The Logic of Universal Salvation

[Bill the Cat]

I dare you to refute that the crossing of the Red Sea is merely a metaphor on how to wash clothes. The Hebrews are the clothing, the Egyptians are the dirt and stains, and the Red Sea is the rinse cycle.

Go.

[Cow Poke]

no matter what, you are not allowed to just blog your manifesto or whatever it is. You can pick a point or two and discuss that in the thread. you can't just post more and more of your writings.

if you feel someone is not understanding what you said, then explain it to them, don't dismiss it and continue with more of your writings.

And his very next post, he blogs full speed ahead!

[rogue06]

I dare you to refute that the crossing of the Red Sea is merely a metaphor on how to wash clothes. The Hebrews are the clothing, the Egyptians are the dirt and stains, and the Red Sea is the rinse cycle.

Go.

[Jedidiah]

And his very next post, he blogs full speed ahead!

Well he did stick to the basic point and attempt to support it and attempt vainly to counter one objection to his allegorical approach. He has tried to improve I would say.

[Jedidiah]

Points 1-5 are essentially summed by point 6, and point 4 is false [metaphor requires literal meaning to supply its “paints” and does not replace, only modifies, it]. These arguments have become so ingrained in modern Christian thinking that responses like those in this thread are automatic toward any interpretive scheme that relies on a representational exegesis.

I’ve been censored here on grounds of posting in the form of a “blog” and not engaging posters. In fact, anyone reading the thread can see I’ve tried to lay a rational, reasonable groundwork for the interpretive system presented over against a mountain of opinions, scornful barbs and inadequate reasoning.

You attempted to make a posting of a rational system. But you have not made rational or reasonable responses to legitimate arguments. Calling Bible verses with supportive comments, "the use of doctrine to “refute” a logical problem" is not only inaccurate, but dishonest.

This shows that not only was there no understanding of the concepts offered, there was also no interest to understand. The few questions asked were contemptuous, incorrectly assumed a shared sphere of interpretation and ignored attempted explanations. Mostly there are only drive by opinions and insults.

Disagreement does not necessarily equate to failure to understand. And the first comments, while they were brief, were to the point in opposing your view. No one got at all snitty until you came on all condescending with no effort to respond to genuine objections.

Again, the logical presentation in the op:

1. Gen 18 is a metaphoric account teaching at least a two-part spiritual principle.

You simply declare this with no real support for this opinion that I could see. How about you first support that opinion.

a. Perfect Justice demands that God destroy only evil, never good.
b. A principle of multiplicity of value components is revealed in the Gen 18 account as the organizing method by which the perfection of God’s justice is maintained.

2. Abraham’s words in vv. 23 & 25 confirms #1a

3. Gen 18 and Gen 19:1-19 confirms #1b

This does not seem to me to follow anything but wishful thinking. I do not see a greater metaphor, and I do not see Abraham's words as supporting your extrapolation of this, to me invisible metaphor into a general principle that seems to show you, by declaring this new "spiritual principles" that you can, by your supposed logic, know what God can and can not do. I am sorry but I fail to see any reasonable support.

Can and will you show some?

[Anomaly]

There is nothing except those two things. There is the truth of Bible verses, and the opinion of interpretation. That's it. You've effectively shut down any rebuttal because any rebuttal will naturally fall into those two categories.

I think this is demonstrably false. I didn't say Scripture can't or shouldn't be used, it is of course central to Christian debate. The point is that the posting of passages with no accompanying discourse presumes the meaning in the poster's mind is an agreed upon interpretation for that discussion. When the discussion requires first establishing a valid interpretation of a passage, textproofing can quickly become useless as there's disagreement about its meaning. Opinion of interpretation is not all there is? There may be differences of opinion, and these may be honorably debated using reasonable arguments. I don't understand why you'd say this. If there are three different opinions of the same passage, shouldn't truth tests be employed to attempt a determination of which opinion holds up to scrutiny best?

How do you think I've "effectively shut down any rebuttal"? Rebut the logical issue in my last post. I reworded it slightly for clarification. I'm not shutting down anything, only ask that attention be given the logical problem. The Gen 18-19 is the ground of the allegorical system. If you think its wrong we can discuss.

[Anomaly]

I dare you to refute that the crossing of the Red Sea is merely a metaphor on how to wash clothes. The Hebrews are the clothing, the Egyptians are the dirt and stains, and the Red Sea is the rinse cycle.

Go.

Where did you come up with such a ridiculous idea? Can you at least be civil and try for reasonable discussion?

[Anomaly]

And his very next post, he blogs full speed ahead!

Why do you post false accusations against me? Is this Christian charity? I did no such thing. I started over with a reasonable explanation of why I think discussion isn't working and modified the logical approach to the op in hopes it is more clear and can be intelligently discussed.f

[Anomaly]

You attempted to make a posting of a rational system. But you have not made rational or reasonable responses to legitimate arguments.

We haven't yet touched on the "rational [allegorical] system" to date. What specific "legitimate arguments" do you think I have not replied adequately to?

Calling Bible verses with supportive comments, "the use of doctrine to “refute” a logical problem" is not only inaccurate, but dishonest.

It's neither. Maybe you're missing the point. Haven't you ever been involved in or seen a message board discussion in which someone repeatedly posts Bible passages with no [or very little] explanation, but just expects his/her audience to understand what is meant by the passages themselves? Given how common it is I can't imagine you don't know what I mean.

You simply declare this with no real support for this opinion that I could see. How about you first support that opinion.

Excellent starting point. Reasons do follow the claim in #1, but some groundwork is probably in order. First, as Christians we should agree that since the Bible is God’s inspired word, He has liberty to weave representational meaning using people and circumstances on the stage of history into whatever passages of His book He chooses. Example: Moses is often seen as a type or foreshadow of Christ in his leading and interceding with the Father for the saving of Israel from the destruction their sin deserved. Second, most of the OT stories are arguably structured in ways that lend themselves to at least the possibility of use by God for containing representational meaning. Third, it’s obvious that the representation of meaning is important to God. All the OT prophets were inspired to prophecy using it. Jesus used mostly figurative language in His teaching. Indeed, we were apparently created as metaphor-chomping machines. Lakoff and Johnson (1982) point out of metaphor that, “Metaphor is not just a matter of language, that is, of mere words. We shall argue that, on the contrary, human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined.”

Some believe books like the Psalms, Job, Esther and several others are potentially rich in representational content. The fourth reason is that as identified in my ‘starting over’ post, the authority of the Gen 18-19 example is cemented by broad support from the rest of Scripture. I tried to provide a sample of this support earlier but was censored.

Originally Posted by Anomaly
a. Perfect Justice demands that God destroy only evil, never good.
b. A principle of multiplicity of value components is revealed in the Gen 18 account as the organizing method by which the perfection of God’s justice is maintained.

2. Abraham’s words in vv. 23 & 25 confirms #1a

3. Gen 18 and Gen 19:1-19 confirms #1b
This does not seem to me to follow anything but wishful thinking. I do not see a greater metaphor, and I do not see Abraham's words as supporting your extrapolation of this, to me invisible metaphor into a general principle that seems to show you, by declaring this new "spiritual principles" that you can, by your supposed logic, know what God can and can not do. I am sorry but I fail to see any reasonable support.

Can and will you show some?

First, what I believe God establishes in the Gen 18-19 account is not “new” in light of the fact that the book is thought to have been written some 3500 years ago. Second, I’m not sure what ways Abraham’s words might support the metaphor that would satisfy your unbelief. If by this you mean he doesn’t seem to be aware that he’s participating in the making by God of a metaphor, I agree…nor is his awareness or that of any of the Bible personalities a logical requirement for God creating metaphors using their activities or speech.

The points are self-explanatory. Consider:
1. That God destroys only evil, never good is uncontroversial unless you have knowledge to the contrary.
2. Abraham’s responses in vv. 23 & 25 confirm that it is unthinkable that God should destroy good. This is also uncontroversial, there seems no other reasonable way to understand his reaction. Do you interpret the meaning of his words differently?
2. Metaphor is representation. The story centers on righteous [Lot and family] and unrighteous [Sodomites] elements. The philosophical concept of the “one and many” structure (not the one and many problem) is pretty clearly patterned into these passages. This sustains the notion that if metaphoric content is present, it’s reasonable to maintain that God intended to convey the notion of a multiplicity of components (persons ) who can be thought of in another sense as a whole (city). It’s not uncommon for someone to state, “She’s a Chicagoan”, identifying her figuratively as one part of a much bigger whole.

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabe...RY/ONEMANY.HTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMerAhTD178

3. Righteous and unrighteous are obvious designations of moral value and directly support the idea of the characters as representative “value elements” in the formation of metaphor from these passages.

Your charge that I claim to know by logic what God can or cannot do is incorrect. I’ve stated in previous posts my claim that God has woven this representation into the Gen 18-19 account and have offered reasons I think this claim is warranted. Everyone uses reasoning to form knowledge, there's no crime in this.

Some reasons for accepting the passage as a metaphor have been presented. Do you have any support for your claim that the metaphor does not exist? (Your refusal to acknowledge the metaphor is not proof that it doesn’t) or can you provide an argument why my reasons aren’t valid?

[Bill the Cat]

I think this is demonstrably false. I didn't say Scripture can't or shouldn't be used, it is of course central to Christian debate. The point is that the posting of passages with no accompanying discourse presumes the meaning in the poster's mind is an agreed upon interpretation for that discussion.

Which is exactly why my larger point is correct. You've automatically assumed your interpretation correct, and dismiss any dissenting interpretation because you don't agree with it.

When the discussion requires first establishing a valid interpretation of a passage, textproofing

It's "PROOFTEXTING", not textproofing.

can quickly become useless as there's disagreement about its meaning. Opinion of interpretation is not all there is? There may be differences of opinion, and these may be honorably debated using reasonable arguments. I don't understand why you'd say this. If there are three different opinions of the same passage, shouldn't truth tests be employed to attempt a determination of which opinion holds up to scrutiny best?

And who determines what is truth? When you've basically relegated all bible passages to "interpretations", they can not be used as truth.

How do you think I've "effectively shut down any rebuttal"?

Because you've left no room for anything to be considered concrete proof.

Rebut the logical issue in my last post.

Sorry, but logical consistency does not mean something is truth.

(1) Everyone over the age of 30 is a liar.
(2) Mr. Phelps is a liar.
(3) Therefore Mr. Phelps is over the age of 30.

This is a logically consistent argument, but if Mr. Phelps is 29, it is false. The only way to validate the argument is not through logical consistency, but through an objective truth to evaluate - in this case, Mr. Phelps' true age. When you grasp that, you will begin to understand how your attempt to prove logical consistency in your vague interpretation of Gen 18 is flawed.

I reworded it slightly for clarification. I'm not shutting down anything, only ask that attention be given the logical problem. The Gen 18-19 is the ground of the allegorical system. If you think its wrong we can discuss.

As I showed with the Picasso example, it is impossible to rebut an allegorical claim by simply examining the logical consistency of the claim. It's simply your opinion. It is not a truth claim.

[Bill the Cat]

Where did you come up with such a ridiculous idea? Can you at least be civil and try for reasonable discussion?

It's a metaphor. And since you have not come up with any reasonable rebuttal, then by your standard, it stands un-rebutted.

[Sparko]

It's a metaphor. And since you have not come up with any reasonable rebuttal, then by your standard, it stands un-rebutted.

And the desert on the other side is the dryer. Works for me!

[Bill the Cat]

And the desert on the other side is the dryer. Works for me!

See? I am SPPEEEERRRIIICCCHHHAAALLLL!!!!

[Christianbookworm]

Hey! He didn't comment on my cat sanctuary story! Here kitty, kitty...

[Anomaly]

Which is exactly why my larger point is correct. You've automatically assumed your interpretation correct, and dismiss any dissenting interpretation because you don't agree with it.

But this is again false. Why are you so angry? Everyone automatically assumes their interpretation is correct. And as for dismissing dissenting interpretations because they're not agreed with, this is hilarious! You just described everyone posting to this thread except me. What a hoot.

It's "PROOFTEXTING", not textproofing.

I stand corrected.

And who determines what is truth? When you've basically relegated all bible passages to "interpretations", they can not be used as truth.

Truth Himself does. Actually, truth is in my theology a self-consistent quality permeating all information [being]. Truth is the glue that holds creation together. It's the single most important concept in the universe, but is terribly abused by humans.

Your stating that Scripture relegated to interpretations can't be used as truth is incoherent, unless by using parentheses around interpretations you mean only my interpretations, not yours. Is this what you mean?

...you've left no room for anything to be considered concrete proof.

Thanks for sharing your unsubstantiated opinion. Yet another false charge. Really, does no one here understand the distinction between opinion and reasoned debate?

...logical consistency does not mean something is truth...it is impossible to rebut an allegorical claim by simply examining the logical consistency of the claim.

Finally! Something we agree on. I'm not asking anyone to accept the Gen 18-19 account as truth. You may have misunderstood when I said a presentation should be able to pass truth criteria. Truth tests can only be used to determine whether a propositional presentation can be true. Every belief system has tensions, areas one or more truth standards fail. Logic and reason are truth "tools" that help us connect the dots. The more truth connections in a system the more likely it is to be true.

The real strength of the theology presented here is not the Gen 18-19 presentation, though I feel safe in saying its logical strength is considerable. The real strength lies in the amount of Scripture in both Testaments of the Bible that are in agreement with it. Once the two are put together, I believe it is shown that many of the tensions that exist between Annihilationism, Universalism and eternal punishment positions are laid to rest.