May God continue to bless your ministry at home and abroad. I feel privileged to have encountered your passion to help those who are downtrodden by religious bigotry.

#35

Alex,

I have an Uncle who is old (82), a SeventhDay Adventist Minister for 60 years and the last 15 years of his ministry, he was in charge of 1,200 ministers, meaning they answered to him. Now, IF you know anything about SDA’s, they ARE extremely conservative. I sent him the book I’m about to tell you about and even in his own conservatism, he thought it so profound that he bought a copy for each and everyone of his ministers. I don’t know IF the writers are people you respect like Talbot, however, it is edited by Walter Wink who is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. The book is actually written by several authors and was edited by Dr. Wink. The name of the book is “Homosexuality and Christian Faith”… Questions of Conscience for the Churches. I only brought my Uncle into the conversation because he IS so conservative, however, he did want ALL of his ministers to have a copy so they would have an educated idea of how to treat the LGBT community. Don’t know IF this is what you are wanting or even needing, but here it is. :question: :question:

Blessings,
Bret

#36

Thanks Bret! Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches sounds very helpful so I’ve bought the kindle version to read :sunglasses:

#37

You are welcome Alex, I pray you find it not only of interest but helpful in your seeking of truth, meaning, and love.

Many blessings,
Bret

P.S. We ARE just people… :laughing: :laughing:

#38

FWIW, I sometimes agree with the majority on issues here, but often enough hold a minority view. My basic bias is that denigrating the character of those who hold a view that we personally find hideous (even if such attack is deserved) does not facilitate useful discussion that is likely to lead to reconsideration by those who we find to be deeply in error. I think I understand the passions for justice and truth that lead to such an approach, and I apologize for times when I have let the repugnance of another’s view lead me to attack their character. But my experience is that I am more apt to re-evaluate my views when someone of a differing view leaves the focus on the reasons why they think my view is incorrect.

#39

I think we may be missing something here. The desire to see ones enemies in hell is a simple human one, similar to the urge to break all the other commandments. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is difficult when looking at a young, healthy member of the opposite sex, “Thou shalt not covet” gets tricky when you see someone else with a Range Rover. That’s just being human.

The problem is that it’s all too easy to graft some ideas onto one’s beliefs and think they are approved by God when they aren’t.

I’m a semi-professional writer, that means writing is a hobby that makes me a little money, not enough to live on. This is a quote from a thriller that I wrote, but never published. Our hero is tackling a terrorist who is holding a push button wired up to an old soviet nuclear warhead:

*I couldn’t see any way out. If we tackled Ahmed together or singly he’d kill us with the automatic and the bomb would go off. If we did nothing it’d go off anyway. Whatever happened London was going to die in five hours time

I’d never believed in any sort of religion. I’d not been able to go along with the sort of God who’d condemn someone to an eternity in hell, whatever they’d done. Only now I wasn’t so sure.

I’d just seen the point of hell. If, as the last few seconds ticked away, when it was all too late, Ahmed suddenly knew that he was on the edge of the pit, that he’d burn in agony for ever, it’d still be less than he deserved.

I only hoped God would let me drop in from time to time and stoke the furnace.
*
That’s written from an unbeliever’s point of view, but it illustrates my point that the idea of eternal punishment is something that easily gets tacked on to any belief system. It’s something that we bring to scripture, not something we learn from it.

#40

True, if it was something specially learned from the scriptures, it wouldn’t be so prevalent a belief all over the world.

Which is not to say that prevalent worldwide beliefs are necessarily wrong, to be fair; just that if they’re right they can’t count as special revelation of the sort typically appealed to. General revelation perhaps.

But I expect it’s part of our biological instincts–which have been corrupted. When the most evil people imaginable would seem to have no problem, as the most evil people imaginable, inflicting a condition on someone else, we’re probably not looking at the proper application of it at least, in attributing the same behavior to God.

The greatest evildoer would never, in being the greatest doer of evil, preach that all rebels will eventually be led back to loyalty to his opponent, much less that this would happen due primarily to the self-sacrifice of his opponent. That would have to include himself, and would undercut his whole rationale (for want of a better word) in rebelling. He would be better off, insofar as he thought he could gain power thereby, to convince people that having rebelled against authority there is no hope for them so they might as well remain evil doers.

The greatest doer of evil would, on the other hand, have no conceivable problem I can see in condemning all enemies of his, except those who swore loyalty to him, to hopelessly continuing punishment (until or unless he got bored and annihilated them). I don’t see that he would have any conceivable problem deciding that he would never even try to bring some of them over to loyalty to himself.

This is no doubt the root of the anti-Calv complaints about Calvinistic ideas of God (although almost the same complaint could be lodged against any Arminianistic idea that involved God hopelessly punishing impenitent rebels–the difference being that at least he tried to bring everyone back to loyalty first). But while I sympathize with that complaint, I cannot regard it as being quite as bad as Moloch worship, because no evildoer acting as an evildoer would ever sacrifice himself to save the very enemies he sacrificed himself to. Much less would he ever sacrifice himself to his own enemies in order to save them.

Calvinism is still Christianity, and still trinitarian Christianity. It can’t be fair to forget that they are; and I don’t believe it can be metaphysically correct to regard the sacrifice of Christ to mean less than actions they propose of God which, aside from God’s superior power levels, would be easily and gladly taken by the greatest doer of evil (as the greatest doer of evil, of unrighteousness, of non-fair-togetherness) the moment he had the capability to do so.

This is why I believe we ought to concentrate primarily on what they and we agree they (and we) are getting RIGHT. And then when opportunities logically arise thereby for critiquing what we think they’re misunderstanding, we can do so from a shared ground of agreement.

That’s what we ought to even prefer that they would do for us, the other way around.

That is the path of fair-togetherness between opponents.