A few weeks back, I wrote a series of essays on the Christian “heresy” of Universalism, a doctrine which dares to sugg [...]

At any rate, Happy Holidays all! Hope you have a great one.

I’m not saying that the parent would stop loving their child, but would they not protect themselves against their child, knowing that if they forgive them that they will just do wrong again and again, without caring about the impact they have on their parent?

Well, God doesn’t really need to “protect” Himself against anything, but this is where the doctrines of predestination and election come in. One can’t choose to be regenerated or “saved,” but rather it is up to God to decide who gets “saved” in this age and who has to wait for future ages to come, all based on His eternal plan for the eons.

I think there are some who would reject heaven. I don’t mean athiests per se - I can see most of them that I know going “OK, I was wrong - Cool!”

I mean, well, actualy, those workers in the vinyard who can’t get over the latecomers getting paid the same as them, to use the metaphor.

Purgatory, I think, isn’t a matter of time. It is a matter of getting over yourself.”

Agreed. I personally believe that most Atheists will enter the Kingdom before most Christians as most Atheists I know would be thrilled if an actual loving God and Heaven existed and wouldn’t begrudge anyone entering, while many Christians I know are the exact opposite. That said, I do believe that the older brother will eventually forgive the Prodigal Son and join in the party himself, although it might take all the ages before he does.

The relationship between a parent and their child is an example of unconditional love. The parent forgives the child no matter how much they stuff up. But what if the child stuffs up, knowing that they shouldn’t do it, but does it anyway because they know their parent will forgive them, even if they don’t ask for forgiveness. Now even though the parent would not stop loving them, wouldn’t they eventually loose trust in their child, eventually stop forgiving them? I’m not saying that the parent would stop loving their child, but would they not protect themselves against their child, knowing that if they forgive them that they will just do wrong again and again, without caring about the impact they have on their parent?

Taking it that God made humans in his own image, would he not be the same way?

“But Johnny didn’t do his homework! How come he still gets desert?”

Scripture has Jesus pointing out the wrongheadedness of this line of thinking in the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Also, the parable of the prodigal son. When the son returns to his father, the father has a big feast and celebration, welcoming him home unconditionally. The elder son, however, who never left home or squandered his inheritance, is jealous of the attention his younger brother is getting and thinks it is undeserved. The father rebukes him… simply because the point isn’t that the prodigal son deserves the feast. The point is that everyone should be really happy that he’s back home and has given up on wasting his life.

I mean, well, actualy, those workers in the vinyard who can’t get over the latecomers getting paid the same as them, to use the metaphor.

Purgatory, I think, isn’t a matter of time. It is a matter of getting over yourself.

Scripture has Jesus pointing out the wrongheadedness of this line of thinking in the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Those who came to work in the vineyard at the last hour got paid the same amount as those who had worked there all day, and when those who had worked all day complained the owner told them that he could pay his workers whatever amount he wanted.

Oh shoot! That’s a really great example. I forgot all about that. Awesome.

good stuff, prunie.

and good stuff, max: that really is the goal, isn’t it? stage 6–where you hear, sense, feel, touch, taste, smell–GNO–how it’s all connected and how important each decision you make is, for it’s own sake, and so you choose to do what will be best for all, for its own sake. but ‘Its own sake” is also for your sake and others’ sake.

yay. gotta walk over the brooklyn bridge now.

ciao!

Scripture has Jesus pointing out the wrongheadedness of this line of thinking in the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Those who came to work in the vineyard at the last hour got paid the same amount as those who had worked there all day, and when those who had worked all day complained the owner told them that he could pay his workers whatever amount he wanted. Those who believe in “everlasting torment” for anyone who doesn’t “believe the gospel” in this lifetime just want to be able feel good about themselves, that they were either lucky enough or smart enough to choose the right religion while the rest of the dregs weren’t as worthy of heaven as they were. Just my take on it, anyway.

If we imagine after-life to be some sort of linear narrative, then we are entertaining heretical notions. This excludes the idea that we may be “eternally damned” AND the idea that we are “purgatorally cleansed”, EXCEPT as metaphors. This linearity is built into our language, but does not reflect metaphysical fact.

If I truly affirm that God is utterly Transcendent, then it seems that God must be able to conquer Hell.

Now, just assume “eternal suffering” IS indeed a necessary consequence of sin or karma or whatever. This is also a long-respected theological concept. Do we have any sufficient reason to temporalize this concept? I think that a finite time of infinite suffering (not that we could imagine such a thing) is a fair substitute for an infinite duration of suffering, Cantor’s transfinites notwithstanding ha-ha.

I see no reason why a metaphorical Hell with all the pain of Hell Classic would not be compatible with some type of universalism.

The Grace of God being spread to all beings is a beautiful message, and only someone who wants to feel “special” would disagree with it. And seeking to feel “special” is contrary to the Gospel, which teaches that all are sinners. Sin leads to pain and death, while righteousness leads to glory. This is as true in this life as in any other.

It’s easy to be good when you know you’re going to burn forever if you’re bad.

Exactly, so it all boils down to certain people wanting to control the perception of right and wrong, and the belief that people are naturally evil.

Of course the belief that people are naturally evil is one of the basic ideas of christianity, Original sin, and all that, so its really unsurprising to find that people are opposed to this inclusivist view point.

The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one’s own best interests.

The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name “conventional.” The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.