Why is UR harmful?

[Paidion]

I agree, Steve 7150.
Their thinking post-mortem will be realistic. They will understand when they meet God that He is LOVE after all, and not a Monster.

[jriccitelli]

Oh, if only that were true! I could serve a God like that. But according to the Christians I've met, it's not true, but rather their God will torture most people forever in hell. I want nothing to do with such a cosmic Monster! (a response to Paidions message. pg.6)

You do realize this is a argument against ET don't you. I never dismiss the OT God though, Jesus is Yahweh. I understand that life is a condition, can you not deal with the Prophets? I know you do not believe Moses. And they already met God in Jesus, and refused. And you have noticed that when people in scripture see God they fear, shake, and fall down as dead, I don't know where this love Theophany exists in scripture, do you?

[jriccitelli]

The devil is destroyed and not around to blind the minds of unbelievers. Also being face to face with Christ may change people. Do you think it affected Paul? (7150)

I thought the devil was in the lake with them? I thought they did meet Jesus face to face, some believed, and others crucified Him. Paul was chosen because of his zeal for God, as was Moses and David. They still had a choice, being separated from birth did not remove their choice. All the devil does is spread lies, the 'lies' lead to death. We are free to make a decision, as many do believe if they have ears to hear. This is just reading way too much into the devils place and purpose. God uses the devil in his testing of people, the devils lies are not irresistible.
If they were irresistible there would be no believers today, or ever. The point is to not fall for the devils lie, rather we heed Gods waning of death and believe Gods words instead.

[steve]

JR,

You have been posting on the subject of universal reconciliation since August 2, 2011. From your very first post on, until now, you have exhibited a failure (or refusal) to grasp what it is that the view actually affirms, though this ignorance has not prevented you, even when corrected, from continuing to misrepresent and demonize it.

Those who are more familiar with the view have sought to educate and correct you, but you have no interest in being corrected. Now, more than two years into the discussion, you are still making misrepresentations of the view—and doing so repeatedly. You have refused to interact with restorationists (or even with me, as one not committed to the view) in a responsible manner on the topic. Even now you continue to make outlandish statements like the following:

UR is gravely overestimating mans nature and desire for sin.

How do you know this? Does the Bible say so, or just you? Can you give any reason for anyone to believe that you are not overestimating man’s nature and desire for sin? Can you demonstrate that there is any substance to your accusation?

Ezekiel makes it clear: there are ‘conditions’ for ‘life’. The death ‘that Ezekiel speaks of’ is for the wicked, not the righteous. The righteous he says “shall surely live”.

How does this address any question raised here—or connect in any way with your criticism of universal reconciliation? If you had read and understood what has been pointed out to you here numerous times, and if you are an honest man, interested in truth more than in sustaining your position in a losing debate, you would never post this as an argument. In case you can’t see the obvious, no one here ever doubted that the threats of death are directed toward the sinners, and the promises of life are for the righteous. Have you not read anything that has been written to you on this topic?

I wrote:

‘I don't see what this has to do with your thesis [viz., that UR is harmful]. Ezekiel was told to be a watchman and warn the people of impending invasion’ [not post-mortem annihilation].(Steve Dec 27, 2013 1:41 pm)

You replied:

No one was going to fall into the pit unaware on Ezekiel’s watch.

I was hoping, if you had read my post (which you cited), that you might say something relevant to my challenge—namely, to make some connection to the point you are contending in this thread.

You wrote:

Jeremiahs message was clear; death and destruction: that is what got him thrown in the pit, not because he had a different political viewpoint.

Maybe you should read the verse I cited, rather than just assuming that you know everything. Jeremiah was accused of advocating surrender to the enemy (which was viewed as treason—a political charge).

I wrote:

I asked, “Which of the blessings of the OT have I or anyone else applied to post-mortem destinies?” This was addressing one of your major points. You have not answered. ("Something I Have Noticed" 12/27/13 12:59 PM)

You responded:

Is UR saying then, they do not apply any blessings to the post-mortem? Well it would be interesting if 'you' apply ‘any’ OT promises to anything other than what you call 'temporal', but Jesus and all the NT writers refer to OT promises extensively. I think that proves the OT promises apply to the hereafter and post-mortem. Life itself is the most important and central promise of OT blessings. Life or death, that was the choice they were given. So does the OT promise life to everyone, or is it conditional?

You quoted me, but apparently did not read what you cited! I asked for examples (even one!) of any Old Testament blessings that I or anyone else had used to prove some post-mortem destiny. Please read my questions before answering (or avoiding answering) them. To generalize that “Jesus and all the NT writers refer to OT promises extensively,” without providing one example of anything relevant to my querry seems like a very dishonest dodge.

I have been accused (by you and by Homer) of resorting to ad hominem in my complaints about the lack of intellectual acumen displayed in your argumentation. Actually, in making such a statement, I thought that I was making a judgment of charity—the only possible judgment that would not impugn your character. This was the most favorable of the possible judgments I could make about you. There are four possible explanations for your behavior (can anyone imagine a fifth?):

1. You do not read explanations that people take pains to address to you (rudeness); or

2. You do not understand what everyone has told you plainly (intellectual deficiency); or

3. You simply won’t acknowledge facts when you see them (dishonesty). or

4. You do not revere the truth enough to participate seriously in a serious discussion of eternal matters and of the character of God (lack of fear of God)

If one is gratuitously rude, or dishonest, or irreverent toward God and the Bible, then he is simply a bad person. If one is only deficient intellectually, then he is not necessarily a bad person, but merely unqualified to participate in a discussion wherein he is consistently adversarial against a view he apparently is incapable of understanding, and wasting the precious time of those who understand the subject, who care about the truth, and who have patiently sought to educate him where his understanding is deficient. There is no shame in being unintelligent, but there is great shame in being gratuitously rude, dishonest or irreverent.

There is no justification for burdening my limited available time with reading statements addressed to me, or about me, by a person who has had more than adequate opportunity to respond to my points, but who refuses even to understand them.

In order to decide whether you are honest enough to remain a participant on this forum, I will give you one more chance to prove yourself. Respond directly and honestly to the following challenge, or do not return to this forum:

You wrote:

Where with UR, I have been absolutely amazed at the massive subversion of multiple doctrines, meaning and verses in order to try and justify UR.

Here is my challenge to you:

Please provide at least two examples, in each category, of this alleged “massive subversion” of

1. Multiple doctrines (scripture)
2. Multiple meanings (of scripture)
3. Verses (of scripture)

Having listed such instances, you must also provide a biblical case for your charge that subversion has been used by UR in each of the cases identified.

You are not allowed to falsely plead lack of time to fulfill this assignment, since you obviously have plenty of time to write long, disingenuous posts. You can use that time to research and reply to this challenge.

You have made a habit of ignoring people (especially me) when they challenge you on your slanderous statements. You may not continue that practice here any more. Your next post on this forum must give responsible, honest answers to the above challenge, or it will be your final post here, and will be deleted. My time is too valuable to tolerate any more nonsense, and, since I am the gatekeeper here, your reply will need to meet my standards of “honesty.” If others wish to continue wasting their time trying to reason with you, they may do so at other forums. This is your last opportunity to show yourself an honest man, capable of fruitful discussion.

[steve7150]

I thought the devil was in the lake with them? I thought they did meet Jesus face to face, some believed, and others crucified Him. Paul was chosen because of his zeal for God,









You're right the devil is in the LOF but i'm sure you would agree he is incapacitated. Well the Jesus who walked the earth was as an ordinary man but the way Christ is described in heaven is quite a bit different, don't you think? Paul did have a zeal but he also hated Christians and probably Christ. I bet some of the Pharisees had a zeal for God too yet that made them even more an enemy of Christ.
Anyway you said i overestimate the devil's impact but i just quoted Paul, so maybe you should take it up with him.

[steve]

Hi steve7150,

JR will be requred to answer my above post before he is permitted to answer yours.

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

I have been accused (by you and by Homer) of resorting to ad hominem in my complaints about the lack of intellectual acumen displayed in your argumentation. Actually, in making such a statement, I thought that I was making a judgment of charity—the only possible judgment that would not impugn your character. This was the most favorable of the possible judgments I could make about you. There are four possible explanations for your behavior (can anyone imagine a fifth?):

So this is what we have been receiving from you: lovingkindness!!! This is a sad day, brother, but I must say it has recently dawned on me that you are clueless. Perhaps this blind spot you have has brought about something really bad in your life. Think about it.

I suggest you meditate on 1 Corinthians 13. I am going to. Love is patient, love is kind....love is not puffed up.

That's my charitable advice.

[steve]

Thanks for your advice, Homer.

So this is what we have been receiving from you: lovingkindness!!! This is a sad day, brother, but I must say it has recently dawned on me that you are clueless. Perhaps this blind spot you have has brought about something really bad in your life. Think about it.

By the way, this is the best example of real ad hominem we have seen thus far in the discussion. It meets every qualification: Instead of arguing the issues, it simply attacks the character of the person on the other side of the aisle. I have actually never resorted to such tactics. Though I have sometimes criticized the character of a person, I have never done so instead of answering his points with reasoned arguments, as you have done here. You simply see something in my style that offends you, and you seem to take that as an excuse to ignore the points I have argued. This would make a perfect "Exhibit A" of an ad hominem strategy.

I feel that I have a responsibility to maintain certain standards of honesty among those whose posts dominate this forum. Almost everyone who is here came here because of familiarity with my ministry, and, rightly or wrongly, view it as an extension of my ministry. Though we have many opinions presented by excellent participants, whom we all appreciate, yet the quality of the forum, in the final analysis, reflects upon the standards with which my ministry will be associated in the minds of most.

Many forums ban particiants based upon their disagreement. We seldom ban anyone—and have never done so on the basis of disagreement. People can only get themselves banned from here by their dishonesty or other unchristian behavior.

I believe that your objections to my severity are based upon your agreement with JR on this topic. Most of our readers do not post, so I do not know their opinions about JR and his posts. All I can say is that I do not wish the forum to be a place where people (like me) come for honest discussion, and must be continually vexed by participants who dominate the threads and who either don't know what such discussion entails or else are unwilling to conduct such.

I am not condemning anyone to hell here. JR is, no doubt, a good Christian man, in many respects. He obviously sees himself as "a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes," but, until he can show himself capable of conducting a discussion, he will have to exercise these functions elsewhere. He has been confronted about his disingenuous behavior by many participants, besides myself, over the years, and we have patiently endured his refusal to participate in proper dialogue.

If you can find a fifth possibility to the four I listed above, then present it, and I will reconsider my verdict. If you cannot, then why complain that I have chosen the most charitable of the available judgments? There is no lack of charity in holding a man's feet to the fire and letting him know that what he is doing is unacceptable behavior.

If a man was guilty of cussing, verbally abusing, or some other inappropriate content in his posts, you would think me inexplicably generous (to a fault!) in allowing him to continue doing so here, almost daily, for more than two years. That you are not seeing the matter this way now means that you and I, apparently, have very different opinions about honesty as a standard of Christian communication every bit as important as clean language.

[Candlepower]

JR,
You have been posting on the subject of universal reconciliation since August 2, 2011. From your very first post on, until now, you have exhibited a failure (or refusal) to grasp what it is that the view actually affirms, though this ignorance has not prevented you, even when corrected, from continuing to misrepresent and demonize it.

Steve, I agree with your assessment and have been amazed by your longsuffering! The Forum is an important place, and I'm thankful you are keeping its standards high.

JR, you never advance your argument by distorting your opponent’s argument. I hope you respond well to Steve’s rebuke and challenge. I pray you will learn from this episode and become a better poster, regardless of your theological positions.

[steve]

JR posted here, but since he made no attempt to respond to my challenge, I deleted him. He should have taken me seriously this time.