Poll: In a trillion years time, what wins?


In a trillion years time, what happens?

  • All people will love some others.
  • All people will love all others.
  • Some people will love some others.
  • Some people will love all others.
  • There will be no people.
  • I don’t know.
  • I can’t know.

0 voters

This has been sparked by a Calvinist who told me in heaven we (& God) would hate those in hell, and that those in hell would hate those in heaven :open_mouth:

So I suspect:

]Not sure/:m]
]Universalists & annihilationists/:m]
]Calvinists (& Atheists who think the world hasn’t come to an end)/:m]
]Atheists who think the world has come to an end/:m]
]Open Theists/:m]

I want to trial the poll here before doing it on FaceBook (where I’d love your help to at least give the world some hope!!).

I’m assuming Judgement Day will happen in the next million years, so a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) years should hopefully see hell finished too and for any Atheists, humanity should have ceased by than!


I’m going to have to change it to “not love” as some people don’t like the word “hate”.


Alex’s Calvinist friend: …a Calvinist who told me in heaven we (& God) would hate those in hell…

Tom: Finally heaven gets turned into hell and both equally hate the other.

I’ve never been more tempted to dissociate myself from someone who says they follow Christ. Truly, the worldviews are so disconnected it’s like they’re not even in the same religious camp.



These people lack both imagination and empathy. They rule (and are ruled) by fear.

O Lord, have mercy on them. Have mercy on us all.


Yes, I couldn’t help but think that :frowning:


So do people think the wording is now ok to put onto FaceBook?


Yes why not? Could start an interesting conversation.


Ok finally got the guts up to ask on FB facebook.com/home.php?sk=qu … ion_answer Hope I get a good response :neutral_face:


Those evil Calvinists. (Whoever they are and whatever it is.)


But Luke, it is an evil doctrine.

An Olympic swimmer called Calvin and his friend are walking along the beach. A big sign says DO NOT SWIM.

They hear screams.

Friend: Calvin! Look! Ten girls are drowning in the surf.

Calvin: Can’t they read the sign? Stupid and rebellious girls! They broke the law. Now they must suffer the consequences.

Friend: Surely they don’t deserve to drown?!

Calvin: I see you are a sentimentalist when it comes to the Law. Here is the hard truth. “The soul that swimmeth, it shall die.”

Friend: You must do something!

Calvin: I must? MUST? I am not obligated to do anything, but since I am a supremely merciful man, I will save, let me see… eeni meeni mynee mo… I will save the blond.

Friend: Only one? Surely you can save them all?

Calvin: Of course I could, but I choose to save only the blond. Remember, they all deserve death. That I choose to save even one is a mighty demonstration of my glory both as a swimmer and as a compassionate man. Now stop arguing. Call the Press. I want all the world to see how wonderful I am.


But this is the difficulty, You say eternal punishment is the worst thing there is and I say rebelling against God is the worst, most horrible thing there is.

In the end it seems to be an emotional decision which we both decide is right or maybe for me it’s the result of reading too much Blocher (Evil and the Cross).


Rebellion against God is the greatest crime… and is met decisively by even greater grace. This is Deep Magic. If God be for us, who can be against us? If neither angels or demons can tear me away, my own rebellious self-will is also unable to separate me from the love of God in Christ.

God (who can do all things) can so arrange circumstances that the hardest of sinners will tire of his pigs and begin to hanker for his father’s house.


That to me is a great description of Calvinism.


You have no moral qualms over my Olympic Swimmer? :open_mouth:

What if it was your sister or daughter who was left to drown?


No the swimmer example is to much of a caricature, it wrongly implies that original sin is something innocent like swimming. I don’t want to subscribe to theological system that downplays sin.

That’s more like it, although you would want to allow also for people getting want they want (like Adam and Eve getting want they want) and for Hell to being less of a purgatorial then you’re making out, but otherwise a great description of grace that I can agree with.


There is nothing innocent about Breaking the Law. Otherwise, Adam merely ate an apple. What a huge fuss over something so innocent!

Let’s try a different scenario. A woman’s family is burned alive by a gang of religious fanatics. Which response is more godly? More glorious? More praiseworthy?

a) She forgives them all and earnestly works for their blessing.

b) She chooses to forgive one of them at random, setting him free. She tortures the others to death.


It’s more than just breaking the law, it’s the worst attack on God imaginable.

I’m not sure how forgiveness works without repentance. But it’s certainly not a case of seeing the family being burned alive as a wonderful thing because of the forgiveness for everyone concerned is the result. Reminds me of the ancient example of the Stoic who laughed while his master cut off his leg in torture because he realised that at it’s base the universe is an optimistic place and everything even the worst evil works for good of everyone.

Yes this is rhetoric but what distinguishes it from other rhetoric, really, at the end of the day?


Hi Luke,

You’ve argued this in the past: “Sin against an infinite God is an infinite sin. Therefore it merits infinite punishment.”

Where is this idea taught in the Bible? I suspect it’s a philosophical speculation, and not a very good one. A mosquito bite against a big man isn’t therefore a big bite. Nor does the mosquito deserve a bigger slap than if it bit a small man. Why not argue: God is omnipotent. Therefore nothing we can do can hurt him in any way whatsoever. Or, more Biblically, no matter how deep our sin, God’s grace is deeper still.

Gladys Staines forgave the mob that burned Graham and her two boys. The mob didn’t beg forgiveness. While they were yet enemies, she forgave them all. She didn’t elect to forgive one but not another. It was a profoundly god-like act. And truly, when I met her at the Little Mother’s house, she shone like Galadriel.


I have and I haven’t heard a strong counter argument.

What isn’t philosophical speculation? The Trinity … Universalism?

But all that analogy does is shift the attention away from the nature and severity of sin.

What’s wrong with the holiness of God argument?

I’m not sure how that makes repentance an unnecessary component of forgiveness. I also still doubt that Gladys would delight in the murder of her family because of the forgiveness that resulted, her husband seemed like a lovely man.


“The mag­ni­tude of the pun­ish­ment matches the mag­ni­tude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infi­nite; the higher the per­son against whom it is com­mit­ted, the graver the sin—it is more crim­i­nal to strike a head of state than a pri­vate citizen—and God is of infi­nite great­ness. There­fore an infi­nite pun­ish­ment is deserved for a sin com­mit­ted against Him.”

But where does the Bible teach this? Is it more wicked to cheat a shopkeeper than to cheat a beggar; more wicked still to cheat a politician; and infinitely more wicked to cheat God? If this is true, why don’t the scriptures expound it? It would be a profoundly important judicial principle. Every crime would have to be measured against the relative social standing of those involved. “Eye for eye” would work only for social equals. If I harmed the eye of someone more important than me, he could demand both my eyes plus a testicle as fair compensation. :open_mouth: If my victim was less important than me, he could demand perhaps a poached egg as compensation for his entire left leg! Extrapolating, God could burn me forever in response to an infinitely small sin, a sin so small that I could never, ever, ever, see it. Gee… That’s unsettling… (Picture all these trapdoors in heaven, with people suddenly disappearing into a puff of sulfurous smoke, and never, ever knowing why…) And all this from a God whose “mercies never fail”.

Nah. I don’t swallow it.

I think Aquinas’s theory reflects the hierarchical social mores of his time. It was in the interests of the ruling class to put about the idea that they were intrinsically superior to everyone else. (Jesus had something to say about such people.)


Luke, this is the second time in one day that I notice you make unsubstantiated claims about our (ie people on this forum and Tom Talbott) ignorance/misunderstanding of Calvinism. I hope this is more than a cheap meaningless jibe and that you will help us all by re-informing our views and correcting us where we are wrong. I for one, would like to know if my understanding of Calvinism is in error and how Tom Talbott has created a strawman in his book.