[davidk]

neon,
The universalist arguement is that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their behavior. If that is true, it would finally make no difference if you tortured someone or not. Making moot any descrimination between right and wrong, making morality an empty word. There finally would be no difference in any behavior.
Now, by knowing there is a difference, that morality does exist, and by the shear weight of your reason, the concept of universalism proves false.

Judges: God had given to Jephthah a certain measure of valor and might to conquer the Ammomnites, but that did not imply God approved of such as human sacrifices.

My claim is that there is a right and wrong and Christianity is finally consistent with it. I have not in any way implied a claim that anyone who does not believe the same as I would be immoral.

Remember, only God is good. It is only by His power that we can do anything good. Good is obedience to God and His laws. Anything in disobedience to God is evil.
In the Samaritan story, he was doing good, albeit, unwittingly.

I believe taking sadistic pleasure in inflicting intense pain on others is considered evil. I believe in not inflicting any more pain on someone than I would expect to endure to save the life of someone else.
-
Tariki,
Sartre also said finite man can find no significance for his own existance without an infinite reference point(God). Even though he refuted the existance of God, he had no other answer to offer on the infinite source.
It is difficult to be free prior to becoming existant or having essence. There is no one there to make any choices.
Consequences are simply the results of our choices. Some are temporal, some eternal. We must also not neglect the concepts of repentence and forgiveness.

We must also consider the author of the texts. I offer for you to consider that the texts have but one interpretation, but may have many applications.
-
AITNOP,
I believe in the Christian concept of the relationship with God, not as threatening, but loving. In that relationship, I know who the dominant personality is. My love for God causes me to be obedient, not the threat of punishment. By His love for all man He has provided us a way to be with Him. The key is that I cannot discard the path He has lovingly made in order to make my own and still be able say I love Him. That demonstrates a distrust, not love. Because I love Him I follow His guidance. I agree love is what Jesus was teaching, but shall we not neglect what else Jesus said, it's only by abiding in Him can we do good, and only through Him can we be with the Father.

[tariki]

David,

You stated........

The universalist argument is that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their behavior

The universalist "argument" ends at the word Heaven. Thomas Talbots book "The Inescapable Love of God" is worth a read. He deals in depth with "behaviour" and its consequences within a Universalist perspective.

By the way, thanks for your words on Sartre. I never really spent much time on the atheist existentialists nor subsribed to their views, though I retain a deep respect for the sheer humanity of Albert Camus.

All the best.
Derek

P.S. I'll retire now to the relative safty of the "Other Wisdom Traditions" section, where I feel more at home.

[Neon Genesis]

davidk, on 19 November 2009 - 03:40 PM, said:

[font="Garamond"][size="4"]neon,
The universalist arguement is that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their behavior. If that is true, it would finally make no difference if you tortured someone or not. Making moot any descrimination between right and wrong, making morality an empty word. There finally would be no difference in any behavior.
Now, by knowing there is a difference, that morality does exist, and by the shear weight of your reason, the concept of universalism proves false.

But I think the opposite is true, that if you believe your way is the one true way and anyone who doesn't agree deserves to be tortured by God for all eternity, then it's a harder temptation to resit putting yourself on God's throne and judging humanity in God's place. If you believe you and people who agree with you alone are God's elect, it's only a step away from believing everyone else is God's unchosen, which is a step away from believing everyone else is God's rejected. And if you believe everyone else that doesn't agree with you is God's rejected, what's to stop one from believing that their enemies are God's enemies and so anything that's done to them no matter how immoral it is is sanctified by God? Again, I don't mean to say all Christians who believe in hell are also immoral, but as I pointed out, all the evidence points to that there's no connection between your morality and a lack of belief in hell.

Quote

Judges: God had given to Jephthah a certain measure of valor and might to conquer the Ammomnites, but that did not imply God approved of such as human sacrifices.

Then why didn't God intervene and save Jepthah's daughter at the last minute like he did for Abraham's son if this is a literal story? If it was all Jephthah's fault, why didn't God just punish him instead of dragging his innocent daughter into it?

Quote

My claim is that there is a right and wrong and Christianity is finally consistent with it. I have not in any way implied a claim that anyone who does not believe the same as I would be immoral.

What was right about God's commandment in Numbers 31:16-18?

Quote

These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Quote

I believe taking sadistic pleasure in inflicting intense pain on others is considered evil. I believe in not inflicting any more pain on someone than I would expect to endure to save the life of someone else.

So if you accept inflicting intense pain on others is evil, why is it moral for God to torture people in hell for eternity?

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"I believe in the Christian concept of the relationship with God, not as threatening, but loving. In that relationship, I know who the dominant personality is. My love for God causes me to be obedient, not the threat of punishment."
We are right on the same page, here.


"By His love for all man He has provided us a way to be with Him. The key is that I cannot discard the path He has lovingly made in order to make my own and still be able say I love Him. That demonstrates a distrust, not love."
You're probably hearing a distrust in the limited human view of God we receive in the Bible, rather than a distrust of God.

"Because I love Him I follow His guidance. I agree love is what Jesus was teaching, but shall we not neglect what else Jesus said, it's only by abiding in Him can we do good, and only through Him can we be with the Father."
Well, I certainly know people that do much Good in the world that don't abide in Jesus. And, if Jesus is the embodiment of pure Love, then it is not a far leap to say "Love is the way, Love is the Truth, Love is the Life. No one comes to God without Love."

DavidK,

I'm not going to spend much more time on this, because I'm working on a project to help needy children in my town. I'll just say that it's fine with me if you believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that God would punish most of God's children in eternal torment. Neither of us know the full truth about God, so as long as your beliefs result in radical compassion, loving your enemy, love in action, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self-control I think your ideas about God are working for you. Just please, don't try to motivate others by fear of punishment. It gives Christianity a bad name.

Should we create another forum to talk about how our beliefs influence our actions? For example, if I believed God was going to send anyone who didn't believe in Jesus to Hell, I would spend every waking moment trying to get everyone to believe in Jesus. Instead, I see "Love God and Love Your Neighbor" as my mandate. I'm spending most of my time trying to help God's kingdom come on this earth. I'd be interested to hear how your faith influences your daily actions, because I'm guessing we'd come out much closer in the practice of our faith than we do in discussing the background theology.

Janet (AITNOP)

This post has been edited by AllInTheNameOfProgress: 20 November 2009 - 10:44 AM

[Mike]

davidk, on 19 November 2009 - 03:40 PM, said:

neon,
Sartre also said finite man can find no significance for his own existance without an infinite reference point(God). Even though he refuted the existance of God, he had no other answer to offer on the infinite source.

I do think there is a lot of merit to this sentiment, as I see it in my life and in religions generally. That we need to identify with some greater or deeper than the individual self, in my experience, is true. I think that there is an inherent incompleteness in the self, which makes us seek that which is complete, and in this sense, infinite, eternal. I like 'undefined,' as in 'beyond definition or category'. But the fact is, there have been plenty of 'answers' or names given to the 'infinite source' other than 'God'. Buddha-nature, Tao, Brahman, and a myriad of others, are all 'other answers' to the question of the infinite. The Greeks sought a quintessence, the Buddhists negated an essence. But each sough the infinite.

Peace to you,
Mike