Traditional Salvation Violates God’s Justice

[Bociferous]

We could metaphorically interpret scripture to anything we or Satan chooses. It makes it all meaningless. In guesing you believe satan to be a metaphor.

Posts like this are amazing in light of the posts in this thread and links to explanatory videos which clearly show that in fact the allegorical system I present is not only not meaningless, it is able to resolve most of traditional Christianity’s doctrinal tensions, which a literal reading of the Bible is powerless to do in itself.

In traditional Christianity there are (at least) two kinds of posters on theology boards.
1. Doctrine chirpers (85% to 95% of all posters depending on the board)
2. Thinkers (15% to 5%)

Thinkers generally understand the basic principles of metaphysics and philosophy as they stand in relation to theology. Thinkers, to varying degrees, are competent to judge and discuss various positions according to their actual truth merits. Thinkers usually understand the difference between doctrine and truth, and can make and consider arguments either way or both. Chirpers on the other hand have learned a doctrinal position and spend their time chirping the same doctrinal arguments at one another repeatedly. For example:

His blood is offered as an attoning, reconciling gift for those who accept it. His blood makes us acceptable to be filled with Him, nothing else. He satisfied His Justice His holiness with His blood. His blood, His love, His Spirit is meant to transform, not metaphorically.

This chirping has nothing whatever to do with what was posted in the op.

Chirpers basically parrot [no pun intended] what they’ve been taught and typically neither know nor care about theological issues that lie outside the box of their own doctrines. Chirpers are oblivious to the fact that the same tired doctrinal arguments are discussed over and over, ad infinitum on theology boards. Group A chirps tensions (mistakes) about the doctrines of Group B while B chirps A’s tensions right back. And so it goes, all chirpers blissfully unaware that despite ridiculous numbers of hours of chirping taking place day after day, year after year, rarely (if ever) is one swayed from his or her doctrine, nor are any tensions between them ever resolved. Example: the Arminian-Calvinist tensions remain unresolved after more than 400 years of arguing.

There are reasons no thinkers have attempted an argument against the logical problem presented in the op, perhaps the main one is if they don’t like where the truth takes them [away from their doctrine, which they’ve invested heavily in and don’t intend to change], they stay away. Chirpers don’t know to stay away because they’re just looking for a new place to flutter to and chirp their doctrines at.

Food for thought, multiple choice format.

1. Jesus spoke primarily in:
a. literal language
b. symbolic language

2. God inspired the Old Testament prophets to prophecy in:
a. literal language
b. symbolic language

3. The entire book of Revelation (and some or most of other books such as the Psalms, Daniel, Job, etc.) is primarily:
a. literal
b. symbolic

The primary method of Bible interpretation by Christian evangelicals is:
a. literal
b. symbolic

See anything glaring that stands out? (Hint: Neither did the Pharisees)

 

[Samie]

There are reasons no thinkers have attempted an argument against the logical problem presented in the op

I may not be a thinker, but I think I had shown your error, Bociferous. Your application did not match what the metaphor delineated.

Again, in the metaphor, God first separated the good from the bad and then annihilated the bad. In your application, God annihilated the bad without separating the good.

When I provided the Biblical solution, it's you who did not directly address it.

There's no reason for the pot to call the kettle black, is there?

 

[Samie]

I am not anticipating any reply from him. My last post is just to put on record that somebody had directly addressed Bociferous' OP, despite his claim nobody did.

 

[freelight]

The issue of good being preserved, and evil being transformed.......

The issue of good being preserved, and evil being transformed.......

The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of God’s justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.

The story of God’s discussion with Abraham on the road to Damascus (Gen 18) is a metaphor that, combined with Sodom’s destruction (Gen 19), identifies certain spiritual principles. Briefly, the story contains these elements:
1. Abraham challenges God by asking Him if He would destroy Sodom if only a few righteous existed there. God answered that He would not. (Gen 18:17-33)
2. God then proceeds to remove righteous Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it. (Gen 19:1-24)

In this metaphor—a symbolic depiction of God’s work in human spirit or the soul—God establishes at minimum the principles that,
A. He will not destroy a whole (Sodom) in which any good exists;
B. The soul exists in a “one and many” organization or multiplicity of “value elements”. [Analogical to but not to be confused with elements of substance.]

Salvation is revealed to be the removal and destruction of the false or bad elements of the soul (as shown in the Gen 18-19 passages) and their restoration or resurrection to a good or true state (as shown elsewhere in Scripture).

THE PROBLEM

Abraham identifies the logical problem in Gen 18:25: "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"(NASB)

God, if He is the God of the Bible, is necessarily perfect in all His attributes—love, justice, wisdom, etc. Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abraham’s point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.

Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of God’s justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists.

THE SOLUTION

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.

I’ve posted this elsewhere. There’ve been no adequate refutations to date.

Questions, comments?

Hi Bociferous,

While I have universalist sentiments at heart, and totally reject ECT (eternal conscious torment), the traditional eternal hell-fire belief, we have been challenging ECT in these threads here and here. I have a collection of my own arguments/insights archived in a blog-page here. In these explorations I've leaned towards researching 'conditional immortality' and do find much literal scriptural support for such, so was focusing somewhat of my research towards that view, but keeping 'universalism' open, of course. My philosophical inquiries and issues where solving various 'tensions' and metaphysical questions about 'annihilationism', particularly what the 'second death' is, and what it means for a soul to DIE. As has been discussed and noted so far,....is the question of whether a 'whole soul' dies, or just some sinful of false element in the soul dies (again butting heads with a limited literal interpretation or more liberal 'allegorical' one).

Your example above is clarifying a direction of my former contemplations and opening a new directive towards research in that area. This would be about what is 'saved' in the process of 'salvation' and 'sanctification', and what is destroyed, purged, disintegrated, etc. It appears you may be touching on some points of allegorical interpretation that go even beyond more conservative Christian Universalist circles. Some of my former posts recognize the dilemma of these questions, which open up more questions, until we get our terms, meanings and contextual understandings clarified.

Beyond 'Christian Universalism', I've considered the more pure universalist schools of Spiritism and Spiritualism, as well as Theosophy...which have their own take on the soul's evolution, progress and ultimate destiny as some kind of reunion with Source, whether the soul is perfected and still individually distinct from Source, or altogether absorbed and outshined in that Source becoming one with IT. - but here I probably shoot way outside a 'biblical context'

Anyways,...your allegory above does open new doors and possibilities of universal salvation for every soul, where the good and divine potential is preserved and further glorified, while the sin elements, falsity and impurities of soul are corrected and transformed. This gives us much food for thought :thumb:

 

[TulipBee]

Traditional word of God violates the urantia according to the unidentified spirit.

 

[freelight]

Traditional word of God violates the urantia according to the unidentified spirit.

Lets stick to the topic TulipBee, we know you like to "buzz" around a lot :crackup:

 

[TulipBee]

Lets stick to the topic TulipBee, we know you like to "buzz" around a lot :crackup:

More buzz'in truths.
That was a response to your post

 

[freelight]

Here's some honey for ya.................

Here's some honey for ya.................

More buzz'in truths.
That was a response to your post

I'm sorry TB,.....but where did I mention anything about 'urantia' in my last post? :idunno: I tire of a few folks here who don't seem to know that I'm an 'eclectic theosophist' (in the most liberal sense of the terms) and this includes a broad spectrum of different religious traditions and schools of thought,..... incorporating, synthesizing and coordinating different points of view, archetypes, principles, symbols along the lines of ancient and eternal truths. Look up the word 'eclectic'. 'Theosophy' simply refers to 'divine wisdom' or the wisdom of God or gods. Its all inclusive, and does not only include the Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky...but all pertinent schools of esoteric or occult knowledge. Most folks here don't have a clue about the breadth or depth of my 'theology'....if we could use the term. They're stuck in presupposition, preconception, mental concepts which limit infinity and the Spirit of God from shining thru all the veneers. Add 'dogmatism' to the brew and things get muckier.

Now if you have a particular point in my last post you would like to address, instead of going on about some urantia trajectory , by golly give it your best shot. Could you lather up enough creative juices to give it a go?

 

[TulipBee]

I'm sorry TB,.....but where did I mention anything about 'urantia' in my last post? :idunno: I tire of a few folks here who don't seem to know that I'm an 'eclectic theosophist' (in the most liberal sense of the terms) and this includes a broad spectrum of different religious traditions and schools of thought,..... incorporating, synthesizing and coordinating different points of view, archetypes, principles, symbols along the lines of ancient and eternal truths. Look up the word 'eclectic'. 'Theosophy' simply refers to 'divine wisdom' or the wisdom of God or gods. Its all inclusive, and does not only include the Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky...but all pertinent schools of esoteric or occult knowledge. Most folks here don't have a clue about the breadth or depth of my 'theology'....if we could use the term. They're stuck in presupposition, preconception, mental concepts which limit infinity and the Spirit of God from shining thru all the veneers. Add 'dogmatism' to the brew and things get muckier.

Now if you have a particular point in my last post you would like to address, instead of going on about some urantia trajectory , by golly give it your best shot. Could you lather up enough creative juices to give it a go?

I know cause I was once there. Gotta try once but things didn't add up. You'll tired of it to when you get older and wiser. Bible is a pretty good book

 

[freelight]

I know cause I was once there. Gotta try once but things didn't add up. You'll tired of it to when you get older and wiser. Bible is a pretty good book

Meanwhile, back to the subject of the thread here......

 

[TulipBee]

Meanwhile, back to the subject of the thread here......

You always find a way to change the subject . I follow you. You'll tire of looping with multiple endless theology like the stormy seas.

 

[Clete]

I’ve posted this elsewhere. There’ve been no adequate refutations to date.

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, 4 so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, 5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Mark 9:42 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where

‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where

‘Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched.’

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where

‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’​

And as if that weren't enough to refute your position, these are not all the biblical passages that speak of an eternal Hell. There is one other in particular that DIRECTLY blows your entire argument to smithereens, using Sodom's sin and destruction as an example of THE EXACT OPPOSITE of your position!

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

Consider yourself refuted. The bible clearly and undeniably teaches these things.

Note that I made no argument in the post at all aside from directly quoting the bible, including God the Son Himself on the subject. If you resist or attempt to argue, you won't be arguing with me. It'll be God Himself and the words that came from His very own lips, that you'll be rejecting.

Now repent of this silliness and stop accusing God of injustice.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[freelight]

You always find a way to change the subject . I follow you. You'll tire of looping with multiple endless theology like the stormy seas.

You sir are the one that changed the subject to 'urantia'. I addressed the subject (the OP) in post #84 to which you responded about 'urantia'. Did I mention urantia anywhere? :idunno: If you want to address the subject here, please stay on subject (or related) if interested in 'dialogue'.

 

[TulipBee]

You sir are the one that changed the subject to 'urantia'. I addressed the subject (the OP) in post #84 to which you responded about 'urantia'. Did I mention urantia anywhere? :idunno: If you want to address the subject here, please stay on subject (or related) if interested in 'dialogue'.

Let's both move forward

 

[freelight]

Let's both move forward

From one of my last posts here,....lets do

You still have the contradiction of a 'God' who imposes 'eternal torment in hellfire' while being the essence and will of LOVE simultaneously,...a complete paradox of insanity.

 

[TulipBee]

From one of my last posts here,....lets do

You still have the contradiction of a 'God' who imposes 'eternal torment in hellfire' while being the essence and will of LOVE simultaneously,...a complete paradox of insanity.

Darkness is the absence of light. They both have something to do with each other.

 

[freelight]

Dual existences.............

Dual existences.............

Darkness is the absence of light. They both have something to do with each other.

Well, I think intojoy isn't concerned so much with the more complex philosophical contrast of darkness & light, except to marginalize my 'name' and spew 'ad hominems'. Appears to be his 'forte'.

Also, the 'duality' of darkness/light; good/evil would appear to be a natural phenomena in this dimension of relativity, where two ends of a polarity appear, but so goes the play of creation....which on the surface is 'maya' (illusion). Even if we reduce everything down to its smallest atoms or photon particles....'darkness' and 'light' may just be the same substance...but resonating at different vibrational frequencies, relating different qualities. If all comes from 'God' as the only original source and essence from which anything could be, in potential and actuality,....then all must originate from that primal Source...all conditions, phases, states, aspects, degrees, polarities, dualities, etc.

By your own statement, you can see how if darkness and light are 'related' and have something to do with each other, then such terms are 'relative'. We'll leave it at that and let you 'nibble' a little on it