Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Perez Hilton “needs Jesus”
In an article for WORLDmag.com, Anita Palmer interviews the parents of Carrie Prejean and shares the story of how her pastor, Miles McPherson and his wife, Debbie, helped Miss California get through last week’s media blitz following her taking a stand for traditional marriage at the Miss USA pageant. Anita reports that Prejean’s parents were not surprised at their daughter’s stand-up attitude:
“When Carrie sets her mind on something, nothing can stop her,” her father, Wil Prejean, told me Sunday.
The beauty pageant contestant appeared at all five services at her church in San Diego yesterday (which just so happens to be the church Lynn Vincent attends), telling the congregation that she had no regrets in answering celebrity judge Perez Hilton’s question the way she did.
When McPherson asked Prejean what she’d tell Hilton right now, she smiled and said, “I’d tell him he needs Jesus.”
back to top258 Comments to “Perez Hilton “needs Jesus””
Miss California is for “opposite” marriage. It’s one thing to support traditional marriage, it’s quite another to sound like a simpleton trying to explain your position on a national stage.It sounded like she had never given the issue any serious thought considering all she could do is appeal to authority. If she had a confident, reasoned response, I doubt she would have been so wildly panned.
Good thing she looks smokin’ hot in a bikini.
Report comment to moderator
1. She explained that. She started to give a PC answer then changed her mind mid-answer and decided to be honest.
Report comment to moderator
Is it time to start digging up dirt on her. Give her the Joe the Plumber/Sarah Palin treatment.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson, it’s easy for even a seasoned speaker to omit a word when speaking under pressure. And even easier for others to pick that person apart when that happens.
I spent some time yesterday with Carrie Prejean, and also heard her speak twice at the Rock. She is the most poised, self-possessed, articulate 21-year-old woman I’ve ever had the privilege to meet.
Her intelligence and moral courage will turbocharge that smokin’ hot bikini.
Report comment to moderator
It’s hard to stand up for what you believe when so many HATE you for it.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, you’re absolutely right when you say, – “it’s easy for even a seasoned speaker to omit a word when speaking under pressure.”
Carrie’s words will not be forgotten – the gift which the LORD gave her of great beauty, is being used for HIM – GOD bless this young woman.
Report comment to moderator
Perez Hilton simply took the normal liberal approach when confronted with an opposing point of view: viciously attack and swear like the dickens.
Report comment to moderator
I think these beauty pageants are degrading for women and for everyone. Who is able and has the very truth to decide that one girl is more beautiful than others. All of you that preach “the Lord´s word” and say that everyone´s opinion has to be respected, (like Miss California´s opinion), and that in front of the Lord´s eyes we are all the same… these beauty pegeants DO NOT “match” with any of that, deciding and choosing ONE “beautiful girl” among everyone. That is the best DISCRIMINATION EXAMPLE I have ever seen.
The ironic thing is that all of us realized and find out that Miss California IS NOT a beauty at all when she is making differences between humans beings that are just asking the same treatment under the law.
Luciana,
a Catholic Christian
Report comment to moderator
Sure, she looks good in a bikini, but being beautiful on the outside is not as important as being beautiful on the inside.
Report comment to moderator
Achtung_Baby_ – 8
The story of Esther in the Old Testament is very specific as to Esther and her beauty. Read the story for yourself, GOD used Esther.
GOD gifts some with great beauty just as HE gives other gifts.
Carrie Prejean has just as much right to give her heartfelt beliefs regarding same-sex-marriage as you do.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Funny that two of my favorite people right now are Carrie Prejean and Susan Boyle.
Report comment to moderator
Carrie Prejean is beautiful on the inside.
And I agree with KBells – the Palining has already begun.
Report comment to moderator
“Well I think it’s great that Americans can choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.”
- Carrie Prejean (Miss California)
First of all, gay Americans can’t choose in 46 states. Anyone with half a brain knows that.
Second of all “No offense to anybody out there”? Well, millions of Americans are offended by her bigoted comments.
Thirdly, the incident shows that anti-gay bigotry is becoming socially unacceptable among mainstream Americans, just as racism and anti-Semitism is. And that’s a very good thing!
Fourthly, people who make bigoted comments in public are not exempt from being roundly criticized. “Free speech” is a two-way street.
Fifthly, Perez Hilton is no spokesperson for gays, liberals, or anyone else – except himself. He’s a gossip columnist with a nasty attitude.
Finally, Carrie Prejean is a conservative Christian celebrity now, and she will make a fine living off this incident. She’ll have a book deal, she’ll be on Christian TV and radio, she’ll tour the country – she’ll get the full Christian “rock style” treatment. Behold your new Anita Bryant!
Report comment to moderator
Miss California just blew it and now is trying to make up for it.
Your not going to win favor for your homophobic attitude. You stated how you felt, Gays, in your opinion, should not have the same rights and you or me or anyone else.
Miss America is a representation of all Americans. When you take it upon yourself to reject a certain group based on your own personal feelings you cannot represent all of america!
And BTW good luck getting a job, everyone is going to hate you at every job you take for the next ten years. No one will hire a known bigot unless its some republican jerk off who needs a sexy secretary to take notes!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir: “Perez Hilton is no spokesperson for gays, liberals, or anyone else – except himself. He’s a gossip columnist with a nasty attitude.”
So you don’t like the broad brush applied to gays? You don’t want people to judge gays on the basis of Perez Hilton?
I would ask that you afford Christians and conservatives the same courtesy, Anlir.
Report comment to moderator
“Miss America is a representation of all Americans. When you take it upon yourself to reject a certain group based on your own personal feelings you cannot represent all of america!”
Many Americas agree with her. She represent them just fine.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see, hate and bigotry.
Coming from Carrie Prejean? Hmmm…nope. Disagreement ≠ bigotry.
Coming from #’s 14 & 15? Yep. Especially just oozing from 15.
Report comment to moderator
Perez Hilton is the exception to the rule.
Sadly, when it comes to anti-gay bigotry among conservative Christians, the exceptions to the rule are the ones who aren’t bigoted and hateful. We all long for the day when that’s no longer the case.
Report comment to moderator
Marynuggs
Not agreeing with same-sex-marriage is a right we all have – “Homophopbic” ?
A contestant for Miss America has beliefs, just like you and I. She has every right to state them if she wishes, she isn’t a robot.
Take a deep breath, —— Carrie Prejean won’t have any problem finding a job, much to your chagrin. Don’t forget California voted against same-sex-marriage in the last election (Prop.
that is the state Miss California is from, did you know that? That’s why she was Miss California running in the Miss America pageant.
As far a ’secretary’ goes, that’s outdated for the most part. Computers have made it possible for many lawyers, corporate heads, CEO’s and executives to hire specialists in their field – the executives type most of their own correspondence – the specialists have degrees in their field.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
why are you trying to convince me, I am just expressing myself, let me express what I want, isn´t it what Miss California did?
This IS NOT a about religion. Put that in your head for once.
If I would like to say that Jews people should not have the same rights just because they are Jews, and because is how “…I was raised and that’s how I think …” I would be doing the same thing that Miss California did. “…No offence to anybody…” but I would want to say that… you would star telling me that I am a horrible person then… so, how is this? as she says something that you agree, it is ok to say it in public, but if it is not something you agree with, then it´s wrong to give our opinions.
The only difference between this example and Miss C. thing, it is that my example it´s a matter of religion.
So, is it ok to say our thoughts when they only match with yours?
PS for people that read this: I DO NOT think that about Jews at all, just an example, and I´m sorry if something came out wrong or I wroted wrong, I try that my english to be better each day.
Lu
Report comment to moderator
The little sun glass guy was to be an 8 – that’s California for ya – we just can’t give up the sun glasses
Report comment to moderator
Achtung_Baby_ – 8
This is a blog, we all post, even you,…. isn’t that cool?
Miss California said what was on her heart, she had every right to do so, no matter what anyone thinks.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Perez Hilton sounds just like you on this blog. Hate, Hate, Hate and intolerance. If they don’t agree with you, they must be hatefull.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd – how right you are
Report comment to moderator
Barbie Hath Spoken
Yawn …
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Lloyd, but hate and intolerance toward gays is endemic and pandemic in the conservative Christian community. We’ve see it on display on here regularly in all it’s inglorious shame for a long, long time. Nothing brings out the anti-gay bigots and the haters more than a “gay” blog on here. But, I’ll give the editors of worldmag credit – they know how to keep the traffic on this site up – just post a “gay” blog.
Report comment to moderator
I am convinced that much of the anger expressed toward conservative values and toward conservatives themselves by some writiers on this blog is in reality nothing other than a channel to express rebellion against the Creator God.
Regardless of how much those who disagree with conservatives cry foul,and berate, aren’t they really just admitting they are arguing with God?
After-all only God judges the heart, no one writing here, neither liberal or conservative has ever earned the right to sit in the judgement seat.
So
It comes down to this, do you or don’t you personally agree with God? If not, why not try arguing with Him and see where it leads you.
Report comment to moderator
I am convinced that much of the anger expressed toward gays by some writers on this blog is noting more than plain old homophobia and hate.
So.
It comes down to this, do you or don’t you agree that God loves gay people just like he loves straight people? If not, why not try arguing with Him and see where it leads you?
After-all only God judges the heart, no one writing here, neither liberal or conservative has ever earned the right to sit in the judgement seat.
You’ve obviously never met The Queen!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
Well you might be correct, I can’t say that I have met the Queen.
Does God love Gay people? Absolutely. He created us, staight or gay…so He just might have the answers for what is best for us. Do you think that is possible?
Does He love Homosexuality? I can not find it in His Word. So is the disagreement between men or between men and God?
Regardless; the Queen, you, or me, gay or straight, in fact everyone will see the day when every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.
Everyone will, according to God’s word, be in agreement that day on the most important question of all history, Is Jesus the Son of God, the Redeemer of the World? That day everyone will say Yes.
For the ones who make the choice to believe this now, the day will be a happy confirmation.
The sad part is that for the ones who refuse to believe now it will be only the first day of painful realization. (I hope that you won’t be in that crowd.) A realization that can only be avoided by making a decision to believe in the redemption Christ provides, not just for straight sinners but for all sinners…”all have sinned and fall short of His Glory”.
Whether we agree now or not, we will agree then.
Would you rather wait to agree until then? I hope not.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
Let me be absoutely clear about this; I can not find anything in the Bible that would indicate in any way that God created us anything other than non-homosexual. Homosexuality is a choice not a condition, the argument is not between you and me but between you and the Creator.
For your sake, be careful who you argue with.
Report comment to moderator
Jimmy sounds like a kneecapping mafia guy. Anlir, start watching for pipe wielding dwarfs in spandex ready to do the Lord’s work in dark alleys.
Report comment to moderator
Jimmy? How often do you feel the drive to have homosexual sex? When did you decide to be hetero?
Report comment to moderator
The researchers reported that 24% of the non-”homophobic” men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the “homophobia scale”. In addition, 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the “homophobic” men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the “homophobic” men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.
Still, researchers disagree about whether the “homophobic” males were stimulated by genuine latent homosexuality or negative emotions such as anxiety.
Report comment to moderator
Hardly. 34 is response to Jimmy’s assertion sexual preference is a choice.
35 is statistics from wikipedia.
Is falsely accusing me of making a personal attack itself a personal attack? Maybe.
Report comment to moderator
How egocentric of Prejean to publicly make assumptions about Perez Hilton and his relationship with God.
That’s disgusting.
Report comment to moderator
RPN – 37
I never ever mentioned your post 35 -
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I can tell you a great way to make the traffic on this site go down.
Report comment to moderator
First of all, who is she to assume that Perez doesn’t have a relationship with Jesus? Second of all, I’m sure Jesus wouldn’t approve of her prancing around on a stage with practically no clothing on.
Report comment to moderator
#41 It is interesting that you are SURE Jesus wouldn’t approve of her prancing around on a state with practically no clothing on. I am sure of this, but it is interesting that you are sure of this.
There is certainly an irony that the family values folks want to make a woman who parades herself in a string bikini their spokesperson.
What happened to biblical values?
Report comment to moderator
In the American south I’ve heard many truly beautiful women speak. They had competed in and held crowns for various pageants. If folks find the actual text of Carrie’s remarks offensive–when I think whe went out of her way to be conciliatory and evasive– that shows how warped they are.
I hope she does not go gently once her 15 minutes are up.
Report comment to moderator
Prejean didn’t make an assumption about Perez’s relationship with God — she operated on the facts. No one who has a relationship with God would fail to comprehend that He considers homosexual acts to be a sin. Perez is clearly in conflict with God, which, as Jimmy points out, is not a good place to be. Jimmy is right — the argument homosexuals have isn’t with Christians, it is with God Himself and His Word.
And yes, everyone has a choice about what acts they will perform., i.e., the adulterer chooses infidelity.
Report comment to moderator
Regardless; the Queen, you, or me, gay or straight, in fact everyone will see the day when every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.
Everyone will, according to God’s word, be in agreement that day on the most important question of all history, Is Jesus the Son of God, the Redeemer of the World? That day everyone will say Yes.
For the ones who make the choice to believe this now, the day will be a happy confirmation.
Actually what those passages are saying is that everyone gets into Heaven. People in Hell don’t confess that Jesus is Lord. When they do, they stop being in Hell and get into Heaven.
Report comment to moderator
And for all those homosexuals who keep screaming about rights, what happened to Prejean’s right to freedom of speech? The only people trying to legalize the controlling of other people’s speech are homosexuals. You don’t see adulterers screaming that everyone has to accept their sin. They aren’t screaming for laws to force others to accept their immoral acts as legal.
Report comment to moderator
And for those of you who find women who stand up for their beliefs to be honorable, here’s another one for you:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023436.php
Report comment to moderator
Someone explain judgment day to Jon Rowe. I have to go to work.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe–where in the world is your scriptural proof of that???
Jimmy– I appreciate your comments.
Personally, I completely disagree with these beauty pageants. I don’t like the women parading their bodies around on stage,etc…I don’t think it fits in with biblical standards of modesty. HOWEVER, with that being said, I applaud Ms. Prejean for her bold answer.
The following day, I caught the interview with “Mr. Hilton.” He himself blasphemed the name of Jesus (there is your proof he does NOT have a relationship with him). He also stated that he wanted her to give a PC answer–those were his own words. Basically, he wanted her to lie. Hm….And, he was quoted as saying that if she had won, he was going to go on stage and tear off her crown. What a gentleman…
Report comment to moderator
Lynn: Who was it that was complaining the other day about gossipy faux-celebrity “news”?
As for Prejean v Hilton, Shaw apparently said it best:
Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll both get tired and dirty, but the pig will like it.
Anlir: Science can be disturbing, can’t it?
Report comment to moderator
“People in Hell don’t confess that Jesus is Lord. When they do, they stop being in Hell and get into Heaven.”
So how many demons are in heaven? They believe in God. Large difference between acknowledging God and being justified by Christ’s attoning work on the cross.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, Perez Hilton needs Jesus. All us sinners need Him.
And Carrie Prejean needs to put some clothes on (Proverbs 11:22).
Report comment to moderator
Personally, the entire “gay” debate lately has become thoroughly boring and tiresome to me.
Report comment to moderator
* #14 – “…millions of Americans are offended by her bigoted comments.”
How were they bigoted? Remember, Barack Obama said the very same thing during the campaign.
________
* #11 – “…the incident shows that anti-gay bigotry is becoming socially unacceptable among mainstream Americans…”
Yes, it can get you elected President, as it clearly has with Obama.
________
* #11 – “…people who make bigoted comments in public are not exempt from being roundly criticized.”
They are criticized ONLY if the people actually think you mean what you say. When people know you don’t mean a word of what you are saying, you are exempt from criticism by leftists.
________
* #15 – “Your not going to win favor for your homophobic attitude.”
(Should be “You’re…”). Barack Obama sure did.
________
#15 – “No one will hire a known bigot unless its some republican j–k off who needs a sexy secretary to take notes!”
America elected a known bigot and Obama is a bigot precisely by the SAME exact definition that MARYNUGS called this women a bigot (among other hateful names).
Report comment to moderator
To be clear, what this young lady said was no different in substance from what I heard Barack Obama clearly said about marriage during one of the campaign debates. In fact, her comment was more inclusive and less horrificly “homophobic” than Barack Obama’s “bigoted” affirmation that marriage should ONLY be defined as a union between one man and one woman.
So why does this woman get excoriated on this thread by those who don’t similarly excoriate Barack Obama, who said the same thing as her during the campaign and said if far less kindly?
Is it because they understand that she actually means what she says?
Report comment to moderator
What she actually said was:
Well I think it’s great that Americans can choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Sounds to me like she’s saying Americans should have the choice, even if she personally believes same-sex marriage would be wrong. Sort of like being anti-abortion but pro-choice.
Between that and the inherent degradation that comes as part of a beauty competition (not just the near-nudity, but including that), it’s very odd how she’s suddenly become this traditional marriage icon.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
I thought you were leaving the blog for a few weeks? You’ve come back early – was it because of Lynn’s post?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG at #56 makes an excellent point.
Steve stated; “Sort of like being anti-abortion but pro-choice.”
AMEN! SteveG has effectively unmasked the obvious hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who call themselves “pro-choice” and still claim that they are against abortion.
Good job SteveG!
Report comment to moderator
The first part of her reply is not how I would have responded. I think this young lady’s first impluse was to resort to the safe and popular rhetoric of “choice” and then realized it just doesn’t fly for real. So she replaced cheap morally empty rhetoric with an actual answer the question. I amdire her for changing gears midstream and being true to her convictions.
The second part of her answer (the part that liberals find so offensive) was exactly what Senator Obama said during the campaign. The difference (discerned from the whole context) is apparently that Obama was just trying to get elected (and his supporters knew it), while this young lady knew her comment would make her winning less likely. At least that is my presumption.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: I dropped in today because I had some time to, and have made a few comments in various threads, but I’m still officially on hiatus for another couple of weeks. After today, I probably will be gone until mid-May or so.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe
I am back!
“Actually what those passages are saying is that everyone gets into Heaven. People in Hell don’t confess that Jesus is Lord. When they do, they stop being in Hell and get into Heaven.”
This is totally unfounded. Where do you find that is Scripture? Nowhere! When you find Biblical proof for your theory, you let me know. In the meantime let me give you some food for thought.
Example: The rich man and Lazarus. This is a story that Jesus told himself.
Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
The rich man confessed that God was real and the way of repentance, and he didn’t get into heaven. He didn’t even get the drop of water he asked for.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg, I hope everything is going well for you. Take care.
Report comment to moderator
61,
You have to put the verses for theological Universalism together with the other verses and come forth with doctrine. The doctrine is the rich man did indeed suffer in Hell, but eventually Jesus worked with him on his salvation in the afterlife as he will do for all people. Hence every knee will bow.
I think there are lots of different doctrinal “outcomes” at which we can arrive when we try to put competing verses and chapters of scripture together. I think one reason alone to not go down the road you are arguing is the outcome is so horrific. There comes a time when people have suffered enough for their sins on Earth.
Every single doctrinal point that the Westboro Baptist Church argues has explicit biblical textual support. Their doctrines are as logically derived from the Bible as are yours or mine.
I think it’s better for the character and souls of Christians to go for the more “reasonable” and kinder interpretations. The Westboro Baptist Church should serve as a warning to you what happens when you opt for the more harsh, meanspirited interpretation (which is exactly what yours on Lazarus and the rich man is).
And I know someone is going to posit the canard that the WBC aren’t really preaching what’s in the Bible. No, I’ve read almost all of their doctrinal arguments and they are 100% biblical. They simply opt for the meanest possible interpretation. But like Calvinism (they are Calvinists in fact) while we can reasonably dispute all 5 points of Calvinism on biblical grounds (and the WBC’s doctrine that God hates people not just their sins); the idea that this (Calvinism in general, WBC’s teachings in particular) are not actually derived from a consistent logical interpretation of the Bible’s text is so false that it is comical.
Report comment to moderator
No Thorn,
This argument for biblical Universalism is not simply acknowledging God. Rather it’s confessing Jesus is Lord. Not all Christian believe demons are fallen angels. But assuming they are, they were once in God’s prescence. I don’t see why they might not likewise get a second chance at redemption; but this is something that the Bible isn’t fully clear about. For instance, the orthodox understanding of Christianity holds Christ, God the Son became a man to redeem man. There is no similar story told about God becoming an angel to redeem the fallen angels; but it’s possible.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Personally, the entire “gay” debate lately has become thoroughly boring and tiresome to me.
Indeed, a growing number of Americans are having that same response. They look at the hate-filled obsession that conservative Christians have toward gays and they’re tired of it. Most people look at their gay family members and friends and don’t see them as the scum of the earth that conservative Christians portray them as.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Throwing the “fairy tale” charge won’t cut it as the atheist can throw that charge at all of us.
As my friend, an 84 year old fervent atheist (I’m going to keep his identity secret because he didn’t give me permission to reproduce his comment) a WWII vet who claims to have been a proud atheist in a foxhole, a Harvard trained astronomer and a man whose papers the Smithsonian Institute currently collects, put it:
Without commenting at length, I meely point out that Cornthians was written around 54AD, some 24 years after the crucificion, in an era without recorders, reporters, or other than word- of-mouth heasay.
Similarly, the four gospels themselves were written (Mark) around 65-70 AD; Matthwe and Luke in the 70s,and John around 95. There were no tape recorders, or other means of recording. They are largely worthless as historical records. The whole thing, and the Christianity derived from it is a fraud, concocted for political purposes. resurrections don’t happen. Period. Either the dead body was removed from the tomb, or he didn’t actually die on the cross and revived later. There is no supernatural.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone can “throw the fairy tale charge” at anyone who says something they believe to be untrue. So what? That doesn’t mean that some things really aren’t “fairy tales.”
Report comment to moderator
For some appeal to authority on biblical Universalism, here is what the Trinitarian Universalist Benjamin Rush said. Note, because the key FFs Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris and others didn’t believe in (or appear to believe in) the Trinity, arguably they were not Christians, but something else (small u unitarians, theistic rationalists). But since Rush believed in the Trinity and the Atonement, he was a Christian. He believed in universal salvation based on Christ’s universal atonement. His progression was from Calvinism to Arminianism to Universalism. The idea is if Christ truly died for all and made a Universal Atonement, all will eventually be saved otherwise Christ’s shed blood would be wasted.
As he wrote in “Travels through Life,” his autobiography:
At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone can “throw the fairy tale charge” at anyone who says something they believe to be untrue. So what? That doesn’t mean that some things really aren’t “fairy tales.”
I think the point is when folks who accept the possibility of the supernatural start throwing the “fairy tale” charge around, it’s a pretty meaningless remark. My friend says Christianity is a fairy tale.
Report comment to moderator
No that is not true – Jesus made it crystal clear to the rich man what his fate was – there is no passage of Scripture which supports a second chance for Heaven.
Yes every single knee will bow, however they will bow because they have no choice, GOD has made clear they will bow, but those who had a first chance will not have a second chance they will be going to hell. Just because they realize only too late how wrong they have been, doesn’t mean they are going to Heaven.
“punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”
Report comment to moderator
Your friend is wrong. If you’re saying that the fairy tale charge is not an argument, you’re correct. But not every observation has to be an argument. In fact, I’ve only ever seen the anti-supernaturalists try to use it as an argument.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – since when are you a Bible teacher?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Just curious. If people who disapprove of homosexual behavior have a phobia, then why are we branded as bigots? After all bigotry implies choice, but people don’t choose phobias which are, by definition, irrational. You ought to have compassion on all of us poor, neurotic phobics instead of all that hostility. You bigot, you!
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
My friend says you are wrong; so you two ar eeven.
Klasko I’ve read enough of the Bible and hermeneutics to declare myself an armchair expert.
Re my bona fides, I have a double major bachelors degree, a JD, MBA, and an advanced LL.M. law degree.
I don’t need to take any more classes to gain knowledge. And a prof. I’m now in the business of giving tests and grading papers, not taking tests and writing papers.
Report comment to moderator
The word homophobia is clumsy but it doesn’t mean that the underlying concept — antigay bigotry — doesn’t exist. Likewise Anti-Semitism means anti-Jewish, not against people who are Semites only (many Jews are not Semites and many Semites are not Jews). Or when people have sex, they are not actually “sleeping together.” But I think we know what is meant.
I think that some anti-gay (and some pro-gay) folks do have a literal case of homophobia. It’s usually not women. You could be as anti-gay in your convictions as possible but still might enjoy the presence of gay friends, or have a good time in a tamer gay bar (as long as you didn’t let your religious convictions be known). That would be the “literal” kind of homophobia.
But I know some hetero males — some with anti-gay convinctions and some with no anti-gay convinctions — who don’t feel comfortable in the presence of gay men because they get weirded out by the fact that the men might be attracted to them. But, I have found, that’s a fear that most hetero guys can easily get over.
Report comment to moderator
Well Victoria,
Benjamin Rush read the same Bible that you do and didn’t see it that way. It could be the “everlasting destruction” simply refers to a particular part of a soul that dies in Hell so it can be purged of its evil and sin.
Remember there is more than one way to skin a cat or interpret the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
We may be “even,” but only one of us is correct, and although he seems to think he’s made an argument, he hasn’t. Just an empty assertion. The actual arguments for the resurrection, on the other hand, actually contain substance–not just question begging assertions about the realm of possibility.
The word homophobia was carefully chosen and coined by homosexual activists. I’d say that its “clumsiness” is an accurate reflection of the faultiness of their reasoning skills.
Report comment to moderator
You can make the same clumsiness assertion against the folks who coined anti-semitism. That doesn’t change the fact that both underlying concepts — anti-gay or anti-Jewish animus — do exist.
Report comment to moderator
Re my friend’s assertions, he would note your case for the resurrection similarly lacks substance and is based on faulty evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, #67:
Your friend may be an avowed atheist. If so, congrats. He seems to be highly ignorant as well. Check out what the phrase “oral culture” means. If he so denigrates other cultures which lack tape/audio recorders as a basis for recording history, he is essentially declaring modernity superior, and demonstrating profound arrogance. A number of my seminary professors talked about high important memorization was in 1st century Palestine. The Hebrews were renowned for memorizing things (if you don’t write stuff down, then how do you remember it?). They were also quite good at literacy, but specialized in the oral culture. Your friend seems to have been imbibing just a bit at the fountain of critical scholarship…he may wish to refresh his understanding with newer, better scholarship.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
What’s your point in regard to your friend’s beliefs?
My original point was that an assertion is not meant to be an argument, so it’s childish and silly to respond with a kind of “I’m rubber your glue…” sort of response. And my second point was that anti-supernaturalists, such as your friend, who illegitimately use the “fairy tale” charge as an argument (as opposed to a mere assertion).
Neither of those points have been addressed in any of your responses.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Victoria, I think you misunderstood my point. Klasko insinuated that I am not qualified to make biblical scholarly arguments as though I have to actually have attended a seminary (have you?). I relayed my credentials to show that I have an academic type mind that qualifies me to do this study and make these arguments. In reality, you don’t even need a high school education to be able to make scholarly arguments or gain scholarly expertise; there was a strong kernel of truth in that scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon noted he got a Harvard like education for 50 cents, the cost of a Boston Public Library Card. But if one doesn’t have those credentials one might find one’s career prospects limited.
Report comment to moderator
True, but clumsy labels do highlight the absurdity (and dishonesty) of those who throw around meaningless “bigotry” charges at anyone who opposes them.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t used the word “homophobia” in my comments, Ree, but I will make a comment regarding it since you brought it up:
I consider “homophobia” to be a generalized fear of gay people. Basically it’s a fear of the unknown and based on ignorance (non-pejoratively) of gay people. A fair number of people suffer from the condition, but it’s generally treatable with a little education and getting to know some gay people personally. I would put some conservative Christians in this category.
I consider “anti-gay bigotry” to be an outright hostility toward gay people. It’s based on hatred and prejudice, and manifests itself in denigrating language, treating gas people as “less than” (social and legal outcasts), and a self-righteous, judgmental, holier-than-thou attitude. I would put the vast majority of conservative Christians in this category.
Report comment to moderator
Kennethos,
The problem with the “oral tradition” culture is that tall tales and supernatural myths have been interwoven in almost all ancient histories. Look at the story of the Founding of Rome. In the Greco-Roman world, they tended to resist believing in some of supernatural myths surrounding the oral tradition in their culture only because the Greeks invented science and skepticism.
My friend makes a good point; unless we have a lab tested case for the resurrection, you never be able to assert a bald fact the Truth of said events.
And quite frankly I don’t see your faith as requiring such “proof,” because that’s what “faith” is all about. If you had the proof, you wouldn’t need faith.
Report comment to moderator
I have to say to this whole Miss California flap: wow. Just wow. No one-especially not on the left, but surprisingly few on the right-seem to notice the one thing here that absolutely infuriated me about the whole blow up: Carrie Prejean did not proffer her views on homosexual marriage herself. She was ASKED, pointblank, what her views on the topic were. And then, for having the temerity to actually say what she thought instead of what the bigoted judge (and left wing lynch mob) wanted to hear, she is called every name in the book. So, she had no right to state her opinion, huh? Perez might do well to follow an old saw: If you don’t want to know the answer to something, DON’T ASK THE QUESTION. His response was absolutely ridiculous. What was Ms. Prejean to do? Lie, lest the narrow minded tranquility of left wing anti religious zealots like Perez Hilton be disturbed? And then, Anlir’s typical comments about hate and intolerance from Christians-Anlir, I don’t see Christians rioting, vandalising the buildings owned by gay activist groups, or attacking people for daring to walk down the street in a certain part of town (Remember the incident in the Castro not too long ago where Christians were set upon by an angry mob for daring to pray in public? They weren’t even proselytizing. Just praying quietly, and they were assaulted.) All the hate and intolerance I see is coming from the left on this one-and the parallel between it and Mao’s Cultural Revolution is scary. Leftists seem to have one ironclad rule these days-Agree with us, or we will punish you.
I may not agree with what you say, but unlike you, I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Your response to me sounds almost reasonable, and if I didn’t know better, I’d think that you could be reasoned with to understand that the Christian opposition to the normalization of homosexual behavior, whether you agree with it or not, is based on genuine conviction and not hatred, bigotry, prejudice, or self-righteousness. But, alas, I’ve read enough of your posts to know better.
Report comment to moderator
#75, Jon Rowe wrote; ,i>”I’ve read enough of the Bible and hermeneutics to declare myself an armchair expert.”
Well, I’ve read enough of the FBible to declare myself the right to disagree with Jon.
Also, Jon has often also presumed the divine authority to judge the very Christianity of many men (who cliamed to be Christian themselves) he never ever even met–like the Founding Fathers. I disagree with Jon’s declarations and judgments on this score too.
Jon continued; “I have a double major bachelors degree, a JD, MBA, and an advanced LL.M. law degree.”M.i<
Sorry, Jon, you still cannot be God.
Jon continued; “I don’t need to take any more classes to gain knowledge.”
I think we now finally have a specific example for what Barack Obama claimed on foreign soil, namely that “America has shown arrogance.”
Report comment to moderator
“This argument for biblical Universalism is not simply acknowledging God. Rather it’s confessing Jesus is Lord”
Wow Jon, did you miss nearly every gospel, where every demon that Christ encounters, knows exactly who he is! They are the ones confessing that Jesus is the Christ every time. They know he is Lord and confess that in front of others.
“The idea is if Christ truly died for all and made a Universal Atonement, all will eventually be saved otherwise Christ’s shed blood would be wasted.”
Its a good conclusion, but the assumption begins that Christ came to die for “all” as in all mankind. It’s a false assumption. Christ died for his sheep. His redemption is accomplished and applied, to those he has called. His blood was not wasted, true, but nor was it extended to everyone.
Universalism is not built on doctrine, but on an emotional response to the uneasiness of those perishing in hell. A bottom up view.
Report comment to moderator
Those who have called Carrie Prejean (and/or her comments) “bigoted” on this thread. please tell us why President Obama (who said the same thing as she did) is not. Or is he, in your eyes?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Oh I do gain more knowledge by reading books and going to conferences, for instance, I was in Princeton last Friday picking the brain of, among others, Robert P. George who is on a first name basis with former President Bush and (I think) the Pope.
My point was simply that I have transcended the point where I need to take tests and get graded. Been there, done that.
Re the FFs Joel Mark knows I have good reason for asserting they weren’t “Christians”; I do so according to very premises believed in on this site, if you don’t believe Jesus God the Son and accept his atoning “work” on the cross (something the Universalist Benjamin Rush did, but the unitarians J. Adams, Franklin and Jefferson, explicitly did NOT, and in which Washington and Madison gave no evidence of believing) then you aren’t a “Christian.”
For all I know the second before their deaths they changed their minds and believed exactly like you all do; that doesn’t concern me. What concerns me is their religious beliefs, on the record, throughout their lives. And the evidence isn’t their that the first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and others were “Christians” in this sense.
Of course, if simply calling yourself a Christian, even if you believed Jesus was 100% man, not God at all, and saved men thru his superior moral example, that indeed men are justified thru works not faith, is sufficient to be a “Christian,” then they were “Christians.”
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Universalism is not built on doctrine, but on an emotional response to the uneasiness of those perishing in hell. A bottom up view.
You are mistaken. Universalism was a common view of many of the early church fathers. Not the heretics, the respected ones, including Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. It is WELL supported from Scripture, and from the logic of God’s purpose as revealed there (a few proof-texts nonwithstanding.)
It was not until Constantine discovered that it was politically expedient to convince people that they faced eternal damnation if they did not embrace the religion that universalism was declared anathema. But even so it survived, as a minority point of view.
I don’t intend to wade back into the debate here, because other than Jon and me and possibly Jonny, no one’s even willing to give the idea a fair hearing. But do not make the mistake of believing that universal reconciliation is merely “an emotional response” without sound support. That is not correct.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible teaches that adultery, homosexuality, incest, and premarital sex are ALL SIN, none worse that the other, all are sin. The difference with homosexuals, they want to deny the sin.
Anlir, don’t blame the Christian, take your case up with God.
You hear Christians expressing their belief in what God has said about homosexuality more that adultery because adulterers aren’t denying their actions are sinful!
It’s not hateful, bigoted, or homophobic, it Biblical!
Report comment to moderator
Be careful when you say God loves everyone, that is not Biblical.
Malachi 1
1 An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD.
“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the LORD says. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd,
You are making a good point. Parts of the Bible seem to say that God doesn’t love everyone. That’s the exact proof text the Westboro Baptist Church point to for the proposition that God hates people. As Calvinists they believe God only loves the elect and hates the non-elect, who constitute the vast majority of humanity. God hates people; God hates sinners.
My own response is how terrible it would be were that true.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd – 96
Your points well taken: “The difference with homosexuals, they want to deny the sin.”
I don’t know of one man or woman who, when questioned or caught in adultery will not be ashamed, or lie about their sin, they know what they’ve done is wrong.
How many young people haven’t lied to their parents about sleeping with their boy/girl friend, that’s because they are ashamed.
Incest is no different, most will hide it or lie about it when caught, they know its wrong.
When it comes to homosexuality, most, if not the majority are not only proud of their sin, they flaunt it. They no longer see it as sin, but their right to live as they please.
When one has turned their back on GOD’s Word the passage of Scripture applies – to everyone who as chosen to live against GOD.
reprobate Greek – adokimos — ad-ok’-ee-mos
unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a good resource from Yale explaining why those passage that use the term “eternal” or “everlasting” are not in conflict with theological universalism.
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm#10.
10. “Eternal” in the New Testament
Fortunately, this is only an apparent collision. The appearance of a collision is produced by a problem arising with our English Bibles’ translation of “eternal”.
The Greek adjective (and its cognates) that our English Bibles translate as “eternal” or “everlasting” (and their cognates), literally means “age-enduring” or “pertaining to an age”, and can be used in such a way that it does not imply endless duration. This opens up a way around our collision: If the “eternal” in the “eternal” punishment passages is understood as not implying an endless duration, there’s no conflict between these passages and the universalist passages.
What makes this a very comfortable, and not a strained or desperate, way around the collision is that, not only can the Greek word mean something that doesn’t imply endless duration, but it often does get used with such a meaning — including in the Bible itself, and even in the Pauline corpus. Consider Romans 16:25-26, which, as our translations have it, speaks of “the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed.” Here, the Greek that gets translated as “for long ages” includes the very Greek work that is translated as “eternal” or “everlasting” elsewhere, including the “eternal” punishment passages. But in this Romans passage, Paul seems not to mean “eternal” by this word, for he immediately goes on to say the secret “is now disclosed”, so of course it wasn’t kept secret eternally. That’s why our translations don’t translate it as “eternally” here.
[For more on this Greek term, as well as on the Greek term used here for "punishment," which, apparently, was usually used for remedial punishment(!), see the final section ("Punishment in the Coming Age," pp. 89-92) of Thomas Talbott's "Three Pictures of God in Western Theology," Faith and Philosophy 12 (1995): pp. 79-94). More extensive commentary on this matter of translation, which is also more convenient for those with access to the internet, because the good folks at the Tentmaker site have made it available on line, is Rev. John Wesley's Hanson's treatise on THE GREEK WORD AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS. Talbott now has a book, The Inescapable Love of God, which incorporates much of his earlier prouniversalism work; for information and for some parts that are available on-line, click here.]
Incidentally, I’ve heard it argued by some who emphasize the parallelism in Matthew 25:46 between the fate of the damned and of the saved — “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” — that if you deny that punishment lasts forever, then you must also deny that the “eternal” life of the saved is unending. But, of course, that doesn’t follow. Where the Greek word that gets translated as “eternal” doesn’t imply endless duration, it also doesn’t mean anything that implies less than endless duration. It can mean “in the age to come,” or “for long ages,” or, perhaps, if another of Talbott’s suggestions is right, it can mean something like “having its source in the eternal God”; at any rate, all of these are neutral with respect to the question of whether what’s called “eternal” will last forever. So taking such a reading of “eternal” here does not imply that the “eternal” life of the saved will come to end; the most that can be gotten out of the parallelism of Matthew 25:46 is that we can’t confidently base our belief that the “eternal” life of the saved will last forever on that passage. Hopefully, though, we have bases for that belief other than that detail of this parable! (For much more on this passage in Matthew, see the section entitled “THE PRINCIPAL PROOF-TEXT” (which contains several numbered subsections) of the Hanson treatise, to which there’s a link above. For Greek words which do teach endless duration and which do get applied to the blessed life of the saved, but which are not applied to punishment, see the section of Hanson entitled “WORDS TEACHING ENDLESS DURATION.”)
That Paul himself uses the relevant Greek term in such a way that it doesn’t imply endless duration makes the possibility that he’s using it the same way in the “eternal punishment” passages a very live possibility. By comparison, all the attempts to get around the universalist implications of the likes of the passages we saw in section 2 that I’ve encountered seem very strained, even desperate. (Example: “Here where it says that God through Christ will reconcile all things to himself, it really means (not what is says but rather?), at least as it’s applied to people, that God, through Christ, will give all an opportunity to be reconciled to him, and where it says that in Christ all shall be made alive, what it really means (is not what it says but rather?) that in Christ all will be given an opportunity to be made alive, or that all will be made alive to the possibility of salvation.”) At the very least, those who think it’s clear that the strongest scriptural case on the question of universalism goes against the view, and that it’s therefore clear that it’s the apparently universalist passages which must be interpreted away, have a lot of explaining to do.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
This doesn’t prove a thing, it’s only your copy paste talent, you exhibit far to often! If you knew the Bible you wouldn’t need to copy past two feet on a post, from someone else’s work.
Report comment to moderator
V,
That’s like the pot calling the kettle black.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve seen you quote long passages from your favorite Bible study guide countless times.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU WRITE:
“I’ve seen you quote long passages from your favorite Bible study guide countless times.”
PROVE it Jon – I don’t have a study guide. I use the Bible – I also give a quote on rare instances from two different
commentaries which are never longer than two short paragraphs. I hardly think your long ‘copy paste’ materpieces fit in that category.
Report comment to moderator
Having passed 100 comments (as usual), I now pronounce this an Official Gay Blog! on worldmag.
Carry on.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You are the queen of nits always looking for them to pick.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, your’s are easy, they’re whoppers –
Report comment to moderator
Let me act like Victoria.
“Jon, your’s [sic] are easy, they’re whoppers.”
Live by the nit, die by the nit.
Report comment to moderator
But V,
If I wanted to ask you a serious question it would be, what would you say to Benjamin Rush after reading the following in his autobiography:
As he wrote in “Travels through Life,” his autobiography:
At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.
Do you think he was reading a different Bible than you?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Don’t get excited, many of the post are off topic.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You’ve tried before to get me to read the material which fascinates you – I simply don’t read it anymore, I read lots of things you posted months ago, but most of it was just like the above, a copy paste – no thanks!
Report comment to moderator
#94, Jon Rowe wrote; “Joel Mark knows I have good reason for asserting they weren’t ‘Christians’;”
Jon actually knows I fully disagree with his presumption to have good reasons for judging the Christianity of men he never knew.
Jon, your agenda is too blinding for you to see straight, in my opinion. Only God can make those judgments. And when you try to assert what you think I know, and when you try to speak for me, you are on even weaker ground than usual.
Report comment to moderator
Again, those who have called Carrie Prejean (and/or her comments) “bigoted” on this thread. please tell us why President Obama (who said the same thing as she did) is not. Or is he, in your eyes?
I have read nearly every post and have not seen any responses to my request. Perhpas I missed it. Has Anlir or Marynugs responded?
Report comment to moderator
Jon actually knows I fully disagree with his presumption to have good reasons for judging the Christianity of men he never knew.
Jon, your agenda is too blinding for you to see straight, in my opinion. Only God can make those judgments. And when you try to assert what you think I know, and when you try to speak for me, you are on even weaker ground than usual.
Joel this is both logical fallacy and misrepresentation of my position. For one, it’s logical fallacy to suggest I can’t CATEGORIZE the religion of these Founding Fathers without have personally met them. If that were true, you couldn’t “judge” whether Jesus was God or the Son of God because you never met him personally. Further, entire BOOKS have been written by respected historians in the academy that CATEGORIZE the religion of these Founding Fathers.
Further, it misrepresents my position to suggest that I am trying to “judge” the soul of these men as “God” is the only person who can do that. I explicitly wrote in my post that for all I know these men could have had a conversion to the “right” kind of Christianity seconds before their death. OR FOR ALL YOU KNOW THEIR UNITARIANISM is the “right” theology, that Jesus is NOT GOD as they believed and that men are saved thru their good works as THEY BELIEVED.
Rather I’m doing history fair and square.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama did not say the same thing that Carrie Prejean said.
The President is personally opposed to marriage for gay people, but he is open to be persuaded to a different point of view. In the meantime he supports giving gay couples access to the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage at both the federal and state level. He also opposes state laws and constitutional amendments that outlaw marriage equality. He speaks as a man with an open heart and an open mind.
Carrie Prejean on the other hand, speaks as a fundamentalist bigot, with a closed heart and a closed mind.
Report comment to moderator
In other words he’s against is it and for it.
That’s a real clear position.
So he fair minded bigote.
Report comment to moderator
Correct me if I’m wrong, Oboma said he was against Gay Marriage, but for civil unions but the states should decide.
That was during the compain.
Report comment to moderator
Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
How is that different for Ms C
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Is Oboma a hateful bigot?
Report comment to moderator
Lest compare.
Prejean: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman … that’s how I was raised.”
Oboma: I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Anlir, your turn.
Report comment to moderator
See #117 Lloyd. I already pointed out the huge difference between the President and Ms. Prejean.
When Ms. Prejean said “No offense to anybody out there…” she immediately did cause offense – big time!. She knew her statement was bigoted and hateful – that’s why she gave the disclaimer.
Report comment to moderator
So as long as I say “no offense”, it’s ok to believe in tradional marriage?
WMB take note, Anlir says it’s ok to believe in tradional marriage.
Report comment to moderator
I should note that gay people are holding President Obama’s feet to the fire on the issue of equality. We’re willing to be patient, but if he doesn’t come through for us, he will lose our support. I will have no qualms about voting against him when he runs for re-election if he doesn’t prove to be a man of his word.
Report comment to moderator
It is ok to believe in traditional marriage as long as one doesn’t use the law it to force their religious belief upon those who believe in marriage equality. Freedom is a wonderful thing!
Report comment to moderator
WMB
Please excuse my spelling today. Usually I type on word document and spell check, then copy and past.
Report comment to moderator
But Anlir, you have been calling us hateful bigots for just having that belief. Have you change your mind since you know Oboma feeling the same way.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
If you believe this way, then do you believe that homosexuals have the right to teach about homosexuality in our schools, along with trans-gender identification?
Homosexuals force their educational material on our children in public school, do you think that’s OK?
You can marry anytime you like, so what’s the problem?
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd, don’t worry about it –
Report comment to moderator
It is ok to believe in gay marriage as long as one doesn’t use the law it to force their belief upon those who believe in tradional marriage. Freedom is a wonderful thing!
Report comment to moderator
Or the courts!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Your misrepresentation of Christians is a constant irritant, but I don’t expect you to change that. It would be nice, though, if you’d just stop calling individual threads on this blog “blogs.” WMB is a blog. Individual posts and the comments that follow are threads.
Report comment to moderator
#94, Jon Rowe wrote; “Joel Mark knows I have good reason for asserting they weren’t ‘Christians.”
I repeat, sense Jon missed my point — Jon actually knows I fully disagree with his presumption to have good reasons for judging the Christianity of men he never knew. I do not think he gives good reasons at all, and he knows that is what I think.
#116 – There is no logical fallacy in my telling you, Jom, that you have mis-stated my view. You just cannot be told you are wrong because I think you think you are above all reproach.
But you tried to speak for me, Jon, and your statement about me and what I think was just wrong.
You also changed a key word in what I said in order to try to argue with what I said. That’s not just a logical fallacy, Jon, it’s dishonest. I said that you are judging the “Christianity” of the FFs, not necessarily their “soul.” Maybe you are also judging theri souls, but that’s not what i said. Don’t change my words outright, Jon, just because you cannot argue rationally with what I actually said.
I think you selectively pull isolated quotes out of context often from ancient private letters at particular moments in a life that contradict other statements they have made. I think a scholar would be more humble and less dogmatic with conclusions that are subjective and more debatable than you suggest.
Jon, I think you regularly misrepresent the Founders, just like you often misrepresent what I think and have said.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir wrote; “President Obama did not say the same thing that Carrie Prejean said.”
False! I heard him say the exact same thin that this young lady said in a debate, as a candidate. I think it was the one with Rick Warren. He stated clearly that he believed that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. That’s his position. He is against same-sex marriage.
Anlir wrote; “The President is personally opposed to marriage for gay people, but he is open to be persuaded to a different point of view.”
Personally opposed? So is Carrie Prejean. Has Obama changed his view?
No.
Anlir wrote; “In the meantime he supports giving gay couples access to the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage at both the federal and state level.”
And Carrie Prejean doesn’t??? You don’t know, do you? Obama still said he is opposed to same-sex marriage. You are out on a limb, Anlir.
Anlir writes of Obama: “He also opposes state laws and constitutional amendments that outlaw marriage equality. He speaks as a man with an open heart and an open mind.”
False. Obama does NOT support marriage equality for homosexuals and he has said so clearly. He does not even think they should get marriaged. ALSO, Obama does NOT support “marriage equality for polygamists, polyamorists and other such consenting adults who are in love and want to marry.
Report comment to moderator
Ree:
The conservative Christian misrepresentation of gays is a constant irritant, but I don’t expect them to change that.
It would be nice, though, if you’d just stop calling individual threads on this blog “blogs.”
It’s amazing what irritates people.
Report comment to moderator
I repeat, sense Jon missed my point — Jon actually knows I fully disagree with his presumption to have good reasons for judging the Christianity of men he never knew. I do not think he gives good reasons at all, and he knows that is what I think.
Oh I seriously doubt in your heart of hearts you believe that because you’ve seen the overwhelming evidence I’ve offered that these men were not orthodox Trinitarian Christians. Yours is a case of either denial or shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message.
I said that you are judging the “Christianity” of the FFs, not necessarily their “soul.” Maybe you are also judging theri souls, but that’s not what i said. Don’t change my words outright, Jon, just because you cannot argue rationally with what I actually said.
Joel this is called SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT and every orthodox Christian minister worth his salt does this! If you want to argue for theological liberalism where folks can deny the Trinity, eternal damnation and infallibility of the Bible and still be “Christians,” (what many of the key FFs did!) be my guest.
I think you selectively pull isolated quotes out of context often from ancient private letters at particular moments in a life that contradict other statements they have made.
Again, trying to explain away what CAN’T be explained away. John Adams on the Incarnation:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
John Adams explaining how he held to these Unitarian beliefs his ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.
“I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.
“In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!”
John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.
And:
“We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816, Ibid, reel 430.
These things can’t be explained away by context.
I think a scholar would be more humble and less dogmatic with conclusions that are subjective and more debatable than you suggest.
Jon, I think you regularly misrepresent the Founders, just like you often misrepresent what I think and have said.
Well my views are right in line with Stephen Waldman’s who by the way emailed me (without me soliciting him first), told me he reads my blogs and he agrees with my overall position on the key FFs’ faiths. And his excellent new book on the matter got props from among others, Mark Noll, Bill Bennett, George Stephanopoulos, and Walter Isaacson.
Looks like I’m in good company regarding my point of view on the Founders’ faith.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd,
If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one. I swear it on my father’s grave – no one will force you to marry another man. We’ve got 4 states with marriage equality and there hasn’t been a single incident of any man being forced to marry another man or any woman being forced to marry another woman in any of them. Nor has their been a single incident of any church or minister being forced to marry any couple against their will. The monster in the closet is a figment of your imagination.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the above confusing formatting issue re Joel Mark’s comments v. mine. To clarify:
[Joel:] I think you selectively pull isolated quotes out of context often from ancient private letters at particular moments in a life that contradict other statements they have made.
‘Jon:] Again, trying to explain away what CAN’T be explained away. John Adams on the Incarnation:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
John Adams explaining how he held to these Unitarian beliefs his ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.
“I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.
“In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!”
John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.
And:
“We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816, Ibid, reel 430.
[Jon:] These things can’t be explained away by context.
[Joel:] I think a scholar would be more humble and less dogmatic with conclusions that are subjective and more debatable than you suggest.
Jon, I think you regularly misrepresent the Founders, just like you often misrepresent what I think and have said.
[Jon:] Well my views are right in line with Stephen Waldman’s who by the way emailed me (without me soliciting him first), told me he reads my blogs and he agrees with my overall position on the key FFs’ faiths. And his excellent new book on the matter got props from among others, Mark Noll, Bill Bennett, George Stephanopoulos, and Walter Isaacson.
Looks like I’m in good company regarding my point of view on the Founders’ faith.
Report comment to moderator
The conservative Christian misrepresentation of gays is a constant irritant, but I don’t expect them to change that.
(You normally get a respectful exchange from the Christians on this blog. I will admit to a few exception but they are few and normally they are chidded. I read no gay bashing today.)
Your misrepresenation of Christian postition is a constant irritant, But I don’t expect you to change that.
But that said, we have had a civil exchange today, and I have enjoy it.
I will bid you good night and God Bless.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir wrote; “President Obama did not say the same thing that Carrie Prejean said.”
False! I heard him say the exact same thin that this young lady said in a debate, as a candidate. I think it was the one with Rick Warren. He stated clearly that he believed that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. That’s his position. He is against same-sex marriage.
False! You’re only giving part of the story regarding the President to push your anti-gay agenda. I pointed out the differences in #117.
Your attempts to link Ms. Prejean to the President on this issue are disingenuous at best. It’s really low-down to associate the President with an anti-gay bigot. They are miles apart in their thinking and their attitude toward gay people.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
How do you know Ms Prejean’s feeling about gays. She only expressed her feelings about Gay Marriage.
As I showed earlier, Obama said almost the same thing. Is Obama a bigot for saying the same thing?
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd: It is ok to believe in gay marriage as long as one doesn’t use the law it to force their belief upon those who believe in tradional marriage.
That’s reasonable. So, no laws that would force anyone to marry a same-sex partner.
I can support that!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir -14 and MaryNuggs-15. I am deeply offended by your idiotic posts. You both are clearly afraid of decency and morality, and that just crawls up my spine. Mary, your screed tells me alot about you. I was hoping for something more pleasant
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “Oh I seriously doubt in your heart of hearts you believe…”
You have no earthly idea what you are talking about, Jon. Yet you are dogmatic and confident when it comes to your presumptions about what I believe. It’s a lot like your baseless confidence that you know what all the Founding fathers personally believed (even when your claims contradict much that they wrote and said–which I have presented often on such threads as this to illustrate your over-reach in presumption).
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “this is called SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT and every orthodox Christian minister worth his salt does this!”
False, Jon, not with men or women they never personally knew or spoke with who lived two centuries before. Christian ministers worth their salt leave such judgments to God.
You often make the unscholarly mistake of lumping the Founders together irresponsibly to suit your presumptions.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You can assert my conclusions re the FFs are contradiction by their other writings, but you offer NO evidence for this proposition. And that’s a wise thing that you don’t because I think you know I’d be able to shoot it down in a second.
My assertions re the FFs creed stand regardless of your empty protestations.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You don’t know what you are talking about. Christian ministers who are interested in theology make such categorizations about historical figures ALL the time. A Christian minister would want to cite as AUTHORITY an early Church Father, for instance, if that figure believed in a soul damning heresy!
An orthodox Trinitarian Christian minister who appeals to Arius for authority will get his head handed to him by his fellow theologians and ministers.
Joel I think you need to read more Walter Martin. He was quite good at spiritual discernment, but better than you.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
When you choose to take on Joel and theology you are out of your league – He is most patient with you, and so are many others.
As far as the Founding Fathers – you have tried in many instances to make every thread you post on reflect in some way your beliefs of the FF’s, which has nothing to do with the thread -
Report comment to moderator
Jon needs to understand that Joel and The Queen are God’s final authority on here. Whatever they say is coming directly from God and is absolutely true and without error. Jon should note that his continual questioning and disagreement of their pronouncements carries the most severe of consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I will continue to post and relate these issues to the Founding Fathers as much as possible. I appreciate the thanks I get from many folks on this site for the hard work and meticulous research I share.
When you or Joel Mark try to take ME on re the FFs and religion, you are out of my league. And I know enough about historic orthodox Christian theology to understand that John Adams was, according to orthodox Christian standards, a unitarian heretic as far removed from historic orthodox Christian standards as the Mormons, Roy Masters, or Bishop Spong.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, —- save it for those who have not studied the Word of God, they might listen to you, however I hope and pray they don’t.
As for the FF’s – you and I have had discussions – you were wrong about Adams, as I posted the material directly from Adams letter. lol –
Carry on -
Report comment to moderator
“It is WELL supported from Scripture, and from the logic of God’s purpose as revealed there (a few proof-texts nonwithstanding.)”
With the founding assumption that God loves everybody, or wouldnt send everyone to hell forever.
“I don’t intend to wade back into the debate here, because other than Jon and me and possibly Jonny, no one’s even willing to give the idea a fair hearing. But do not make the mistake of believing that universal reconciliation is merely “an emotional response” without sound support. That is not correct.”
Sound support: See Jon Rowe in posts #63 and #98
He mentions in both how “horrific” it would be. Its the continual underlying emotion that God would be horrible or a monster if from the outset it was ordained that specific people are hell bound. These are most often the emotions associated with the rejection of the Calvinistic/Reformed view, and the resulting doctrines are built around it in response. We can look at other recent blogs where others have responded the same as well, and I believe even you have mentioned it Steve.
It’s an understandable response. Arminianism seems to fall somewhere in between in its attempts to reconcile the core of this issue as well.
The core of course being God’s sovereignty and holiness vs man’s responsibility and sin. Where does the line end or overlap?
How we address that is a huge reflection of our doctrine, is it not? And yet it is a line that is nigh impossible to understand fully.
So where does Arminianism fall short? Jon Rowe even rightly points out that if Christ came to die, his blood was not wasted. We know God does not fail, and thus, its not plausible that man can fall away if bought by Christ’s blood.
So Universalism takes that to mean everyone will be saved at some point. Calvinism takes that to mean that God will save who he has ordained.
You cant make God more loving, or less loving than He is. He is love. Whether he choses to create or not create us in the first place, doesnt change that or tip the scale. God also doesnt need vindication for creating an Adam that could potentially fall whether ordained or simply foreknown. In other words, God doesnt have to save everyone to justify himself.
Calvinism doesnt paint a picture of a horrible God. It simply leaves it in God’s sovereign hands.
There are far more passages in Scripture discussing God’s prophecies, his destruction of civilizations, his redeeming of his people, his views of Jacob and Esau, etc etc that display how God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and that his plan will come to fruition. I dont know of any that say he will save everyone, across all of earth’s history at some point in time and especially post death.
Christ said he came to die for his sheep, and the author of Hebrews reminds us in Ch. 9:27 that it is appointed that man should die once, and then face judgement.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You never proved me wrong about one substantive assertion I made on John Adams, that for instance, he disbelieved in original sin, the trinity, the incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation, and infallibility of the Bible. He also thought religions outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition (for instance, Islam, Hinduism and pagan Greco-Romanism) worshipped the same God Jews and Christians do.
I do recall however, you making some kind of issue out of some kind of meaningless nit you had to pick about Adams.
In any case, it doesn’t make you look good to misrepresent our past conversations or John Adams’ personal religious beliefs that informed his public approach to religion & govt.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn:
I dont know of any that say he will save everyone, across all of earth’s history at some point in time and especially post death.
Sigh … I should just leave it be, but …
OK, look through the New Testament, especially (but not entirely) the Pauline corpus. There are many many references to God’s ultimate intention. “God will be all in all.” Every knee shall bow. As all die in Adam, all are made alive in Christ.
One of the most revealing: This is a faithful saying worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:9-11.)
(If God is the savior of only those who believe, why say “all, and especially those who believe?” Lest you argue that it might be an idiomatic expression, I point out that Paul uses the same language in Galatians 6:10, where he says: Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. Is that an idiomatic expression, which really means to do good only to fellow believers?)
There are many more similar passages. Jesus speaks of drawing all men to him, if he be lifted up. Paul speaks of the coming restoration of the Jews. Paul describes God as reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not just a few people. And not even just humans, but all of creation. Paul says Christ will defeat sin and death. If sin and death still exist and still hold power over created beings, and are just confined to a piece of eternity called ‘hell,’ they haven’t been defeated.
This is a grand vision of God’s ultimate purpose that lies well beyond the immediate circumstances. There are indeed warnings of punishment to come, and nothing about universal reconciliation denies that. It merely argues that the punishment, while lengthy and as severe as needed, is also finite and ultimately for redemptive purpose. (Eternal torment that does nothing to cure the disease of sin, that goes on only to cause pain to the sinner, and that never ever ends, is not justice. It is sadistic vengeance. However, finite punishment that burns out the impurity of sin, and that allows the sinner to see through the blinders until he can call out for mercy and forgiveness and be admitted into heaven, is eminently just AND gracious … God-like, in other words.)
That’s a nutshell view of the Scripture. The logic of God’s nature is also part of the argument. God created the universe to be good. God allowed it to fall into sin (if God is sovereign, then nothing happens he does not permit), and God set about to redeem it.
If God is able to redeem only some of it, then his power is limited and he is ultimately defeated by evil. If God is able to redeem all of it but chooses to redeem only some of it, then his power is infinite but his love is stingy (a notion that runs counter “God IS love,” as John asserts.)
If God CAN save all and WILL save all, only in that case can he be said to be all love, all-powerful, and perfectly just, and victorious.
Recommended (yet again):
The Inescapable Love of God, Thomas Talbott
The Evangelical Universalist, Gregory MacDonald
Report comment to moderator
Wow this thread has strayed …
Maybe what Perez needs isn’t Jesus, but a move to
NEW HAMPSHIRE!!
Yee Haw
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
One of the mistakes I see you repeatedly making is in confusing the content of one’s confession with one’s status in Christ. A person can hold to some heretical (i.e., non-Christian) beliefs and still be justified in Christ. One can judge the orthodoxy of the confession of a historical figure, but trying to determine that same figure’s status in Christ is much stickier.
Report comment to moderator
A person can hold to some heretical (i.e., non-Christian) beliefs and still be justified in Christ.
So how, exactly, does one merit being unjustified in Christ?
Report comment to moderator
Just got done viewing some YouTube interviews of PreJean
And you know what? What I saw doesn’t come even close to Lynn’s claims:
I spent some time yesterday with Carrie Prejean, and also heard her speak twice at the Rock. She is the most poised, self-possessed, articulate 21-year-old woman I’ve ever had the privilege to meet.
You know what? Here answers to interview questions were sub-Palin
And you know what? She started every answer with the question, “And you know what?”
And you know what? It sounded incredibly irritating.
And you know what? This woman was NOT “articulate” nor “intelligent,” she was simply evasive in a practiced beauty pageant sort of way.
And you know what? Making her the poster child for religious prejudice does her a great disservice, ’cause she’s no Anita Bryant!
And you know what? Anita Bryant didn’t end her political cause celebre’ in such great shape.
And you know what? Prejean is not likely to fare any better!
Report comment to moderator
Well, I see Ms. Prjean has joined a hate group (NOM) and is going to make an ad for them touting her bigotry. Her “rock star” status in conservative Christianity is sure to skyrocket now.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
Maybe I’ve been watching too much John MacArthur, but as I understand “orthodoxy,” Arianism and Socinianism are soul damning heresies.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
NOM is a hate group that considers us to be sub-human and wants to strip us of our legal and civil rights as American citizens. They are the KKK of conservative Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
Prove it – their website says nothing of what you claim”
Now PROVE it – show us on their website where they have said what you have accused them.
Everyone has a right to believe as they wish. Prop 8 was supported in California whether you like it or not.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Heresy can certainly lead to complete apostasy, but I doubt that even John McArthur would claim that anyone who’s been misled by false teaching is necessarily damned. But if I’m wrong, and he does claim that, he’s not the official spokesperson for orthodoxy.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Do you really believe that well over 50% of the country consists of hateful bigots who consider you sub-human? Has it ever occurred to you that this kind of paranoia might be indicative of a problem in your perception rather than a problem with the majority of the country? Think about it.
Report comment to moderator
“It merely argues that the punishment, while lengthy and as severe as needed, is also finite and ultimately for redemptive purpose.(Eternal torment that does nothing to cure the disease of sin, that goes on only to cause pain to the sinner, and that never ever ends, is not justice. It is sadistic vengeance. However, finite punishment that burns out the impurity of sin, and that allows the sinner to see through the blinders until he can call out for mercy and forgiveness and be admitted into heaven, is eminently just AND gracious … God-like, in other words.)”
Steve you still face the same problem though. If men are suffering in hell at all, but through their payment attain righteousness, they are rendering Christ’s work on the cross incomplete.
Christ’s attoning sacrifice was either sufficient or it isnt. There isnt a middle ground. It’s not half his work and half payment from me, and Scripture is quite clear on that.
So its either, Christ died for everyone and there is no hell, or Christ died to redeem simply his chosen people.
Christ didnt pay a finite payment. He paid a complete infinite payment. That seems to be a distinction you make as well, that sin only has a finite consequence. I dont find that scripturally supported either.
Galatians 6, I think its to far to cross reference that with 1 Timothy. Saying be good to everyone isnt the same as saving everyone.
All and World word usage dont always mean every single person throughout history. There are plenty of passages where that is obviously not the case, nor would it be plausible to even consider “all” as in everyone/everything all the time. We also have Paul writing here in Timothy, who also wrote Romans 9. So is Paul contradicting himself? I dont think so.
Take 1 Cor 6:12 for instance where Paul says “All things are lawful…” Does that “all” include murder? Obviously, No. If we are getting strict on the usage of “all” then how do you apply the same principle to the following word “men”. Are we leaving out women?
“God created the universe to be good. God allowed it to fall into sin (if God is sovereign, then nothing happens he does not permit), and God set about to redeem it.”
True, and we also know evil/sin will not conquer God. It is always conformed and yet not authored.
“If God is able to redeem only some of it, then his power is limited and he is ultimately defeated by evil. If God is able to redeem all of it but chooses to redeem only some of it, then his power is infinite but his love is stingy (a notion that runs counter “God IS love,” as John asserts.)”
You only consider his love stingy, because your asserting that God is required to love everyone. He is not bound by his creation, esp a bunch of sinners. His power to save is not limited, simply because he chose to save some. Is a King any less powerful because he has the power to conquer the world, but choses to conquer none? Is the USA less powerful simply because we chose not to nuke North Korea?
“If God CAN save all and WILL save all, only in that case can he be said to be all love, all-powerful, and perfectly just, and victorious.”
So God is only just if he saves everyone? Your reversing it. God IS just. What he declares is always just. He will always be just, whether he choses to save all, some, or none.
If your going to believe in that statement, and then say there is a hell, then your still running into the problem that God wasnt powerful enough to save through Christ. Men are 1. still rejecting Christ and 2. required to spend time in hell.
So its either, God has saved some and accomplished that by the work of Christ and there is a hell for those who do not know Christ. (1 John speaks readily to assurance, and to those who dont have it). Or God is saving everyone and there is no hell.
Considering Christ talks more about hell than pretty much anybody else, I’d say its pretty clear there is one, which you seem to agree as well.
The whole point of the gospel and the world is not us, its Christ. We, by the grace of God, are co-heirs with Christ. It’s God the Father, glorifying the Son via his death and resurrection and claiming victory over death and sin once and for all.
But if there are no men that reject Christ, then Christ would not have been crucified.
Report comment to moderator
Ree (2 Anlir): “Do you really believe that well over 50% of the country consists of hateful bigots who consider you sub-human?”
That number continues to drop – only 46% of the country now consists of “hateful bigots”
Changing Views on Gay Marriage
Meanwhile, looks like Maine may well be the next place to get same-sex married!
Maine Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill
Report comment to moderator
Even if your numbers are correct (and I have no idea whether they are or not), do you not see how ridiculous that is? You would also have to say that 20 years ago, 99% of the country or so were hateful bigots, as well as virtually 100% of the entire world for its entire history, since no one ever even proposed any such things as “gay marriage” previously.
The arrogance of regarding everyone throughout history in this way is breathtaking. It never even occurs to the current supporters of “gay marriage” that perhaps the entire world up until the past few years might’ve been on to something. Sheesh!
On the other hand, I have to admit that the social engineers who dreamed up the idea of portraying the normalization of homosexuality as a civil rights issue was quite brilliant–in a machiavellian kind of a way.
Report comment to moderator
Even if your numbers are correct (and I have no idea whether they are or not),
Well I gave you the link to the latest ABC/Post poll … other polling shows support for same sex marriage increases 2%/year on average, though the latest trends show this has suddenly accelerated.
99% of the country or so were hateful bigots, as well as virtually 100% of the entire world for its entire history,
Your numbers are definitely incorrect if they refer to those that oppose homosexuality in general!
But so what – is your argument that so many people couldn’t have been so ethically wrong for so long?? Why not?! More than 99% of people believed the Sun went ’round the Earth for most of history. They were very wrong! And anyway, what kind of “Christian” argument is that? Are you following what’s ethically right or what most people think?
On the other hand, I do understand that 21-yo bimbos like Prejean are more ignorant than evil in their thinking. Arch-bigots of the world like Maggie Gallagher and James Dobson really are far more culpable.
“You know what?” I feel very sorry for Prejean. She’s just being used, and she’s frankly too “dumb” to understand. Perez was being his usual catty and atrocious self by calling her a b**h. I don’t approve. As for the other adjective – it was spot on! Meanwhile, she’s now let NOM put her center stage at a time when they are publicly being regarded as the supreme face of bigotry. It’s not gonna be pretty…
Report comment to moderator
p.s. “Duh storm ees coming.”
Link: Gaythering Storm
Report comment to moderator
When I hear remarks that Carrie Prejean is ignorant and dumb, it’s a direct reflection on the individual who blithers such nonsense.
Envy, jealousy bring out the worst in people – those who don’t have great beauty belittle the child, young teen or woman who has been gifted by GOD. Homosexuals in the same way, wail, complain, downgrade women who are beautiful to look at, IF they don’t agree that their lifestyle is right, especially lining up with the Bible.
It’s a given, that anyone who is deemed beautiful will suffer at the hands of the jealous, and those who are homosexual, especially if she professes to be a Believer in Jesus Christ – the favorite cry is “she’s dumb” that seems to satisfy the longing in their hearts for beauty vs. brains. In other words you can’t think and look great at the same time, that is IGNORANT!
Report comment to moderator
#171 – Thorn – all this literal and juridical substitutionary atonement transactional theology is just complete and utter RUBBISH. It’s so stupid I can’t believe sane adult people actually think it’s true – even though I did so myself growing up. I guess brain-washing is often more powerful than rational thought.
Do you really think that an ethical deity would 1) condemn all sentient beings to eternal damnation, but 2) willingly impose death by crucifixion on himself so that he could 3) convince himself to call off the punishment??
Such literal mindedness is ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
#176 those who don’t have great beauty belittle the child, young teen or woman who has been gifted by GOD … to have a boob job: http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/30/miss-cali-the-a-rod-of-pageantry/
In other words you can’t think and look great at the same time, that is IGNORANT!
I don’t think Prejean is dumb because she’s allegedly pretty (I don’t find her attractive, myself). Nor do I think she’s sub-intelligent for the average SoCal 21 year old that has been protected from knowledge by attending a Christian college. But after hearing her talk about marriage on multiple YouTube interviews, “dumb” seems like a wholly appropriate take on her grasp of the subject!
Report comment to moderator
Ree refers to “social engineers who dreamed up the idea of portraying the normalization of homosexuality as a civil rights issue”
Where are these “social engineers”? I’ve never met one – could you, like, send a URL or something? Or even a name? Is there a degree one can get? Say, an M.S. in Social Engineering? Does it pay well?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: At this point, I’m going to bow out of the debate and we can agree (or not) to disagree. I have arrived at my perspective over several years of study, and I am confident in it. I have recommended two books, both readily available through Amazon.com, that make the case more systematically than I can do in this format, and that answer the objections you raise. The information is there if you want it, easily disregarded if you don’t.
Report comment to moderator
#180 – You know what? You should start your own blog – you could be the Perez Hilton of the religious right.
Seriously, it has to be said in light of the nonsense in #176 that looks do not qualify as expertise on socio-political issues, even if the GOP seems to think so. Suddenly, the religious right is making Prejean a spokesperson (spokesmodel?) on an issue for which she has little qualification to speak. We’ve already seen how well this worked for Anita Bryant. I’ve even heard talk about having her run for office! I guess she’d give that other unqualified beauty queen a run for her money, eh? Sounds like the media is tired of Palin and ready for a younger and more nubile right-wing bimbo to have a love-hate relationship with.
I truly feel sorry for this woman.
Report comment to moderator
OK, one more comment, to clear up a misconception: I do not hold that anyone can be saved apart from faith in Christ. Universal salvation does not hold that. What it does hold is that God never closes the door to anyone to embrace that faith.
It is true the Bible does not anywhere clearly state that people can be saved after death. However, it is a logical necessity. Here is the syllogism:
1. God intends to reconcile the world to himself, to be all in all, to restore the fallen creation. This is the ultimate outcome of his redemptive plan, expressed in many passages.
2. Many humans will not repent and find faith in Christ, which is necessary for their personal salvation, before they die.
These two propositions are in conflict IF, and only if, we add the (non-scriptural) insistence that only those who find faith prior to physical death can be saved.
On the other hand, if we add the suggestion that those who die unsaved can still become saved, then propositions 1 and 2 are not in conflict.
You only consider his love stingy, because your asserting that God is required to love everyone.
The Bible tells us that he found all of creation good, including humans. The only thing he would not love is the evil corruption of sin, which infects us all. Since it infects us all, there’s no logical grounds to assume he doesn’t love US all — the real us, underneath the sin.
Report comment to moderator
No problem SteveG. I always enjoy discussing with you various topics.
What we dont seem to disagree on is what truly matters and thats Christ death and ressurrection on the cross for the means of our salvation.
Report comment to moderator
“I guess brain-washing is often more powerful than rational thought.
Do you really think that an ethical deity would 1) condemn all sentient beings to eternal damnation, but 2) willingly impose death by crucifixion on himself so that he could 3) convince himself to call off the punishment??”
I dont know Spinoza, I guess its just as crazy as believing that the universe was created from a small pinpoint of matter exploding into millions of stars, blackholes, and planets while overcoming several impossibilities like gravity, lack of oxygen, etc to produce dna, to reproduce into us as the epitomy of its directionless, Godless zenith…
Your right, a God sacrificing his own Son on our behalf to conquer sin and death is much more crazy of an idea…
Report comment to moderator
“OK, one more comment, to clear up a misconception: I do not hold that anyone can be saved apart from faith in Christ.”
I understood you here. I was writing the same thing as you were just moments ago
“However, it is a logical necessity”
Logical necessity if you assume everyone must be saved.
“These two propositions are in conflict IF, and only if, we add the (non-scriptural) insistence that only those who find faith prior to physical death can be saved. ”
Can you clarify what you mean here? We can list passage after passage of every author, and Christ himself pointing to Christ for salvation and eternal life…obviously while alive.
“On the other hand, if we add the suggestion that those who die unsaved can still become saved, then propositions 1 and 2 are not in conflict.”
Then what is hte point of the life we live on this earth? If my life here does not matter, if putting my trust in Chrsit does not matter now, then why not live how i want and spend a little time in “time out”/hell since Christ is going to save me anyway?
We have readily stated that faith in Christ is the means of salvation. Do you think the Pharisees changed their minds even when they stood before Christ himself? Most didnt. Do you think those who dont chose faith in Christ now, are going to after they die simply because theyll see him?
“The Bible tells us that he found all of creation good, including humans. The only thing he would not love is the evil corruption of sin, which infects us all. Since it infects us all, there’s no logical grounds to assume he doesn’t love US all — the real us, underneath the sin. ”
God can do all things that he desires. God doesnt desire to sin. There’s a passage that mentions God loves everyone/world/people along those lines but goes on to say that HIS children are DEARLY loved. So yes God loves the world and everyone and even his desire is that they know him, but there also seems to be another level that God is not only loving people but extending his grace and mercy to those he has deemed according to his purpose and will. God repeatedly confirmed to Israel that Israel was his chosen people, that the descendents of Abraham would be his. Not the moabites, not the ammorites, not the egyptians. Why? How can God chose to raise up civilizations just to bring them down? How can he set aside one people?
But the point here is that its obvious he does just that, and that he has every right being God to do so in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
“Do you think those who dont chose faith in Christ now, are going to after they die simply because theyll see him?”
To add to that, are you saying that where as we have a choice now, since God has to save all, we dont have a choice upon death?
Report comment to moderator
I dont know Spinoza, I guess its just as crazy as believing that the universe was created from a small pinpoint of matter exploding into millions of stars, blackholes, and planets
Don’t know if it was “created”, but observations make it very clear that the universe is still expanding from an initially hot, dense state. What happened before, and how’d it start? Don’t know …
while overcoming several impossibilities like gravity, lack of oxygen, etc to produce dna, to reproduce into us as the epitomy of its directionless, Godless zenith…
Where do you get this stuff? Not only is this a complete misrepresentation of a modern scientific picture of origins, it doesn’t even make any sense!
Report comment to moderator
#184 Do you think you could fit that onto a sandwich board?
Report comment to moderator
Substitutionary atonement is a weird bird in the annals of human religion.
Aztecs sacrificing virgins, Hebrews killing many mammals, why did primitive man seem to think that “the gods” would be appeased if some valuable organism was slaughtered? It was so widespread in the ancient past that it must have some instinctive motive.
I suppose most of us have moved beyond killing bulls and young girls, but why do grown people believe that the “Passion” is one more legitimate instance of this same phenomenon?!
Many non-evangelical versions of Christianity reject this soteriology, but I’ve never been quite clear on what they’ve replaced it with.
For me, the myth of the Passion is a supreme affirmation of the presence of a loving God in a time of apparent hopelessness. To be “saved” means to continue to make this affirmation. And when it looks absolutely impossible to feel God is there, when you want to say “Why have you forsaken me?”, the Passion says God is there, even in the most impossible-looking circumstance.
I think the heart and soul of Christianity lies in choosing to always affirm this.
Report comment to moderator
“eternity, which doesn’t offer a second chance – it’s now or never”
I guess I’d agree that “eternity” couldn’t offer a “second chance,” but I think a more correct interpretation of “eternity” would be “now or ever.”
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Well eternity is forever so – logically speaking – a message from there would apply forever …
On another note – now Evangelicals are gonna take on HANNAH MONTANA!
Check out: Miley Cyrus targeted over gay marriage
Folks, Hannah Montana will eventually squash Miss California like a bug. It may have to wait until her fan base gets near voting age, however.
Report comment to moderator
#194 This is about how evangelicals are blind to their own bigotry right?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn:
Can you clarify what you mean here? We can list passage after passage of every author, and Christ himself pointing to Christ for salvation and eternal life…obviously while alive.
Because they were speaking to people who were alive at the time, and the message so preserved is read by people who are alive at the time. And, it should be obvious, turning to God now is a much better choice than not.
Then what is hte point of the life we live on this earth? If my life here does not matter, if putting my trust in Chrsit does not matter now, then why not live how i want and spend a little time in “time out”/hell since Christ is going to save me anyway?
Because hell is not trivial, and this is a frequent misunderstanding I encounter in these conversations. Consider that the punishment after death is, while not eternal, severe and long-lasting.
Your logic is like saying that it’s ok to have a disease that causes you great daily pain for 40 years, as long as it doesn’t kill you. If you knew that by not turning to Christ now you’ll still eventually enter heaven, but only after 100,000 years of severe torment, would you still make that argument?
We have readily stated that faith in Christ is the means of salvation. Do you think the Pharisees changed their minds even when they stood before Christ himself? Most didnt. Do you think those who dont chose faith in Christ now, are going to after they die simply because theyll see him?
It’s not “simply” that. What blinds people to the truth of Christ is the sin of this world. After this world, after the purifying fire, the sinful selfishness that blinds us all will gradually fall away and the truth will become undeniably clear.
The Pharisees had a powerful role in the society of their day. They had wealth and social standing and respect. Hearing that the way to enter heaven was to give all that up, humble themselves, forsake wealth and — perhaps most painful of all — lose their illusion that they were any more righteous than the prostitutes and tax collectors they looked down on, that message hit the wall of their pride. But if that pride were not there — if the sin were burned away in the purifying fire — they would no longer resist.
So yes God loves the world and everyone and even his desire is that they know him, but there also seems to be another level that God is not only loving people but extending his grace and mercy to those he has deemed according to his purpose and will. God repeatedly confirmed to Israel that Israel was his chosen people, that the descendents of Abraham would be his. Not the moabites, not the ammorites, not the egyptians. Why? How can God chose to raise up civilizations just to bring them down? How can he set aside one people?
If God chose a people for a time, for the sake of revealing himself to the world, the message of the New Testament is that those divisions no longer exist. “All are one in Christ.” God brought salvation through the people of Abraham, but once all was accomplished, salvation became global.
Report comment to moderator
PEREZ HILTON! Well, at least I now know the origin of that Mexican SWINE flu……………..
Report comment to moderator
What strikes me in the Thorn/SteveG dialog is the stark contrast between two ideas of morality:
1) Obedient fealty to a kind of slave master that will be rewarded later but requires great personal sacrifice and diminished happiness in this life
2) Morality as intimately bound to personal wholeness with great benefit in this lifetime to be continued and amplified in the next
The most developed Christian ethics go for #2 – it is not selfish, because it is usually recognized that personal wholeness is tied to the development of love for others in the individual.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
If you want to talk about bigotry, you only need look at those who turn their backs on GOD, and snarl at Believers.
Report comment to moderator
#200 Happy Snarl to you, hun.
Report comment to moderator
Having passed 200 comments, I know proclaim this a Certified Gay Blog! on Worldmag.
Congratulations to everyone who made it possible!
Report comment to moderator
“but observations make it very clear that the universe is still expanding from an initially hot, dense state. What happened before, and how’d it start? Don’t know”
Yeah, you know who observed an expansion long before you? The Psalms…and Isaiah.
“Where do you get this stuff? Not only is this a complete misrepresentation of a modern scientific picture of origins, it doesn’t even make any sense!”
Sorry, trunicated it. Gravity in the sense that stars near black holes would have to overcome the gravitational affects for starters, along with the issue of oxygen or lack of in early earth scenarios. The point was, even if you have mechanisms to account for those, the odds of arriving to us currently over billions of years..is just as crazy to think it could do it alone in the least.
Report comment to moderator
“Because hell is not trivial, and this is a frequent misunderstanding I encounter in these conversations. Consider that the punishment after death is, while not eternal, severe and long-lasting.”
I agree that hell is not trivial. But the issue here is that hell becomes trivial if man’s judgement isnt final, and isnt based on Christ’s righteousness.
“Your logic is like saying that it’s ok to have a disease that causes you great daily pain for 40 years, as long as it doesn’t kill you. If you knew that by not turning to Christ now you’ll still eventually enter heaven, but only after 100,000 years of severe torment, would you still make that argument?”
Ask Job, but thats not exactly what I’m saying. Sin isnt wiped away by our good works or a punishment served. It’s not a “ok” thing. When we sentence a robber to prison, its not because itll undo what has been done.
Sin creates an utter separation between what is holy and itself.
So is it like a disease? I guess you could make some analogy there, such as you need the cure. But there is only one cure that the Bible clearly discusses and thats Christ. Living with the diease for 100,000 years wont make you healthier.
So when man dies, he stands before the Lord and is judged, either by Christ’s righteousness as his repesentative, or by himself.
Without Christ’s righteousness the Bible tells us the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:19-21). There is not a time stimpulation there. No “wont get it for awhile”.
Why have an eternal sacrifice in Christ, if sin’s disease as you like to call it is not eternal? Why promise Adam a Savior, subject your own Son to death, and that punishment, when all he has to do is wait it out?
“But if that pride were not there — if the sin were burned away in the purifying fire — they would no longer resist. ”
What scripture are you basing this concept on? The only remover of sin is Christ. Hell/fire is never mentioned as capable of removing sin or restoring holiness.
A good book to read and one of my favorites is C.S.Lewis’ The Great Divorce. Its short, like 80 or so pages on small print. But the imagery and the relationships Lewis’ presents are remarkable, and theyll give you a good idea why people’s pride wont change even when confronted with Heaven.
“God brought salvation through the people of Abraham, but once all was accomplished, salvation became global.”
Right, to jew and gentile, to white, black, yellow, etc. Was it really restricted before? Ask Rahab. All kinds of people, all different men and women, all nations, doesnt mean every individual person will see heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Much of #205 is back again to the mistaken notion that I’m saying salvation comes through any means but grace through Christ. I am not.
As for ‘inheriting the Kingdom of God’ … again, there’s only a conflict if you assume that’s the end of the matter. I think Paul is operating on two different frames of reference. The immediate fate after death is one. A much more distant time when God will “reconcile the world to himself,” Christ will defeat death and evil, and God will be all in all, is the other.
(Even if not, Paul’s vision is that the fate of the unsaved is simply death. Not eternal torture, just plain ol’ death.)
Hell/fire is never mentioned as capable of removing sin or restoring holiness.
Actually it is (fire, anyway), in a number of places. The most clear one in the New Testament is 1 Corinithians 3:12:15:
Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble – each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
(This passage is said to apply only to believers, but even so, it invokes the imagery of a purifying fire that burns out evil.)
Zechariah 13:9 is another place where a similar image is used:
“And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are My people,’ And they will say, ‘The LORD is my God.’”
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I agree that hell is not trivial. But the issue here is that hell becomes trivial if man’s judgement isnt final
Why?
Can you explain to me logically why this is true? How does eternal, unending suffering serve God’s love, mercy and justice in a way that longlasting, but finite, suffering followed by repentance and restoration does not?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
YOU WRITE: “Can you explain to me logically why this is true? How does eternal, unending suffering serve God’s love, mercy and justice in a way that longlasting, but finite, suffering followed by repentance and restoration does not?”
Steveg, as long as you continue to question GOD’s decisions, HIS Will, you won’t find peace. You want answers that HE hasn’t given in HIS Word.
GOD has made it plain we don’t know HIS thoughts or HIS ways.
Report comment to moderator
Back on topic – from the Boston Edge:
“Mainstream pundits were also growing bored with Prejean’s poster child status, with Entertainment Weekly noting in a May 1 “Popwatch” column that, “Prejean became an instant martyr to the anti-gay-marriage cause, claiming that she lost the Miss USA crown because of her views.
“Now, I’m all for freedom of speech (even for pageant contestants) and Miss Prejean should be able to announce any opinion on marriage, gay or ’opposite,’ that she wants,” column author Kerrie Mitchell wrote.
“But… I have to say: If you’re going to make her into an anti-gay-marriage Joan of Arc, shouldn’t she be better informed?”
Observed Mitchell, “When asked about her thoughts on civil unions or gay adoption or general rights for gay couples, it was obvious Prejean didn’t have any, even saying at one point ’I will get back to you on that one.’
“The most she could offer beyond the ’promoting marriage’ boilerplate was ’I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that.’”
Added Mitchell parenthetically, “Gee, thanks.”
Report comment to moderator
Like I said – this woman is really ignorant on the topic she’s now representing.
What seems clear is that she is not so much motivated by involvement in the gay marriage issue as by the simple right to speak her mind. Fine. But when you go on the offensive to defend your opinion, it helps to have actually have put some thought into your views! Otherwise, you end up looking like, … well, … like Prejean!
Report comment to moderator
I just wanna qualify something I said earlier and confess that I’ve have noticed on media segments that she has really good hair.
Seriously, who does her hair?!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, you know who observed an expansion long before you? The Psalms…and Isaiah.
Been drinking Hugh Ross Kool-aid? There’s nothing in the bible about modern cosmological observations. NOTHING!
Sorry, trunicated it. Gravity in the sense that stars near black holes would have to overcome the gravitational affects for starters,
Most stars aren’t anywhere near a black hole, and black holes don’t suck everything in anyway. A star could orbit very near a black hole with no consequences. Your claim is classic pseudo-astrophysics.
along with the issue of oxygen or lack of in early earth scenarios.
Free oxygen is not only unnecessary to the most primitive prokaryotes, it is downright poisonous. The ability to handle oxygen happened as levels rose about 2.5 billion years ago. Even today, there are many anaerobic organisms that would instantly die in the presence of toxic free oxygen. Your statement is plain pseudo-biology.
The point was, even if you have mechanisms to account for those, the odds of arriving to us currently over billions of years..is just as crazy to think it could do it alone in the least.
I don’t understand the last phrase. But if you’re just making a qualitative statement about probabilities in human evolution, you’re certainly not doing it in any convincing way. How are you calculating this, and how are you accounting for selection effects?
Fact is – by whatever mechanism – observations show overwhelmingly that we evolved from a common ancestor together with the rest of known life on Earth.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Victoria. I would like hear Thorn’s answer, though.
The passages you quoted should give you some pause about the sense of utter certainty about everything that you have.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 213
YOU POSTED: “The passages you quoted should give you some pause about the sense of utter certainty about everything that you have.”
I don’t question my Eternal home with Christ, I know where I’m going and how the LORD Jesus Christ made it possible by his shed blood. Repentance of my sin, believing on HIM for my Salvation, that is what changed my destiny, it can change anyones.
I cannot understand GOD’s ways, as the passage I posted earlier makes clear – HE has told us what we need to know, we must be satisfied with it.
Report comment to moderator
#214 – Victoria – I think the point here is that a belief that one cannot fully understand God’s ways is not very consistent with the dogmatic way in which you regularly proclaim your own interpretation of issues which are not explicitly outlined in the bible. Gay marriage is not discussed at all in the bible, but apparently you aren’t satisfied with this and feel the need to proclaim your own opinion on it, even though it may be (and certainly is, in my view) one of those things for which God’s thoughts are much higher than your thoughts!
Report comment to moderator
Spin – 215
YOU POST: …. “I think the point here is that a belief that one cannot fully understand God’s ways is not very consistent with the dogmatic way in which you regularly proclaim your own interpretation of issues which are not explicitly outlined in the bible. Gay marriage is not discussed at all in the bible, but apparently you aren’t satisfied with this and feel the need to proclaim your own opinion on it,..”
Homosexuality is a sin, you can find the Scripture, (maybe you know it by heart) in the Bible. Because homosexuality is a sin, so then would homosexual marriage be a sin. Pedophilia is a sin, or because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible it might not be one? So you can mix and match sin?
Report comment to moderator
#216 Homosexuality is not a sin, and there is no scripture in the bible that says it is. You are speaking without any biblical authority and without any ethical justification.
But then you do that a lot.
Report comment to moderator
Spin – 217
YOU POST:
“Homosexuality is not a sin, and there is no scripture in the bible that says it is. You are speaking without any biblical authority and without any ethical justification.”
Oh Spin, you need it posted again?
Somehow I thought you had read it often enough on this blog – you’ve told us, you were once a Christian Beliver – I would think you had read these passages –
Report comment to moderator
#218 Surely you’ve heard this:
1 Cor. 6:9 – the word “homosexuals” in the version you cite is an arbitrary and unjustified translation. Other versions sometimes use the word “effeminate”. Regardless, the Greek word Paul uses is “arsenokoitai.” The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
Jude 1:7 – the translation “engaged in homosexual activities” is also translated incorrectly. In the Greek it refers to going after “saroks heteras,” a phrase that is better translated as going after “strange flesh.” There is no reference to homosexuality except in bad biblical translations. The English word “heterosexual” is derived from “heteras.” There is no justification for translating this phrase as “engaged in homosexual activities” other than pre-existing bigotry.
Now, the best that can be said for the anti-gay bible re-writers here is that these phrases are ambiguous. They do not refer directly to homosexuality, and they do not say innate homosexuality and/or a committed gay “marriage” is sinful.
You have said that, by your own little lonesome self.
Hannah Montana has a better sense of right and wrong on this issue than you do!
Report comment to moderator
A reasonable reference for this topic is: The Church and the Homosexual
There are more recent ones that may be better, but I haven’t read them. When I was a grad student (long ago), I used this particular book in a potluck/dialogue meeting that I hosted between the gay and lesbian support group and the campus christian organization. Nobody changed their opinion at the time, but everybody became a lot nicer to each other!
Report comment to moderator
Spin
You ask for Scripture and then you want to twist it into something that fits your view -
You spend a great deal of time trying to justify homosexuality with the Word of GOD – at the same time claiming you don’t believe the Bible or GOD to be true. Being outside looking in? – obviously you aren’t convinced of the your choice, if you were, you would stop trying to seek JUSTIFICATION for homosexuality.
Jude 1:7
International Standard Version
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.
New American Standard Bible
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
GOD’S WORD® Translation
What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.
King James Bible
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
American King James Version
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
American Standard Version
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Bible in Basic English
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the towns near them, having like these, given themselves up to unclean desires and gone after strange flesh, have been made an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Douay-Rheims Bible
As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Darby Bible Translation
as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them, committing greedily fornication, in like manner with them, and going after other flesh, lie there as an example, undergoing the judgment of eternal fire.
English Revised Version
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to impurity, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
World English Bible
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Report comment to moderator
1 Corinthians 6:9
International Standard Version
You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
New American Standard Bible
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
GOD’S WORD Translation
Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,
King James Bible
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
American King James Version
Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
American Standard Version
Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
Darby Bible Translation
Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
English Revised Version
Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
Webster’s Bible Translation
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
World English Bible
Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
Young’s Literal Translation
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites
Report comment to moderator
When are you going to learn Spinoza that The Queen is God’s Final Authority on here? Tis blasphemy to argue with God’s Final Authority. You’re putting your immortal soul in danger by continuing down that path. Please stop.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I’m not the final authority, but the Scriptures are, whether you believe it or not -
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
“Been drinking Hugh Ross Kool-aid? There’s nothing in the bible about modern cosmological observations. NOTHING!”
Isaiah 42:5 -
Thus says God, the LORD,who created the heavens and stretched them out,who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on itand spirit to those who walk in it:
Isaiah 44:24 -
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens,who spread out the earth by myself,
Isaiah 45:12 -
I made the earthand created man on it;it was my hands that stretched out the heavens,and I commanded all their host.
I’m sorry but Isaiah beat you to the scientific punch that the universe has been expanded.
“Most stars aren’t anywhere near a black hole, and black holes don’t suck everything in anyway. A star could orbit very near a black hole with no consequences. Your claim is classic pseudo-astrophysics.”
It’s not about most stars. Its about even one star, being able to form under the gravity of a black hole. I said nothing about being sucked in, or its orbit post formation.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry i havent replied sooner Steve, I dont have a pc at home on the weekends
“Much of #205 is back again to the mistaken notion that I’m saying salvation comes through any means but grace through Christ. I am not.”
I know this is what you believe. However, your continually viewing universalism as a 2nd chance to apply it.
“A much more distant time when God will “reconcile the world to himself,” Christ will defeat death and evil, and God will be all in all, is the other.”
Christ defeated death and evil on the cross. His victory over death and sin accomplished at that time. It’s what was long
promised since Genesis 3. It’s what Paul continually confirms.
The other frame of reference isnt biblically supported. Your trying to say either one of two things. 1. Christ did not achieve complete victory on the cross and still has work to do. or 2. Christ can still apply that completed accomplishment after we spend some time in hell.
Neither work though. Christ victory over death and sin was accomplished on the cross in complete fullness, would you agree?
He said “It is finished”.
The whole purpose of hell is what? The punishment or consequences of sin, right? If this is covered by Christ death and ressurection on the cross, then you should never see hell in the first place.
Did Abraham spend time in hell waiting for Christ to die? Or is the victory in Christ an eternal application that extends foward and backward?
My point is simply that if Christ has accomplished victory for you, then you will never see hell. You cant go to hell, if Christ died for you. He has already done that for you.
1 Corinthians 3 is addressing the church, but to say Paul is talking about post death does not seem applicable, as they discussing the practical division in the church and arguements over whether Paul or Apollos got it right. Very similiar to say our discussion. We both share christ, but we disagree on other matters.
Zechariah is discussing sanctification. When you heat metals, your doing so to remove the impurities. God does work in us, to make us more like Christ, to refine us while on this earth.
But justification is more like Christ taking iron ore and turning it into gold. It’s not a refinement. It’s a complete transformation. Youre born again. Youre made alive.
Neither passage is discussing hell as a method to refine you.
“Why?
Can you explain to me logically why this is true?”
If Christ accomplished your salvation, you cant go to hell. It’s that simple.
Why do people go to hell? Because they are sinners. It is not because they didnt believe in Jesus.
The idea that you have presented that man can serve his time and still go to heaven doesnt work. The whole point of hell is that you are a sinner, that Christ has not represented you and thats why you are there. If Christ has represented you, you will not be there. There’s no half and half here, nor is it biblically represtened anywhere.
Your saying that if one can spend time in hell and then go to heaven, then Christ did not take on that sin on the cross. It makes hell trivial. It also makes the cross trivial, and Christ’s work incomplete.
The logical consistancy for Universalism should be that Christ’s work on the cross completed the means of salvation, and thus, no one goes to hell, but all is saved.
“How does eternal, unending suffering serve God’s love, mercy and justice in a way that longlasting, but finite, suffering followed by repentance and restoration does not?”
Your assuming that we are worth glory and only in our glory can God be complete. Steven C. Chapman has a song that goes “God is God, and I am not.” Good reminder that God is God and there’s nothing we can do to change that, nor anything that he will do, that will change that, and that we wont always get why he does things a certain way.
I dont see why it makes a difference to you, whether its eternal or finite punishment? How does that change God’s nature in your eyesight if he’s still making people suffer for their sins?
If God defines love, mercy, and justice..and holiness, then it doesnt matter, and it certainly doesnt matter what our personal feelings or emotions of the matter are. He’s not less loving, if he decides not to save anyone. He’s not less loving if he decides to save only half. He’s not more loving if he saves all. Because we are his creation, who are we to tell him how to be God?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – I take it you think biblical interpretation is settled by a democratic vote between translations. That’s pretty dumb!
Thorn – Yes, Hugh Ross makes the claim that “stretching out the Heavens” – an obvious primitive description of draping a curtain of stars across the sky – is actually equivalent to expansion in the modern Big Bang theory. For one thing, BBT doesn’t just show the universe expanded in the past – it is still expanding. So the Isaiah verse should be in a different tense – the Lord is still “stretching out” the Heavens. If you *really* think about it, Thorn, equating this “draping” of the heavens with a modern astrophysical theory is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of Isaiah one could imagine (and there are a LOT of ridiculous interpretations of Isaiah).
Anyway, do you even believe the Big Bang theory? I.e., that the universe expanded from a singularity almost 14 billion years ago and its evolution has proceeded ever since, entirely from natural law?
It’s not about most stars. Its about even one star, being able to form under the gravity of a black hole. I said nothing about being sucked in, or its orbit post formation.
This makes no sense – I’m gonna guess and say that you’re referring to the fact that we don’t yet have a detailed theory for star formation very near the galactic center. This is not proof of a miracle! It’s just something we don’t know precisely yet. that’s not so -surprising, since the discovery of a black hole at the galactic center is only a few years old! Your argument is classic “God of the gaps.” This Gap God will go poof as soon as some theorists figure it out.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. to Thorn re star formation – I have worked professionally in the area of star formation research for about 18 years. The field is so mature with so little left to discover that I’m looking for something else now. Star formation is boringly well understood – and observed to be ongoing according to natural processes. Often by me!
Report comment to moderator
It’s dumb that you would think it has anything to do with “democratic vote” that seals the deal in your misunderstanding of text translation, you haven’t a clue. You don’t understand it, and because you don’t you believe no one else does either – the Bible which you don’t believe is true -
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Your saying that if one can spend time in hell and then go to heaven, then Christ did not take on that sin on the cross. It makes hell trivial. It also makes the cross trivial, and Christ’s work incomplete.
Actually what I’m saying is that if even one soul remains in hell eternally, Christ’s work is eternally incomplete. Only universal salvation is God’s complete victory over sin and death.
If evil continues to exist, even if relegated to hell, Christ has not defeated it. Christ would have, in that case, actually lost, because he would have been able to save only some.
The work was complete on Calvary, yes, and its effects extend through all eternity. It is only because of Christ’s work that salvation is won, which means it is very much NOT trivial.
Report comment to moderator
#230 – Then perhaps you can help me out. I am at a loss to understand what you think the significance of your post #215 is.
1) You cite 12 different translations of the Jude passage, and only 2 of them use the word “homosexual” – This supports the point I made earlier – that your original citation with “homosexual” as a translation is faulty.
2) You cite 11 translations of the I Cor. passage, and only 4 of these translate into “homosexual”. Ditto above.
I doubt that you were trying to agree with me, but it really looks as if you have. If not, maybe you’d like to explain yourself!
As to whether even the original of these passages is something we should pay attention to, you’re fully correct, I think NOT! Paul is a complete dope when it comes to ethics of sex and marriage, even for straight people. Jude is a ridiculous excuse for a canonical book and narrowly made it into the cannon. It shouldn’t have!
Report comment to moderator
The logical consistancy for Universalism should be that Christ’s work on the cross completed the means of salvation, and thus, no one goes to hell, but all is saved.
That may be the case. But let’s not confuse the eternal with the temporal. From an eternal perspective, salvation was always complete and finished, because there is no time. We humans experience time as a linear sequence of moments. Salvation is already done, in eternity, but in time we each need to recognize it and accept God’s grace.
Obviously, not all people do that before their bodies die. But their spirits do not die; their souls are still alive to recognize and accept grace.
But no, it is not a matter of them paying for sin in some way other than Christ’s work on the cross. It is a matter of them remaining in the hell of their own making until they eventually open their eyes to the grace that Christ opens our way to.
Report comment to moderator
The point is Spin, you don’t believe in the Bible, yet you speak of what should or shouldn’t be in the cannon of Scripture.
Where does that narrowly leave you? – you don’t believe in much of anything, yet you judge as if what you’re judging is true, but you don’t like the material because it doesn’t agree with your lifestyle -
Report comment to moderator
#234 – You haven’t really answered my question.
BTW, I do believe “in the bible” – I have several – I know they exist.
True I don’t believe in a real “canon” (”cannon” sp oops) – but I have studied the history of canonization, and I don’t think “Jude” meets the standards accorded to the other books. Whatever.
you don’t like the material because it doesn’t agree with your lifestyle –
Wrong – I don’t believe in “inerrancy” because the bible is full of factual errors. Beside that – you still have not demonstrated that – even from an evangelical point of view – the proof texts you quote unequivocally and unambiguously say that “homosexuality is sin” in their original languages! Apparently you don’t believe in the bible either – you just like picking out things and falsely claiming that they support your homophobia.
Report comment to moderator
Carrie Pejean still in he news – how predictabe!
Miss California wanted to be in the public eye—now the public is getting an eyeful of Miss California.
The first of a reputed six racy photos of Carrie Prejean, donning little more than her traditional family values, leaked online yesterday and immediately sparked a new round of calls for the already controversial beauty queen to be stripped of her tiara.
The photo—showing a topless, pink underpants-wearing Prejean with her arm strategically placed—first appeared on TheDirty.com before making its way around the web. While only the single photo has been released, the site says there are five more, at least one of which is rumored to show Prejean completely nude.
As it is, the photo could take its toll on her current title as Miss California—her contract with the organization prohibits her from being “photographed in a state of partial or total nudity.”
The anti-gay-marriage contestant turned advocate quickly issued a statement denouncing the leak as the latest in a series of “attacks on me and my integrity as a woman.”"
——
Integrity as a woman? Are women supposed to have extra integrity? Anyway, she has precious little integrity of any kind.
Report comment to moderator
“For one thing, BBT doesn’t just show the universe expanded in the past – it is still expanding. So the Isaiah verse should be in a different tense – the Lord is still “stretching out” the Heavens. If you *really* think about it, Thorn, equating this “draping” of the heavens with a modern astrophysical theory is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of Isaiah one could imagine”
Does being picky about the wording make you feel better? God expanded or stretched, doesnt necessarily mean it has stopped.
Means its an initial act, whether by supernatural or natural means.
By the way, the big bang still has a problem there. Which was it originally predicted? Accelerating or decelerating expansion? Arent you guys coming up with frivolous “gap theories” of dark matter to compensate because BBT got it wrong in the first place?
Has the theoretical expansion coefficient actually ever been measured experimentally?
“Anyway, do you even believe the Big Bang theory? I.e., that the universe expanded from a singularity almost 14 billion years ago and its evolution has proceeded ever since, entirely from natural law?”
No, I’m not partial to it. It’s highly flawed. Big Bang assumes expansion…how is that not from some central point/area/volume? Yet Hubble and others ignored this facet and simply claim it has expanded from everywhere, or non relative to a fixed point.
“I’m gonna guess and say that you’re referring to the fact that we don’t yet have a detailed theory for star formation very near the galactic center. This is not proof of a miracle! It’s just something we don’t know precisely yet. that’s not so -surprising, since the discovery of a black hole at the galactic center is only a few years old!”
“I have worked professionally in the area of star formation research for about 18 years. The field is so mature with so little left to discover that I’m looking for something else now.”
Wait a second…you just discovered something substantial in the last few years…dont know how its possible, and yet want to say its a mature field? Are you really switching fields cause you dont like working with things you cant explain?
Sounds like to me, there’s plenty of work left to do, but its pride like that, that blinds you to some of the biggest potential discoveries.
It’s physically, naturally impossible under current known physics for a star to form, next to a black hole, due to the black holes gravity. Assuming of course the star formation process is correct.
So either A. There is some unknown mechanism or B. the initial conditions are wrong.
I’m not invoking a God of the gaps theory. I’m shooting holes in your Big Bang theory. I’m pointing out its just as crazy to think its “possible”.
Report comment to moderator
#237 Thorn your modus operandi is clear – i. Go read a list of pseudo-scientific creationist claims ii. Believe them implicitly without consulting any real scientific sources. iii. Post the results on an unrelated thread. iv Feel smug about the fact that, since adequate scientific explanation cannot be compressed into a WMB comment box, you must be right somehow.
You clearly care nothing for the truth. If you did, you’d go do your homework.
1. The hebrew word for “stretching” used in the OT here refers to draping like a curtain – that’s basically a 2d process in keeping with primitive notions that the sky is a dome. It is metaphor – a poetic way of saying God made what we see in the sky. It has no relevance to the 4d process that is BB cosmology as prescribed by general relativity. To make the comparison is more than a “stretch” – it is a “false comparison” – a well know fallacy used over and over again by evangelicals, but fallacious nonetheless. Pointing this out goes way beyond “being picky” about words.
This is obvious even from the verses you cite – “…who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself”
By your logic, we should also believe the Earth is expanding. It is not …
2. By the way, the big bang still has a problem there.
Refining of details in BBT is still in progress, but it is unlike that any new information will appear that will overthrow the basic outline of a ~14By old expanding universe. This is more of an observation than a theory. We see the fireball from the earlies period (CMB), we see early galaxies 13 billion ly away (i.e., light from 13 billion years ago) that are in the process of their formation, we measure expansion rates (Hubble Law), and we detect cosmic abundances of light elements that fit with the nuclear physics of BBT.
The values of cosmological parameters have been refined a great deal by new observations – we are truly now in the era of “precision cosmology.” The canard about whether the values were “predicted” in advance is TRULY being picky. Science proceeds by observations more often than not. Recent supernovae and WMAP observations indicate the expansion is accelerating. Why? Don’t know. It’s an exciting “gap” in knowledge. But it doesn’t do anything to negate the general outline of cosmological history.
Dark Matter is not a problem for BBT. When you turn off the lights at night, you become dark matter at visible wavelengths. Why is that so mysterious? Non-glowing matter is detected by its gravitational influence. There is a lot of it. What is it exactly? Good question, but its not a problem for cosmological history. To say so is creationist over-reaching.
3. how is that not from some central point/area/volume?
You have a common misconception that is addressed over and over in BB explanations for the public. Here’s a NASA tutorial for ya: Universe 101: Big Bang Theory
It’s physically, naturally impossible under current known physics for a star to form, next to a black hole, due to the black holes gravity. Assuming of course the star formation process is correct.
Your statement is nonsense. Stars can form further away and migrate in. This is not a problem. How this happens is more of a subject for black hole theorists than for star formation. It is a highly limited and special environment of no relevance to the formation of the vast majority of stars. In any case, it’s clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about – the creationist source you’re referencing doubtless doesn’t have any clue either. So until you provide an actual scientific reference for this problem, I consider it to be a fictitious pseudo-problem and will no longer give you the benefit of a doubt.
Report comment to moderator
“Believe them implicitly without consulting any real scientific sources.”
Yeah I dont really consider you one
“It is metaphor – a poetic way of saying God made what we see in the sky.”
If it’s a metaphor then as you say, its merely imagery, not the exact process. Therefore 2d 4d makes no difference. The point that is clearly being conveyed is that God by some means has expanded the universe. If its a curtain..if its a tent dome, etc whatever…its at one time a compact concentrated so to speak arrangement that is then unfolded. Your only making my point better.
“We see the fireball from the earlies period (CMB)”
CMB is determined by the black body radiation right? So if God creates matter, protons, nuetrons, electrons…it would have the same effect, creating light and thus black body radiation.
“we see early galaxies 13 billion ly away (i.e., light from 13 billion years ago) that are in the process of their formation”
And how many have been calculated at 14, 15, 16 billion? How many have shown indications of heavy metals?
“we measure expansion rates (Hubble Law), and we detect cosmic abundances of light elements that fit with the nuclear physics of BBT.”
But the calculations are always based on a theoretical coefficient that Hubble nor anyone else ahs experimentally verified, one that assumes every point elsewhere in the universe should calculate the same redshift, one that assumes photons have in flight wavelength changes.
Spacetime expansion defies the law of conservation of energy.
“Science proceeds by observations more often than not”
Yet science has proceeded here, despite the observations of real life everday equipment…like the GPS, which runs not on spacetime expansion theories from Friedmann and Lemaitre…but Einstein’s static spacetime relative effect.
One of the crucial pillars of the BBT is that Friedmann and Lemaitre were correct. All your billion year old calculations are based on it right? Wave bye bye. Did they not teach you that in college? Did you actually research the topic and the origin of such theories yourself? Youve spent 18 years staring at the stars, simply assuming Hubble, Friedmann, Lemaitre etc all got it right. Too bad you have zero evidence to prove their theories.
“Dark Matter is not a problem for BBT.”
Of course its not for the BBT, its absolutely necessary at this point. However, its a huge problem for reality and science. Why were concepts of Dark Matter and Dark energy proposed? Because when you kids found out your BBT was wrong in its initial prediction of a decelerating expansion, it had to now account for acceleration, which means you need a certain amount of mass to keep the universe togther so that gravity doesnt rip it apart. So you invented Dark Energy and Dark Matter as the missing substances, and are simply calculated as the difference needed. You claim there is alot of it…because ALOT is needed. Need i remind you, its never been measured or actually experimentally proven. It’s simply a necessity for the BBT..your fairy tale of a story.
“Stars can form further away and migrate in. This is not a problem. How this happens is more of a subject for black hole theorists than for star formation. It is a highly limited and special environment of no relevance to the formation of the vast majority of stars.”
If this is the case, then some force is acting on the star to cause migration is it not? The point of hte matter is, if an opposing force is acting on it, it has more trouble “forming”. And in the gerneal sense, that makes it a much more common phenomena. Binary stars have the same problem. Gravity issues are not trivial.
“In any case, it’s clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about – the creationist source you’re referencing doubtless doesn’t have any clue either. So until you provide an actual scientific reference for this problem, I consider it to be a fictitious pseudo-problem and will no longer give you the benefit of a doubt.”
Haha, okay you asked for it.
“The masses of these early black holes are inferred from their [quasar] luminosities to be >109 solar masses, which is a difficult theoretical challenge [for the big bang theory] to explain.” Rennan Barkana and Abraham Loeb, “Spectral Signature of Cosmological Infall of Gas Around the First Quasars,” Nature, Vol. 421, 23 January 2003, p. 341.
“The daunting problem for theories of structure formation in the Universe is to understand how such huge black holes [3 billion solar masses] and the vast reservoirs of gaseous fuel were assembled so soon after the Big Bang …” Edwin L. Turner, “Through a Lens Brightly,” Nature, 27 June 2002, p. 905.
“… such black holes indeed formed early in the history of the universe and were already devouring matter voraciously a mere billion years after the Big Bang.” Ron Cowen, “Mature Before Their Time,” Science News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139.
“But the standard model [the big bang theory] still can’t easily account for a large number of mature or massive galaxies in the early universe.” Ibid.
“The black hole’s inactivity [today] suggests that the central few light years doesn’t contain enough raw material to make stars. And the enormous gravitational tidal forces around the black hole would seem to prohibit stars from forming even if the material were there: it’s hard for a cloud of gas to contract into a star under its own gravity when something that weighs as much as four million stars is sitting next door.” Jeff Kanipe, “A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Not So Far Away,” Nature, Vol. 446, 5 April 2007, p. 601.
So does publications like Nature and Science readily publish ficticious psuedo science?
Report comment to moderator
One further point Spin..in regards to your Hebrew…Hebrew verbs dont convey past, present, future tense…we do based on other portions of scripture…since your such a huge Hebrew scholar..you should know that.
Report comment to moderator
“Actually what I’m saying is that if even one soul remains in hell eternally, Christ’s work is eternally incomplete.”
Only under the assumption that he came for all. So long as Christ saves who he died for, whose sin he covered, the conditions are met. Ive said some, youve said all. Once again, God is not bound by his creation or obligated to them in any facet…especially since we are sinners. He has no need of us, yet he has chosen to have fellowship with us. So some people going to hell, doesnt make Christ’s work incomplete.
What does Scripture actually attest too? Calvinism simply does not interject a 2nd reference frame, as we discussed earlier. I find no reason either to do so, when its not explicitly discussed. What we do see is God continually chosing a people, destorying another, continually discussing hell, continually discussing that Christ is the means for eternal life. Which logically follows that there must be an eternal death without him.
Whether that is manifested by an actual literal lake of fire or if its simply a place without the fellowship of God, I’ll never know by experience and neither will you thankfully
“That may be the case. But let’s not confuse the eternal with the temporal. From an eternal perspective, salvation was always complete and finished, because there is no time. We humans experience time as a linear sequence of moments. Salvation is already done, in eternity, but in time we each need to recognize it and accept God’s grace.”
Your only making a bigger case for God’s sovereignty
I agree, God sits outside of time, and our physical concepts there of. He is not bound by it, yet as Colossians attests too, he holds it all together. I agree our souls are eternal as well. However, are you implying that hell is timebased or not timebased?
If hell is viewed merely as an extention of earth, you could possibly be consistant here. However, I dont see that scripturally supported. Hell seems to have eternal conseqences and thus it is post judgement for one who does not have Christ.
As Hebrews reminds us that it is appointed we die once and then comes judgement. In other words I’m suggesting and I think Scripture supports that Hell is not timed based.
This is why I’ve pointed out that Universalism must be all saved and no hell, but it cant be some mix because judgement comes after your physical death, and your eternal soul is sent to one of two places. If hell is the punishment for our sinful soul, then whether time is relative or not..Christ is said to have paid all of it. Spending any time or concept there of when Christ has paid that for you eternally, makes no sense.
“Obviously, not all people do that before their bodies die. But their spirits do not die; their souls are still alive to recognize and accept grace.”
In a sense alive as in eternal…but I think Paul especially tells us throughout the new testament that we are dead in our sins, including spiritually. That we must be made alive by Christ. In fact, Christ didnt die for a physicallity (we obivously still die), he died to redeemer our souls. So if their soul is still dead in sin upon judgement…they will see hell.
“But no, it is not a matter of them paying for sin in some way other than Christ’s work on the cross. It is a matter of them remaining in the hell of their own making until they eventually open their eyes to the grace that Christ opens our way to.”
Then if Christ died for all, then he paid for all, and there is no hell, even temporary. Your not there because you didnt accept Christ. Your there because your sinful, and your soul is still dead in sin.
If Christ died for some, as he set out to do, then he has accomplished that goal according to Scripture, and thus hell is an eternal reality for some.
Lewis makes a point in The Great Divorce, that for those who do not accept God, earth will always seem like the outskirts of hell. For those who do accept God, earth will always seem like the outskirts of heaven. In essence the opportunity to believe in Christ is given to us now. It isnt given in hell.
Report comment to moderator
#240 I’m not a Hebrew scholar. Your arguments from Isaiah are, nonetheless, ridiculous. You say the bible predicts a scientific theory that you don’t even believe in on the basis of verses that don’t really say any more than that God put things in place.
CMB is determined by the black body radiation right? So if God creates matter, protons, nuetrons, electrons…it would have the same effect, creating light and thus black body radiation.
If you’re saying that God could have created the Big Bang that we observe today – I have no problem with that statement. It could be true or not as far as science is concerned. But do you believe the Big Bang scenario or don’t you? For the CMB to appear as it has, the universe has to have expanded for billions of years, and the universe is much older than implied by a literal interpretation of Genesis. Is that what you believe?
And how many have been calculated at 14, 15, 16 billion [years ago]? How many have shown indications of heavy metals?
Not sure what your point is – I think you’re mistaking the recent observations of high Z galaxies (~13 billion years) with much older estimates of the age of the universe which do not come from observations of distant galaxies. They were made when the observational uncertainties for standard candles were much higher.
Also – I don’t know what your point about “heavy metals” is. Old Population II stars in the Milky Way have low metallicity consistent with their early formation. Elemental abundance ratios overwhelmingly support the Big Bang and an ancient universe with many generations of star formation. Do you even know what you’re talking about?
Of course [Dark Matter is] not [a problem] for the BBT, its absolutely necessary at this point. However, its a huge problem for reality and science. Why were concepts of Dark Matter and Dark energy proposed?
Dark matter was first proposed by Zwicky in the 50’s I believe. It was needed to explain the motions of galaxies in clusters. They mere moving too fast to be explained by the gravity of the “light” matter only. Later, Vera Rubin showed that the rotational structure of galaxies indicates that they are surrounding by more matter than can be accounted for by the light from just stars in the galaxy. So you’re wrong – dark matter was not proposed out of thin air to account for structure formation. Its indirect effect was observed first, and it became clear later that it was a necessary component for structure formation.
As to your references that were allegedly a problem for star formation near black holes, I knew you were quote mining, but it was helpful to know exactly which quotes you are mining, since you provided no context. Did you read the complete manuscript of any of these papers, or just copy the quotes from some other creationist quote miner?
NONE of the references you provide even address what you implied – that stars are observed near black holes where they could not have formed! So if you have a reference that really addresses your prior claim, please let me know.
So now I have to guess again just what misconception is in your brain that makes you think the other 4 references represent a miracle-worthy problem. Certainly none of the authors think there’s a problem worthy of a miracle there. I will make only general comments about context until you clarify how you think these references negate the conclusion that the universe is billions of years old and expanded from an extremely hot and dense state.
There is a “standard model” of the big bang, and there are many variants to account for new observed details. As any one of them gets established, it gets incorporated into a “standard” theory. The “standard model” is actually quite out of date now; it predates all the amazing observations of COBE/WMAP and galaxy observations at very high Z. So it no surprising that the “standard modedl” is inadequate for details of things like galaxy formation.
Theory is now focusing on structure formation. It is a new theoretical field, and it is moving along quite nicely thank you. Astronomers often exaggerate what is not known so as to set things up for their next discovery. Creationists exaggerate it further to claim that God had to intervene. Sad. Computer simulations of structure formation after the Big Bang are able to reproduce the structures we see to first order – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C_dnP2fvxk
If this is the case, then some force is acting on the star to cause migration is it not? The point of hte matter is, if an opposing force is acting on it, it has more trouble “forming”.
I think you don’t understand basic HS physics. The only inhibiting force a black hole could exert on star formation is tidal. The tidal force decreases even more rapidly with distance than gravitational attraction does, so at some point, it is no longer a problem. You just have to be outside the Roche Limit. None of your references even talk about this problem, so I don’t know where your getting this misconception.
And in the gerneal sense, that makes it a much more common phenomena. Binary stars have the same problem.
Binary star formation has no such problem. Binary stars are made in computer simulations in spades. Very few form inside the Roche limit. Those that do exchange matter – this is observed. Really close ones get swallowed up. Some theorists still work on the details of this kind of mass exchange, but there is no serious dynamic problem here. Binary stars are easier to make than single stars. Where do you get this stuff?
Gravity issues are not trivial.
Certainly not for you – you lack a basic understanding of Newtonian gravity.
Anyway, THORN – I’m done talking to you about this – you have a bad attitude. You are ignorant of physics and astrophysics, generally, yet you have the arrogance to dig up superficial quote mines – which you apparently don’t understand and can’t even interpret correctly as per the wishes of the original lying creationists – and then you act as if you have some superior scientific knowledge.
This is incredibly pathetic!
Report comment to moderator
Gay Marriage now legal in Maine! Whooo Hooo!
Baldacci Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Only under the assumption that he came for all. So long as Christ saves who he died for, whose sin he covered, the conditions are met. Ive said some, youve said all.
Scripture says all. Repeatedly.
Report comment to moderator
This is where I think the argument for exclusivism falls down:
If Christ died for some, as he set out to do, then he has accomplished that goal according to Scripture, and thus hell is an eternal reality for some.
The entire message of the Bible, revealed little by little, is that God’s ultimate plan is redeem the entire creation. It becomes most explicit in the New Testament and, in particular, some of Paul’s letters. He speaks of God reconciling the world to Himself. He talks about all being justified in Christ just as all are made dead in Adam. He believes that Christ will defeat all enemies, last of all being death. God will be all in all. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. Christ is the savior of all men, especially (not “only”) those who believe. There are precious few passages that suggest that the possibility of salvation is only for some, and read in balance with the rest of Scripture, it becomes clear to me that they do not really mean that. So, I reject Calvin unreservedly.
(There are also passages that suggest the possibility of salvation is for all but the reality of it is not, because not all choose it. I will address that in a moment.)
There is no sense in which the entire Creation can be said to be redeemed if, at the very end of all the work, evil remains and sin runs unchecked in hell. The best that can possibly be said of that scenario is that Christ did his best, but it wasn’t good enough to get everyone.
But if Christ indeed accomplished everything (”it is finished”), we have a problem, because we clearly observe that many, many people die without faith in Christ. Some of them never heard of him, some of them heard and rejected. What of them?
If we argue that they go to spend eternity in hell, we’re back to the problem of the work being incomplete. (You argue that it’s not really a problem because you understand it’s the inevitable consequence of exclusivism; I understand that, but disagree.)
The tension is resolved, however, if we allow that God’s redemptive work never ends. There is nothing magical, if souls are eternal, about crossing the line from physical life to physical death. Only the body dies, but God’s work has always been about the spirit, not the body, and so there is no logical reason to argue that the death of the body marks some kind of aritrary point of no return.
So some souls do go to some state that might be called hell (as the Scriptures say), but why should we presume that God ceases calling them to repentance even then? What is the purpose of making physical death an arbitrary cut-off, especially when it means that some of us have only 10 or 15 years to figure everything out and others get 80 or 100?
So eventually, God will be all-in-all, and all means all … not all-in-all except for this little hot pocket off over there where the bad folks are.
Report comment to moderator
“You say the bible predicts a scientific theory that you don’t even believe in on the basis of verses that don’t really say any more than that God put things in place.”
? All I said was, Isaiah spoke to expansion long before you or anyone else in the 19th century did. Considering its not even Isaiah but most often follows “and the Lord says”…
“Dark matter was first proposed by Zwicky in the 50’s I believe. It was needed to explain the motions of galaxies in clusters. They mere moving too fast to be explained by the gravity of the “light” matter only. Later, Vera Rubin showed that the rotational structure of galaxies indicates that they are surrounding by more matter than can be accounted for by the light from just stars in the galaxy. So you’re wrong – dark matter was not proposed out of thin air to account for structure formation. Its indirect effect was observed first, and it became clear later that it was a necessary component for structure formation.”
But why was it NEEDED???? BBT claimed deceleration…not acceleration. Vera showed that more matter is needed to hold the glaxaies in their formations or structure as you put it, because over the billions of supposed years, the actual observed matter is not enough to hold galaxy structure. As the universe expands it should easily follow that galaxies will expand as well thus losing their structure. The still MISSING MATTER was proposed to satisfy the conditions. Because the natural physics require it for billions of years, as you state later. WHERE IS IT?????? Your assuming its there, but its never been actually observed or measured.
Until you have it, your “indirect effects” are nothing more than a gap theory on equal footing with assertions of creationists.
“As to your references that were allegedly a problem for star formation near black holes, I knew you were quote mining, but it was helpful to know exactly which quotes you are mining, since you provided no context”
Do you want me to post every paper here for you Spin? I gave every reference, I’ve read every reference. Have you? I assumed you, having 18 years worth of expereience, would know the context. Since you seem somewhat doubtful about Zwicky, I wonder how much youve actually read for yourself.
Kanipe is discussing the 40 or so stars within a stone’s throw of the black hole at the center of our galaxy…the Tidal Forces you assume would not have an effect, he says are strong enough to disrupt any of those 40 stars…how am I misinterpretting what he’s saying? Or do you just not like Kanipe? Is Kanipe one of those creationists that Nature let slip through? Do you offer alternative evidence to disregard Kanipe’s work?
“Old Population II stars in the Milky Way have low metallicity consistent with their early formation. Elemental abundance ratios overwhelmingly support the Big Bang and an ancient universe with many generations of star formation.”
Pop IIs arent the issue..you have zero Pop IIIs, plus no proof that ejected higher Z elements will produce future generations.
“If you’re saying that God could have created the Big Bang that we observe today – I have no problem with that statement. It could be true or not as far as science is concerned. But do you believe the Big Bang scenario or don’t you? For the CMB to appear as it has, the universe has to have expanded for billions of years, and the universe is much older than implied by a literal
interpretation of Genesis. Is that what you believe?”
Um no, I’m not partial to the BBT. Any theory that cant ascertain to the law of conservation of energy, and has to imagine “indirect effects” to compensate smells rotten.
My personal belief is that God created on day 1 in a concentrated volume of space. Which would easily allow for much more rapid development even by natural means. On day 3 God sends it out, via his own hand, or some natural mechanism.
There was no fireball, or pinpoint of matter.
This means, galaxies would easily hold their structure, yet spread apart,and dark matter would not be necessary to compensate for the billions of years worth of actual “direct effect” physics, because billions of years…arent necessary.
“Anyway, THORN – I’m done talking to you about this – you have a bad attitude.”
I have a bad attitude? You cry after you ask for references and I give them. You cry cause I bring up actual observed laws like the conservation of energy and remind you that Friedmann and Lemaitre got it wrong. Sorry if you feel disrespected. I cant do much for you if you cant hold a respectable conversation.
Report comment to moderator
“Scripture says all. Repeatedly.”
But what is meant by “all”? Paul says to be all things to all people…does this mean that “all” includes a notion that we should be whores in order to relate with whores? Obviously not.
What about 1 John 5:19: “We know that we are from God, and(A) the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
? Now the whole world or “all” is under the power of the evil one…yet there is a 2nd group referred too.
My point is that you cant just assume that “all” or “world” includes every single individual throughout history.
“The entire message of the Bible, revealed little by little, is that God’s ultimate plan is redeem the entire creation”
God’s plan was to redeem man, but first and foremost to bring glory to Christ. Man will be restored in fellowship, but not all of creation. Paul tells us the things of this world are passing away, only the things of Christ will remain. God promises us a new earth and destruction of the old.
“He speaks of God reconciling the world to Himself. He talks about all being justified in Christ just as all are made dead in Adam. He believes that Christ will defeat all enemies, last of all being death. God will be all in all. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. Christ is the savior of all men, especially (not “only”) those who believe.”
I agree with your first couple of sentences, but when you say “God will be all in all.” What exactly do you mean Steve, and what Scripture do you reference with this? It sounds like your saying we justify God. Or in other words God will be less God if he doesnt save all, as in every single individual.
God is God, independent of what he choses or doesnt chose to restore as far as his creation. His choices here, make him no less and no more. He is God first and foremost.
Youve referenced 1 Tim 4 again. Paul is talking directly to Timothy in his letter. Encouraging him more than once that God does desire to save all men, and that Christ is the Savior of the world. Timothy is to be a preacher. He needs to get out there and address “all” men. However, there is no indication given that “all” men, meaning every single individual will be saved.
Take a loose analogy. We can say the same of Superman. Superman is the “savior of the world”. Superman desires to save everyone. However, it’s obvious Superman does not save everyone. Not saving everyone, doesnt make him less than Superman. Superman owe’s the world nothing, yet freely decides in how to act. Superman is the savior of the world, especially for Lois Lane…do you see the point I’m making?
“There are precious few passages that suggest that the possibility of salvation is only for some, and read in balance with the rest of Scripture,”
Like Romans 9? Like Ephesians 1:3-14? Paul is the same guy talking here.
Or from Christ himself, take a look at John Ch 10: vs.14, 15, and 26.
Christ says he knows his sheep, and his sheep know him, that he died for his sheep, and goes on to say that “you do not believe because you are NOT my sheep” He laid down his life for his sheep.
“There is no sense in which the entire Creation can be said to be redeemed if, at the very end of all the work, evil remains and sin runs unchecked in hell.”
What scripture says that God will restore the entire Creation? Does it not say that the old earth will pass away? God is not bound by his creation, in any aspect.
“(You argue that it’s not really a problem because you understand it’s the inevitable consequence of exclusivism; I understand that, but disagree.)”
Well the correct term would be the doctrine of election..not exclusivism (is that a word?
) Why? Because its the difference in how each of us is viewing God’s choice here. Your basis comes from everyone should go, my basis comes from no one should go in the first place. A. We are the creation B. we are sinners.
God was not required to walk around the garden with Adam in order to remain or be God..he chose to do so, of his own purpose and will.
” Only the body dies, but God’s work has always been about the spirit, not the body, and so there is no logical reason to argue that the death of the body marks some kind of aritrary point of no return.”
If thats true, then why are you and I promised new bodies?
“So some souls do go to some state that might be called hell (as the Scriptures say), but why should we presume that God ceases calling them to repentance even then? What is the purpose of making physical death an arbitrary cut-off, especially when it means that some of us have only 10 or 15 years to figure everything out and others get 80 or 100?”
Because hell is always depicted as the place you go post judgement in the least. It’s the place you go, because of your sin. If Christ has thus removed that sin, at any point in time, asyou seem to believe that his payment is also eternal as it extends to our eternal souls, anyone covered by Christ will not see hell at all. Good questions you ask as well. But what was God’s purpose in not destroying adam then? God suspends the physical death, so that his purpose and will maybe fufilled in Christ. Why does the rain fall on the just and the unjust? Why do 10 year olds die vs. 80 year olds? Why did God pick the Israelites over the Babylonians? Why did he chose you and me over Judas?
We ask the why questions, really because we want to know God better. But we also have to understand two major things: 1. We wont ever know it all or could, because we arent God. It’s his purpose, his will, his plan, and rightly so. and 2. As Paul reminds us in Romans 9 that God has the right to create and destroy, and who are we (his creation) to talk back to him?
“So eventually, God will be all-in-all, and all means all ”
I think the difference in our interpretations and between Calvinism/Universilism arrives from our initial conditions or starting points. Calvinism and the Reformed view starts with God already is all in all. God is independent of man, man is dependent on God. It’s always God first, God down perspective.
Universalism as you’ve presented it makes God dependent on man. Thus in order for God to be all in all, or rightly God, he is dependent on man’s salvation.
I dont believe Calvin got everything right, he was a guy just like you and me. But I do believe Calvin got the perspective right in which to view Scripture and God. That God is God, independent of his creation. I think that is well backed up in Scripture, over and over again. Top down..not bottom (man) up.
Universalism attempts to make God dependent on man’s salvation. No scripture implies that. And the only reason its suggested derives from the uneasiness of allowing God to be who He is, and thats God, the Creator, sustainer, and the one who has the power to give life and to take it away.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with your first couple of sentences, but when you say “God will be all in all.” What exactly do you mean Steve, and what Scripture do you reference with this? It sounds like your saying we justify God. Or in other words God will be less God if he doesnt save all, as in every single individual.
It comes from 1 Corinthians 15:20-28:
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, [Note: Paul is quoting Psalm 8 here] it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
I do not say God will be less God if he doesn’t save all. What I do say is that God cannot be said to be all-powerful if he cannot save all, and God cannot be said to be all-loving if he will not save all.
Take a loose analogy. We can say the same of Superman. Superman is the “savior of the world”. Superman desires to save everyone. However, it’s obvious Superman does not save everyone. Not saving everyone, doesnt make him less than Superman. Superman owe’s the world nothing, yet freely decides in how to act. Superman is the savior of the world, especially for Lois Lane…do you see the point I’m making?
Yes, but I don’t think the analogy holds, for two primary reasons:
In the letter to Timothy, Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as the savior of the world. He specifically uses the phrase “all men.” (We can certainly read to mean women too.) “The world,” I agree, would be a vaguely expansive term that need not literally refer to every individual. “All men [and women]” on the other hand is not at all vague.
The second reason I don’t think the analogy holds is that Superman is not God. On the deity scale he might be more at the level of a Thor or Apollo. No one’s invested Superman with omnipotence and omnipresence. Superman cannot save everyone due to his own limitations; God does not have that problem.
Or from Christ himself, take a look at John Ch 10: vs.14, 15, and 26.
Christ says he knows his sheep, and his sheep know him, that he died for his sheep, and goes on to say that “you do not believe because you are NOT my sheep” He laid down his life for his sheep.
I’ve addressed that before — that many people, in this life, do not believe. Jesus was speaking to specific people in a specific place and time and what he said was true of them at that time. But nothing suggests that it was an irreversible condition.
As for the other passages you cited, Romans 9 is about the unbelief of the Jews. Paul is arguing that no one can complain that God took salvation from the Jews and brought it to the Gentiles, because God has that right. But keep reading and see what happens to the vessels that in chapter 9 are the “objects of his wrath, prepared for destruction:”
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:25-26)
This is all part of a lengthy discourse, but the summary of Paul’s argument is: God has the prerogative to reject the Jews and harden them against Christ, so that Gentiles can be grafted in. No one should complain because the potter has the right to do has he pleases with his clay. But, God’s purpose is long-range and eventually, all Israel will be saved.
In fact, Paul here is making my point: Unbelief in this life is not a bar to ultimate salvation, because as the Jews are hardened by God to serve God’s purpose, so God will save all of them despite outward appearances.
Just a bit further on in Chapter 11: 28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Because its the difference in how each of us is viewing God’s choice here. Your basis comes from everyone should go, my basis comes from no one should go in the first place. A. We are the creation B. we are sinners.
God was not required to walk around the garden with Adam in order to remain or be God..he chose to do so, of his own purpose and will.
That’s not my view. You’re looking at it individualistically. I’m looking at it holistically. What was God’s original intent in Creation? How is His will manifested in anything less than universal restoration?
If God is love, as the author of the Johnine epistles says, and God created man (however that might have been accomplished) to be a creature that could commune with God, how does that love and that desire for human fellowship succeed if some (many) are damned eternally?
How does Love look on souls in torment and not be eternally heartbroken?
And how does omnipotent Love look on souls in torment and not still seek their redemption? Forget proof-texts for a moment and explain the logical and moral sense of that.
I may return to say more, but the day job calls for now.
Report comment to moderator
“I do not say God will be less God if he doesn’t save all. What I do say is that God cannot be said to be all-powerful if he cannot save all, and God cannot be said to be all-loving if he will not save all.”
I’m not saying he “cant” save all. I’m saying the scope is limited by his own choice to do so.
Which is the loose analogy about superman. Considered loose because, no he isnt God, but the point is, if Superman decides not to save someone, it doesnt diminish his power. He is still Superman. We can say he’s the savior of all men. All is just often used as world for these conflicts.
God’s is no less powerful, if and when he decides to only save some. The ability to have done so is there. The question is, did he? Under your assumption here, would it also make God not all-powerful if he can not redeem man before physical death?? Seems to me that should be well within his power to do so, since it obviously occurs for some. So if you make God’s omnipotence dependent upon his scope of savlation to man, then your still in the same boat.
“Jesus was speaking to specific people in a specific place and time and what he said was true of them at that time. But nothing suggests that it was an irreversible condition.”
Nothing suggests it wasnt final either. Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell. There is no scripture discussing those who can still be reconciled, post judgement.
“What was God’s original intent in Creation? How is His will manifested in anything less than universal restoration?”
His will is always manifested however he desires. It’s not dependent on universal restoration, nor does the Bible say that anywhere. God’s original Creation was created good, and his intent was that we worship and glorify him forever. However, more importantly is the glory of Christ, not us, through all of this.
“If God is love, as the author of the Johnine epistles says, and God created man (however that might have been accomplished) to be a creature that could commune with God, how does that love and that desire for human fellowship succeed if some (many) are damned eternally?”
Simply saying God is love, which is true, does not remind us that GOd has many other attributes, which are equal. In other words He is also Holy, Just, Merciful, etc. In essence his love cannot compromise any other attribute. Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Alimighty.
He can only have fellowship with us, if we are Holy. Despite how much he may love us, he will not compromise his holiness to have fellowship with us, and it does not make him less Loving, or capable of Love by doing so.
Its not that some of us were eternally damned. It’s that all of us are. Christ became that for some of us by his choice, not by any necessity.
Which leads back to the point that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. If you say Christ saved all, then no one can go to hell. It is not possible.
But Christ repeatedly discusses hell and the variations there of, and warns us against it.
“And how does omnipotent Love look on souls in torment and not still seek their redemption? Forget proof-texts for a moment and explain the logical and moral sense of that.”
How does omnipotent Holiness look on souls in torment?
Report comment to moderator
Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell.
And according to that story, they do so not on the basis of what they believe about Jesus, but how they treat “the least of these.” If you believe in salvation by faith, not works, and that only Christians can be saved, you might want to be careful about how much you literalize that saying.
Report comment to moderator
Me: “I do not say God will be less God if he doesn’t save all. What I do say is that God cannot be said to be all-powerful if he cannot save all, and God cannot be said to be all-loving if he will not save all.”
Thorn: I’m not saying he “cant” save all. I’m saying the scope is limited by his own choice to do so.
OK, so you take the position that he could save all but chooses not to. Your belief is in a God whose love is less than total. Got it.
Which is the loose analogy about superman. Considered loose because, no he isnt God, but the point is, if Superman decides not to save someone, it doesnt diminish his power. He is still Superman. We can say he’s the savior of all men. All is just often used as world for these conflicts.
Actually no, if Superman sees someone he could save and decides not to, I would no longer say he is the savior of all men. He is the savior of those he chooses to save, which necessarily means his commitment is only to save everyone he decides to, not everyone he can.
(Again the analogy is limited, because Superman could not save everyone even if he wanted to; God can.)
Now in theological terms, this is good, standard Calvinism. God predestines some to save, many to condemn. I do not think either Scripture nor any decent morality supports this view. If that is the view you are dogmatically wedded to, then we really might as well shake hands and part friends, because we are never going to reach common ground.
God’s is no less powerful, if and when he decides to only save some. The ability to have done so is there. The question is, did he? Under your assumption here, would it also make God not all-powerful if he can not redeem man before physical death?? Seems to me that should be well within his power to do so, since it obviously occurs for some. So if you make God’s omnipotence dependent upon his scope of savlation to man, then your still in the same boat.
I did not say he is less powerful; I said the condition of being able, but unwilling, to save all makes him less than perfectly loving. Re-read what I originally said on that topic, requoted at the top of this post and also at the top of your #249.
Now, assuming you are correctly understanding what I argued, we can turn to the question of why he would not turn all to him before physical death. You raise a couple of pertinent points later in the post to which I’m here responding, so I will address them as they come.
His will is always manifested however he desires. It’s not dependent on universal restoration, nor does the Bible say that anywhere.
It does not unambiguously say it, but then, it does not unambiguously say anything with regard to eternity. It does strongly hint at it in a good number of places through both testaments, some of which I’ve already pointed out.
(There are basically three views of the scope of salvation. Calvinists say God could save all but does not; Arminians say God would save all but cannot; universalists say God can and will save all. All three of those views can be defended with some proof texts and challenged with others. I suspect the ambiguity is intentional.)
Simply saying God is love, which is true, does not remind us that GOd has many other attributes, which are equal. In other words He is also Holy, Just, Merciful, etc. In essence his love cannot compromise any other attribute. Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Alimighty.
However, according to John, love is not merely an attribute, it is the very essence of God. God has justice, holiness and so forth, but is love.
This point brings me back, though, to the issue of why God would not turn all to him prior to physical death. Those other attributes are part of it; it is true that we need to accept grace in order to utilize it. It is there — the work is complete — our part of it is only to take it. But it does need to be our choice, so God does not force it. To that extent, my theology is standard Arminian. However, Universalism holds that the door doesn’t close at physical death.
Eventually, because the truth of God will be clear and the blinders of sin will fall off, we all will return to our home, with our Maker.
He can only have fellowship with us, if we are Holy. Despite how much he may love us, he will not compromise his holiness to have fellowship with us, and it does not make him less Loving, or capable of Love by doing so.
That’s the standard apologetic, but does it really hold up? Jesus had fellowship with many unholy people and did not seem to require their surrender to Him first.
I do agree though that eternally, holiness is the standard; I just disagree on the lengths to which grace will go to bring it about.
Its not that some of us were eternally damned. It’s that all of us are. Christ became that for some of us by his choice, not by any necessity.
Here we have a strong difference in viewpoint, I think. You seem to believe that God created us and, when we fell into sin, grew angry and, eventually, grudgingly deigned to pick a few apparently at random to save, saying to hell (literally) with the rest.
I think that God created us and, when we fell into sin, set about ardently seeking our salvation and, because of his great love for us, became one of us to suffer and die to bring us all home.
This idea that we are all depraved and vile and unworthy, I find very damaging. God went to great lengths to save us, so that really cannot be true. We may be sinful, but we are also loved and wanted and cared for. That’s the whole meaning of grace. Don’t diminish it.
Which leads back to the point that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. If you say Christ saved all, then no one can go to hell. It is not possible.
That would be true only if we instantly go to our final destiny at the moment of physical death. Nothing in Scripture demands that. Even the oft-quoted passage from Hebrews (once to die and after this, etc etc) does not say how long after death or what might happen between death and the judgment.
If hell is redemptive, and not merely vengeful, it serves a purpose, and that brings me to the second point about why God would not ensure everyone is saved before physical death; justice IS served by punishment … just not by eternal punishment.
“And how does omnipotent Love look on souls in torment and not still seek their redemption? Forget proof-texts for a moment and explain the logical and moral sense of that.”
How does omnipotent Holiness look on souls in torment?
I asked you first. Although I think I’ve answered your question in the course of this post.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that God either cannot or will not redeem all souls.
Why is the torment necessary? All God needs is to be separated from those unholy souls. Why do you think eternal, never-ending, torture is also needed? What purpose does that serve?
It isn’t redemptive because, in this scenario, redemption is no longer possible.
It is not justice, because eternity never ends and the punishment far outweighs any crime the soul could possibly have committed. It is unjust.
So what remains is either (1) unending wrath or (2) indifference to the suffering, either of which seems to contradict his traits of love, mercy and grace.
So, why is the torment necessary?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: If you’re still engaged in the debate, you made a point earlier that only now really registered on me:
Take a loose analogy. We can say the same of Superman. Superman is the “savior of the world”. Superman desires to save everyone. However, it’s obvious Superman does not save everyone. Not saving everyone, doesnt make him less than Superman. Superman owe’s the world nothing, yet freely decides in how to act. Superman is the savior of the world, especially for Lois Lane…
Yes … and that’s exactly what I’m saying about the passage from 1 Timothy. Superman saves many many people. To say he is the “savior of the world, especially for Lois Lane,” means that while he has a particular affection for Lois, and will certainly never fail to save her unless there some extreme circumstance where he simply cannot, he also saves many people who are not her.
In 1 Timothy, if we apply the same argument, then Jesus Christ is the savior of all who believe AND many who do not. He is the “savior of all men, especially those who believe.” He has a particular affection for those who believe and will never fail to save them (and unlike Superman, there can be no circumstance under which he could not), but he also saves many people who do not believe.
Now, if we take that “all” as literally meaning something less than all, it still means considerably more than “only believers.” Is that not the logical consequence of your argument as much as mine, especially with regard to the Kal-El analogy?
Report comment to moderator
Hey Steve, Sorry work has been nuts. I hope i can get a reply or two too you before the end of the week.
Report comment to moderator
“And according to that story, they do so not on the basis of what they believe about Jesus, but how they treat “the least of these.” If you believe in salvation by faith, not works, and that only Christians can be saved, you might want to be careful about how much you literalize that saying.”
I’ve got time to address this quickly. That wasnt my point..simply that there is a distinction and some who arent.
But to address your point. The bible in other passages also mentions being judged by works. Which is truth. The point for us is, who’s works are we being judged by? Our own? Or Christ’s?
This is the point of our faith. It is by God’s grace that we are saved through faith, which is a gift from God. Through faith in Christ’s work, in his righteousness, we do have salvation, because he took the judgement for us. It was till poured out completely on him.
Without Christ, we are judged by our works, and not his. Thus we stand condemned…or goats.
Hopefully i’ll have a few mintues tomorrow to respond to your other posts. I enjoy our discussions.
I hope your doing well!
Report comment to moderator
“Your belief is in a God whose love is less than total. Got it.”
No, my belief is that God’s total love is not dependent on his creation or how much he shares with it.
“I did not say he is less powerful”
Yes you did, :
“What I do say is that God cannot be said to be all-powerful if he cannot save all:…”
Just for the record.
“I said the condition of being able, but unwilling, to save all makes him less than perfectly loving.”
Yes you said this as well
But your once again making God dependent upon his creation’s glorification. It makes God, less God, because God would not be God in the first place, if he is dependent upon anything in his creation. This is why he can not be less loving than He is. He is all-loving because He is God, not because he created or chose to save us.
But just like God can do anything but sin, God will love all…except sin. Does that make sense?
“does not unambiguously say anything with regard to eternity.”
Eternity is mentioned all over, especially by John, as believing in Christ brings assurance that you will have eternal life. Seems the simplest corrolary is the opposite, not believing in Christ yields in the least…no eternal life.
“However, according to John, love is not merely an attribute, it is the very essence of God. God has justice, holiness and so forth, but is love.”
So are the rest. Remember John also recorded Revelation..where as I mentioned : Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty…
I’m sure your aware that when words in the Bible are used more than once such as Christ saying “truly, truly” it adds greater emphasis. The only time we see 3 in a row..is for Holy.
Seems to me that God’s essence is holiness first and foremost.
“But it does need to be our choice, so God does not force it. To that extent, my theology is standard Arminian. However, Universalism holds that the door doesn’t close at physical death.”
Yes, your universalist because you know God must reconcile everyone? So which is it in the end? Our choice..or God? Because if even one man never “chooses”, then God can not reconcile them all, and thus he would have failed.
“Jesus had fellowship with many unholy people and did not seem to require their surrender to Him first.”
Several points here. Fellowship as in eating dinner with people, is far different than standing under the direct glory of God. Would you agree? Christ’s dual nature allowed him to interact on earth directly. Christ also knew the hearts of men, he knew who came for repentance, he knew who did not. We are all unholy, what has made us holy is Christ, which is why he has the power to bring us before the full glory of God one day without retribution.
“Eventually, because the truth of God will be clear and the blinders of sin will fall off, we all will return to our home, with our Maker.”
Why would we wanna be there if he spent the last 100k years punishing us. Is that not still the same issue you have with a God who punishes?
“Here we have a strong difference in viewpoint, I think.”
Aye, based on the complications of simply God’s Sovereignty vs man’s responsibility.
“You seem to believe that God created us and, when we fell into sin, grew angry and, eventually, grudgingly deigned to pick a few apparently at random to save, saying to hell (literally) with the rest.
I think that God created us and, when we fell into sin, set about ardently seeking our salvation and, because of his great love for us, became one of us to suffer and die to bring us all home.
This idea that we are all depraved and vile and unworthy, I find very damaging. God went to great lengths to save us, so that really cannot be true. We may be sinful, but we are also loved and wanted and cared for. That’s the whole meaning of grace. Don’t diminish it.”
I know you like to paint me or the standard Calvinist in that view point, the problem is, thats not the view point. I dont find God to be grudgingly picking out a few random people. God has been sovereign from the get go, working all things according to his purpose, his will, for his glory. We being in Christ are co-heirs to that, called to give him glory and to enjoy him forever. Not picked randomly, but by purpose, and not by anything of ourselves.
The truth is, sin has made us unworthy, defiled, dead. It is truly that disgusting, especially to one who is Holy Holy Holy. Wherever that line of sovereignty and man’s responsibilty overlap is where God has the right to love Jacob, and to hate Esau. It does not diminish his grace, because he is never bound by his creation.
“That would be true only if we instantly go to our final destiny at the moment of physical death. Nothing in Scripture demands that. Even the oft-quoted passage from Hebrews (once to die and after this, etc etc) does not say how long after death or what might happen between death and the judgment.”
Even you have mentioned that eternity or post death is timeless..or irrelevant in the sense we know it. In other words, judgement comes after death is going to be immediate in our sense, because that “moment” will apply fowards and backwards. Furthermore, if Christ is our means of salvation, then his righteousness extends fowards and backwards.
“If hell is redemptive, and not merely vengeful, it serves a purpose, and that brings me to the second point about why God would not ensure everyone is saved before physical death; justice IS served by punishment … just not by eternal punishment.”
Your concept of hell is the other reason we disagree. Some universalists hold that there isnt a hell. But there is an obvious conflict there as you and I know, many go to hell according to Scripture. Hell is never presented as a means of redemption. It is always presented as the consequence for not accepting the one path to redemption, Christ. If hell is meant for redemptive means in any form, then Christ is diminished. Hell is not a means of salvation.
This gets into your next post.
“Why is the torment necessary? All God needs is to be separated from those unholy souls. Why do you think eternal, never-ending, torture is also needed? What purpose does that serve?”
Steve, I dont think torture is necessary. I think seperation from God is torture in the first place. In other words, its the natural reaction. Is that separation not worse to you than being roasted for 5000 degrees C for eternity? To me it would be. Whether or not hell is an actual lake of fire, or if its imagery of pain for the separation from God or destruction even, the point overwhelming is that there is no redemption or restoration in hell.
“It is not justice, because eternity never ends and the punishment far outweighs any crime the soul could possibly have committed. It is unjust.”
And yet your basiing this on the idea that sin is trivial. Its not. It causes a complete separation from what is holy. Its not temporal to just earth, its consequences have ruined our souls for eternity. Sin is present..at least before Adam falls, not in this world till he does, but its an obvious influence which means it exists on that supernatural plane. Satan was corrupt maybe even before the earth was made. We know he fell because of Pride, we know Adam did too, and its the same reason why no one who is in hell will chose Christ while there. Pride. We wanted indepedence.
Where the lines cross on sovereignty and responsibility, I dont know. I dont fully understand how Christ can be 100% man and 100% God. I do know, that He knows, and that He never sins. So even if he does send some of his creation to destruction, He has every right too.
Report comment to moderator
“In 1 Timothy, if we apply the same argument, then Jesus Christ is the savior of all who believe AND many who do not. He is the “savior of all men, especially those who believe.” He has a particular affection for those who believe and will never fail to save them (and unlike Superman, there can be no circumstance under which he could not), but he also saves many people who do not believe.
Now, if we take that “all” as literally meaning something less than all, it still means considerably more than “only believers.””
My point is that the term was in general, even Superman decides not to save one guy, the rest of the world is till gonna call him what? the same thing they had been.
But something else I thought of this week. It’s important to realize who Paul is talking too. Timothy. What for? To discuss with him how to be a preacher basically and to encourage him, right? In light of that, its quite a logical and plausible arguement that he’s telling Timothy to preach to everybody (because Christ is the savior of the world), yes, and also to remember to preach to his church (those who believe). Its certainly a reminder every preacher needs, because its practical.
Remember, Christ tells his apostles to go forth and make disciples of….ALL men…at the end of Matthew. Well if its to be “all” as your saying it is here, then the apostles failed and so are we.
Seems to me the point of both statements is a calling, a practical, directive to minister to all kinds of people with no discrimination. That Christ is the savior of the world in that same sense and we are called to proclaim to all, but more importantly for those who we know believe.
How often do you see churches that do not preach Christ crucified to their own flock? How often do you see churches that do not reach out even to their own neighborhood?
Take a look at Titus 2. Paul again is calling Titus to preach to all kinds of people.
Its also the same type of statements I came across last night in Isaiah Ch 57:14 and following where God is laying out his calling to everyone, saying his anger will not last, he will not contend forever (as your saying)..yet at the very end it says in verses 20 and 21 that there will be no peace for the wicked. There is still a distinction.
It’s practical statements, and “all” and “world” in such places like 1st Timothy need to be taken with the context, and they are not denoting that Christ has covered every single individual.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!