The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

Sadly, i agree. :cry: Wow, that is pretty darn evil and depraved if you ask me…and that’s putting it mildly… :confused:
No wonder so many people hate Christians and the “god” they worship.
And no wonder so many people become atheists. :blush:

I actually recall having that be a problem when I was an evangelical.

I thought to myself: “So if God is just, and does everything good, then all these people going to Hell is a good thing. I should see it as good…” I couldn’t, though. I recall there were many people in church history who talked about how they’ll enjoy knowing others are in Hell, or appreciate Heaven more because of it. :confused:

Tbh, this pushed me from evangelicalism more than anything.

If I’m to believe in Hell I won’t see it as a good thing. “Love cannot bear that, we must pray for all”. - St Siluoan.

Maybe some people don’t like Christians such as yourself and Jason because of your critical judgmental attitude. You don’t know me one bit yet you call me evil and depraved because I use smilies. Both Jason’s and your comments are way out of line! That is what is sad, Caroleem. Who are you to make such comments? I forgive both you and Jason for your unjust judgmental remarks. :blush:

I hate being set upon by a dozen opponents at once, so I can understand you’re feeling hardly-done-by. But you’re not following arguments through to their logical conclusions, and this is very frustrating.

Here’s how I see it.

When Hitler shot himself, people danced and sang in the streets. What could be more natural? The righteous rejoiced at the downfall of the wicked.

Sinners who reject God are far worse than Hitler. They commit an infinite crime against the infinite dignity of God and deserve infinite punishment. The saints in heaven will experience boundless joy at the sight of the boundless torment of the damned in hell. The greater the crime, the greater the punishment, and the greater the joy of the righteous who witness the just suffering of the wicked.

Again, what could be more natural?

Perhaps one day God will give you the supremely joyful task of tormenting a damned sinner…

If you don’t like the thought of rejoicing over the torment of sinners, there are two alternatives. One alternative is to be horrified at their suffering (which is certain to spoil the heavenly party). The other is to have a lobotomy. If you can think of any other way of reconciling heavenly joy with hellish misery, I’d like to hear it.

Actually, there is another way, but you’ll have nothing to do with it. If suffering the just consequences of their sins will make every man, woman and child come to their senses, then one day hell will be emptied and their suffering justified. Then the party can begin in earnest.

So what’s it going to be? Will you rejoice at their misery; lament their misery; forget their misery; or see their misery as redemptive?

This is foreign to scripture, mate… as are most of your comments. :wink:

Will you rejoice at the sight of grandma being tortured in the fire? Will you lament? Will you not even remember her? Will you pray night and day that God has mercy and saves her? Will you offer to swap places, or at least go to her and share her suffering? Or will you simply have another sip of heavenly wine?

Foreign to Revival’s own personal interpretation of scripture.

If all heaven rejoices when one sinner comes to his senses and heads for home, all heaven will lament when one sinner turns away. But since every tear will be wiped away, no sinner will fail to repent in the end. Our joy will be full, not half-full. What I say is not foreign to scripture. It is foreign to your dark theology and foreign to the temper of your heart. The good news of God’s grace is foolishness to you because it is spiritually discerned. God in his wisdom has yet to open your eyes. He will, when the time is right.

I can discern that most of the things you say are unbiblical. Yea, sure, you mix in a little truth with the fables but 99.9% of the truth is a lie, Allan. :wink: When I read your comments it reminds me of Gen 3:4 " Ye shall not surely die" when God clearly said you would.

Are you actually calling him a liar then?

Revival, You seem be comparing Allan with the father of lies, simply because he interprets the teaching of scripture differently from you. Disgraceful! I’d like to see you withdraw that allegation and apologise to Allan please.

This will make an interesting thread to itself. I’ll start one later on these three passages and Tartarus.

There is only way to interpret scripture not multiple ways. Allan’s comments are originated from his human logic and what he wants scripture to say not what it actually says. Allan is not the devil, nor am I comparing him to the devil, but mixing fables with the little truth he does use is not truth. The devil did the same in Gen 3 and with Jesus in the wilderness. I apologize for the misunderstanding of what I actually meant to say but do not apologize pointing out Allan’s error.

But are you calling him a liar?

I have been called evil and depraved by Caroleem without a blink from you or this board. Why didn’t you question that, Jeff?

Because I haven’t see that (if you are offended by things said to/about you by others then complain to the admins - you’ll be pleased to know I am no longer one of them having resigned).

I am only asking you to clarify whether you think Allan is a liar or not - where in the previous 2 posts have I passed judgement on it one way or the other?

There is only one way to correctly interpret Scripture. Unfortunately, God alone knows what it is.

I own a dictionary of theological ideas. It’s a very thick book containing hundreds of views, all from godly men of learning and integrity. Which one, if any, is correct? Well, I have to decide for myself. This will involve the use of human reason because I’m human and I try to be reasonable. A blinding light from heaven won’t help. (I still have to decide if it’s real or merely my amygdala misfiring.) An infallible Magisterium won’t help. (I have to decide if it’s infallible or fake.) An infallible book won’t help. (I have to decide which book, which canon, which hermeneutic.)

There’s no escape. We have to gird up our loins like men, think for ourselves and take the risk of being wrong. You risk thinking God is infinitely worse than I can imagine. I risk thinking God is infinitely better than you can imagine.

I’m glad we’ve got that cleared up. Or have we? Jesus called Peter Satan when he opposed the work of God. If I am opposing the work of God, if I’m helping to shepherd souls into everlasting hell through my lies, fables and heresies, that makes me diabolical. Worse than a murderer. What better end for a diabolical heretic than slow death by fire, a small foretaste of hell to come. And as I writhe in the flames, all the righteous (those who think like you) will look on and rejoice at this manifestation of divine justice.

Christian history is littered with this logic and God’s good name is blasphemed because of it.

How can your joy be full in heaven if grandma is in hell?

Let’s hear your answer.

Keep in mind, you’re talking about the administrator who has most routinely bent over backward to protect you on this forum (which is why you contacted him and Sonia, the other moderator who has most done this, when you wanted to permission to return to the forum), including within the past few days when he thought someone was even distantly implying that you would be going to hell, and who very demonstrably goes out of his way to be fair to his opponents on a regular basis. Including, once again, very recently in this thread when he volunteered points and corrections against certain claims by universalists in favor of universalism.

You have been invited several times to clarify whether you love the lost in hades/hell, and have so far as I know only replied to the effect that it would be preposterous for God to love them. Which implies it would be equally preposterous for you to love them. Moreover, whatever (mere) feelings you have for the lost are clearly not strong enough to keep you from winking and smirking when you think you’ve rebutted hope for their salvation from sin. It is also abundantly obvious that whatever empathy you have doesn’t extend to even emotionally sympathizing (much less understanding) why anyone would be upset at the notion of someone smirking and winking about (so they think) rebutting the hope of salvation of any group of sinners from sin whoever that group may be.

People who really have strong feelings about the lost, not merely shallow ones, don’t drop those feelings for the purpose of being amused instead at what they think is some kind of disputational victory. So when you do precisely that, over and over and over, then people naturally infer from the evidence you yourself present that your feelings, much moreso your agape love about the lost, are effectively of no weight (and are outright nonexistent concerning the lost dead.)

If you want people to infer something else, then you should present yourself to them in a different way.

I recommend you take that and some other lessons here to heart in the future, when you come back to us next year asking to be let in and trying to convince the administrators and moderators that you’ve repented and changed without providing us any evidence of that but relying on our charity and generosity despite your lack of evidence, merely on your own say-so. Because next time I’m going to more strongly urge the leadership not to do so until you can provide substantial evidence of your current behavior elsewhere off-forum.

You have made a very serious charge against AllenS, namely that he is a liar, someone who is intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Jeff, although not a moderator anymore, is entirely in the right to ask you to clarify whether you really meant to call him a liar or not. You have repeatedly refused to clarify you meant something else than to accuse him of lying, which leaves your statement to stand as it is:

A fable is an intentional fiction; you claim Allan is mixing only a little truth in with his fables; and compare that to mixing in only a tiny amount of an intentional fiction to the truth, still resulting in a lie. This cannot logically be read any other way than to charge Allen with mostly talking intentional fictions about biblical topics.

Not surprisingly you were not content with winking about this, but went on directly to compare Allen with Satan:

You know perfectly well that this is a direct reference to Satan directly lying against God. The only way this could remind you of Allen’s comments, is if you think Allen is also lying directly against God.

When called out on this you tried to cover for it:

Which is still a charge that Allen is directly lying.

Which is merely an assertion after your direct comparison of him to Satan lying against God. You didn’t say you were sorry for comparing him to the devil, but that you didn’t after you very obviously did.

That, Aaron Curry, is a lie.

Not content with lying about directly comparing Allen to the devil, you immediately went on to make the very same comparison again:

Which is again a direct charge of Allen mixing intentional fictions in an intentionally malicious way (“the devil did the same”), and a charge of mostly doing that in only a little truth.

But there has been no misunderstanding. You meant to say that Allen is intentionally lying, and not only a little bit but almost completely, the same way the devil did in Gen 3 and with Jesus in the wilderness. Your own attempt at defending yourself expressly reiterates this.

In itself, we would then require you to back up that charge with evidence. But the fact that you have yourself directly lied (“nor am I comparing him to the devil”) after comparing him to the devil and the devil’s intentional lies, and one breath before doing the exact same comparison again, is itself a gross violation of board protocol.

Not that this was your only defense. You did try one other defense when it became obvious no one (except Allen, perhaps, in an astonishing display of charity) was going to -pass over your claim that you weren’t comparing Allen with the lies of Satan, after and before directly comparing Allen with the lies of Satan.

But you yourself should be entirely aware that I called Lefein down on this only just recently in this same thread.

Your retort, aside from dodging the issue in a way that can only imply you were in fact charging Allen with intentionally lying (but not wanting to bother actually defending your charge about this), implies that the board does not protect you from people who are annoyed by your antics.

Which is not only grossly ungrateful to the people among the leadership who have protected you both times you were here.

It is, in cold fact, a lie, bearing false witness against the board authorities.

I personally am tired of your ungratitude at our forebearance of you (at the expense of the feelings of practically everyone else on the board), and of your provocative smirking unempathetic antics. And I am not going to let someone off for lying about calling Allen a Satanic-level liar against God–an action I can only responsibly regard as lying to charge someone with the sin against the Holy Spirit–which in turn I can only responsibly regard as committing the sin against the Holy Spirit, and currently in an impenitent fashion.

I hereby provisionally ban you from the board for a period not less than a year and a half, possibly to be modified by other administrative votes upon review (and with recommendations pro or con by the moderators). Any threads started by you (and possibly some where you have largely participated) will be locked down at the convenience of the ad/mod team, so as to prevent people from taking advantage of your absence to critique you while you have no ability to defend yourself. Attempts to re-register on the board under a different IP or email address will be grounds for loss of appeal after a year and a half (or whatever such time the adminstrators vote on instead).

I concur on Jason’s admonishment of me, and my post. Which, I did indeed heed and essentially removed for your sake, Revival. Even after the authorities gave me the option of letting the post remain in its entirety.

Let this stand as my “second witness” testimony.

This thread is locked down until further review.