BeachOfEden Posted December 5, 2005 Author Share Posted December 5, 2005 "I didn't know that conditionalists and annihilationists drew that fine distinction between themselves. I guess JW's fall more into the annihilationist camp. Of course, in their view, annihilation is conditional upon response or non-response (ie: believing the "right" things) to God." Can some exppain the basics of HOW annilationsists ARE 'different' from Conditionalists? Thanks! This will prove vaualbel to my research! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Can some exppain the basics of HOW annilationsists ARE 'different' from Conditionalists? Thanks! This will prove vaualbel to my research! It's kind of a fine point, really. Conditionalism says that humans are by nature mortal, but God grants immortality to the redeemed. Annihilationism, conversely, says that humans are by nature immortal, but God grants termination of existence to the unredeemed (so that they will not have to endure unending torment). Those who are not redeemed either simply pass out of existence naturally (conditionalism) or are wiped out of existence "unnaturally" (annihilationism). Either way, the result is pretty much the same, as far as a doctrine of Hell is concerned, which is why the two tend to get lumped together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Are you saying that it is the "norm" for Universalists to believe that God will force non-believers into returning to him? I don't know what the norm is, but it seems one could just as easily be a predestination Universalist as a free will Universalist. (Parenthetically.... Of course, the language we've been using contributes to the problem. I think the apparent contradiction between "predestination" and "free will" always goes away as you get more philosophically precise about the God-world relationship; but then the discussion starts to revolve more around language and concepts than around the original topic! And I don't want to derail a really good discussion, as I'm wont to do.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 (edited) Conditionalism says that humans are by nature mortal, but God grants immortality to the redeemed. Annihilationism, conversely, says that humans are by nature immortal, but God grants termination of existence to the unredeemed (so that they will not have to endure unending torment). First I said JW's were conditionalists, then I ammended that to saying they are annihilationists. Now I have to ammend my ammendment. JW's believe humans are by nature mortal and are either granted everlasting life on earth (the sheep), OR immortality in heaven (the 144,000), (everlasting life and immortality are two different things in their view) OR are annihilated by God (the goats). So technically, they are both. I don't know what the norm is, but it seems one could just as easily be a predestination Universalist as a free will Universalist. Agreed, which was my original thought. I just wondered if perhaps you knew something about "official" Universalist doctrine I might not have heard. I definitely affirm free will, but you knew that. I think the apparent contradiction between "predestination" and "free will" always goes away as you get more philosophically precise about the God-world relationship Definitely. I just read a wonderful metaphor about "free-will within God's will" that I really appreciated. I know you and I have discussed this in the past, and I was never able to grasp it, but the analogy I just read gave me a bit of an epiphany. But like you said, to discuss it here more in depth will most likely hijack the discussion. Perhaps another thread? Edited December 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 JW's believe humans are by nature mortal and are either granted everlasting life on earth (the sheep), OR immortality in heaven (the 144,000), (everlasting life and immortality are two different things in their view) OR are annihilated by God (the goats). So technically, they are both. What an interesting and overcomplicated view of eschatology. So, everlasting life on earth would be the continuance of a mortal life (just without the whole pesky thing about dying); whereas immortality in Heaven would be a superior mode of existence where one would transcend mortality, time, space, etc., altogether? I think the everlasting continuance of mortal life on earth would get really, really boring after, oh, I don't know, about 3,385,238,213,328,453,432 years. "What's for dinner, sweetie?" "Meatloaf." "Again? We just had that last millennium....." But like you said, to discuss it here more in depth will most likely hijack the discussion. Perhaps another thread? Eh, not this month. I'm still recovering from the last one! I think I'd like to spend Advent meditating a little less on the New Birth in my head, and a little more on the New Birth in everything else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 What an interesting and overcomplicated view of eschatology. No doubt. Heaven would be a superior mode of existence where one would transcend mortality, time, space, etc., altogether? Ya know, I highly doubt that they even bother to think it through. The view I was taught of God and Heaven as a JW were EXTREMELY anthropocentric. I doubt they even view immortality as a difference in being as much as they do a difference in location. Eh, not this month. I'm still recovering from the last one! LOL! Okey dokey. Although I wasn't picturing the discussion going quite as deep as our last one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted December 6, 2005 Author Share Posted December 6, 2005 QUOTE(AletheiaRivers @ Dec 5 2005, 03:44 PM) JW's believe humans are by nature mortal and are either granted everlasting life on earth (the sheep), OR immortality in heaven (the 144,000), (everlasting life and immortality are two different things in their view) OR are annihilated by God (the goats). So technically, they are both. Fred P: "I think the everlasting continuance of mortal life on earth would get really, really boring after, oh, I don't know, about 3,385,238,213,328,453,432 years." It depends how you paint it. If everlasting life on a perfected earth is natural like Native American then I think it WOULD be great...with cystle clear lakes and white sand beaches and humanity being one with nature...but if it's some fundiem old elder JW's vision of New York Skyscaper world with suites and ties..then whether then was on solid organic matter ground or a spiritual relm it sounds boring. But you have to figure that it seems a vast majority of Protestants and Catholics and the like explain their vision of heaven being like earth perfected..and in such as case...a natural paradise earth and this vision of a perfectly earthly heaven come out to be the same discription..only different locations. The Victorian painting of heaven sounds pretty weird and boring..with people laying around all day on clouds and strange over-weight chubby winged babies flying around like cupid..pretty abstact and un-natural Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Some of us who've been around for a while find the world we live in to be abstract and unnatural, especially in urban settings. Did you know that between about 1950 and 1980 the percentages of people living in rural areas vs. urban areas switched from about 50% vs. 50% to about 20% vs. 80% ? Yeah, fer sure, abstract and unnatural. Why would urban people imagine it to be anything different if G-d truly does have the best time machine? flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystictrek Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I do agree that any notion of a "God" who literally tortures people by throwing them into a never-ending furnace for breaking his laws is repugnant. This isn't divine "justice" or "holiness" as some people claim -- it's pure bloodthirstyness, a projection of the worst human abuses of power onto God. At the same time, as I've largely come to read the core stories of the Bible archetypally and allegorically, I ask myself what reality might the "eternal torment" view of Hell -- which does come out of the mouth of Jesus in the gospels, and is pretty hard to miss in Revelation -- possibly be pointing at? I think it comes down to two things. First, choice. Hell is our persistent willful choice to remain separate from God, and to stay wrapped up in attachments and identities that create pain and suffering and destruction, for ourselves and everyone around us. However, since God is the eternal Ground, the True Self of everything that exists, real separation from God is actually impossible. We are all equally eternally surrounded and bathed in the radiating love of God; the difference between Heaven and Hell has to be in our own hearts. To a heart that continually rejects its inescapable union with God in favor of the impossible condition of separation, the radiating waves of God's love actually feel like flames that are trying to destroy us. The fact is, we're really in Heaven, and always have been -- we only believe we're in Hell. As C. S. Lewis says, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside." Secondly, patience. God so thoroughly respects our freedom to choose union, that God allows us to persist in our rejection eternally if we so choose. The "eternal" in "eternal torment" isn't so much a statement about our punishment, as it is a statement about God's patience. It points to the fact that God will never abandon our hearts to self-destruction; God will wait forever if need be. Origen -- and possibly even St. Paul, though that's debatable -- long ago, and Unversalism today, believe that God's grace is so irresistable and so powerful, that every person will eventually return to God. I have to say I resonate more with this view than with Conditionalism, which feels to me like God eventually gives up on you and puts you out of your misery if you reject him long enough. Overall, I think the "traditional" doctrine of Hell -- symbolically, of course -- does point us in the right direction by emphasizing both our freedom and God's infinite patience. That's my $.02, take it for what it's worth.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I love what you wrote here. I posted the following on 11/23 on another string but I think it's relevant here: I believe that God created Heaven and we created Hell so, naturally, we know far more about Hell than Heaven! I believe Hell is a little part of Heaven and we don't have to stay there but there are many temptations there so we stay for long periods of time and keep going back. This is addiction and we are all ego-bound addicts striving for a better way. I believe we are always in heaven but ordinarily (in most cases) don't know it. God created and is creating a realm of abundance, joy, wisdom, beauty, love, truth, peace, justice & freedom. Love is at the center of this creation, this creativity, this happening, this feast. It's always happening. It's wonderful. It's fantastic. The new church for the new age (not organized as an institutional church by any means) is the vehicle of awakening, awareness and connection. Love is the source, guide and goal of everything there is. The discipline of being still is the way to know this glorious reality. + "Be still and Know that I am God." + "You do not need to do anything; you do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. You do not even need to listen; just wait. You do not even need to wait; just become still, quiet and solitary and the world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked. It has no choice. It will roll in ecstasy at your feet." -- Franz Kafka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystictrek Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I have come to think of hell as eternal, opaque repetition; and, heaven as eternal, transparent change. Or think of it as being a soul that either has an eternal case of acute obsessive-compulsive disorder (doing the same thing over and over without EVER getting it right ) as compared to being a musician who never runs short of the ability to perform novel improvisational riffs; or, maybe an artist or poet who never runs out of novel subject matter to create. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I like your definition and description a lot. I tend to use the categories I learned from Kenneth Keyes in THE HANDBOOK TO HIGHER CONSCIOUSNESS. He suggests that we cling to addictive ego-bound states which are quite limiting. When we get free of our addictions we can truly enjoy paradise here and now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 Can anyone here find online articles in which it is proven that certain Progressive Presbyterians or United Methodists support the conditionalist view? Thanks:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.