Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Logic of Universal Salvation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
    You seem unaware that this is exactly the point in the op.
    No I am not unaware. The problem, again, lies with your universalism.




    The idea of human goodness being outside of God was never put forth. Goodness proceeds from the thoughts and acts of people relative to the value content of the soul. I take good to be the logical product of the true. Since truth endues the essence of all creation until it's fragmentally falsified by human choice, the good produced by people--though produced from an inherent possession of truth in essence--is from God. Please try to avoid any more strawman arguments.
    So you DO understand that good comes from God alone, and not from anything in man. Good. Perhaps we can move on from there.

    Since you tacitly admit the passages contain meaning beyond their literal sense alone…

    …and profess a desire for intellectually honest discussion…

    …Let’s try this again:
    Sure.

    1. [u]Gen 18 is a metaphoric account[/] teaching at least a two-part spiritual principle.
    Agreed

    a. Perfect Justice demands that God destroy only evil, never good.
    Agreed

    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.
    No such principle exists. You've invented this out of nothing.

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

    3. Gen 18 and Gen 19:1-19 confirms #1b
    Wrong. They confirm no such thing. There are some deeper theories in this passage about God's foreknowledge and Abram's pleading, but none "confirm" your premise in 1b

    Conclusion: Spiritual principles a and b combine to suggest that God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists.
    Leave b out, and it still confirms your conclusion. B only complicates A by attaching an invented principle to support your larger conclusion. It's classic bait and switch tactics.

    I assume that unless corrected the underlined portion of point 1 is not contested, only the remaining text in point #1.
    Neither part of 1 is contested.

    1. Do you agree or disagree that God only destroys prescriptive, spiritual or moral badness, never goodness? If you disagree, please provide evidence from reason and/or Scripture.
    Agreed. But you have to understand a few things too. As the ruler of the universe God actually kills everyone. All people are mortal, some of them die young, and God is responsible for this state of affairs. Sometimes he does it miraculously in order to make a special point, but more often it he causes it to happen naturally. Before I ask whether I can trust a God who killed the Sodomites, I first need to ask whether I can trust a God who will kill ME. As Christians, we trust that God is using death as a tool in order to turn us into the people he wants us to become. Partly, we trust him because he came to Earth and died for us, so he isn't asking us to suffer anything which he hasn't gone through himself.

    Being killed is not the same thing as being destroyed.

    Multiplicity is the property of being multiple. Lot, his family and numerous (v. 4) Sodomites are involved in the Gen 18-19 story.
    2.. Do you agree or disagree that this mixture of people can rightly be referenced as a multiplicity? Please provide reasons if you disagree.
    Agree.

    Abraham’s words in Gen 18:23 & 25:

    "Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
    3. Do you agree or disagree that these words confirm Point1a? If you disagree, please explain why.
    Certainly, although David's son with Bathsheba could throw a serious monkey wrench in your plans. The infant did nothing wicked, yet God slew him as judgment on David. There are reasons for that too, but again, it's the difference between being killed and being destroyed.

    Abraham identifies two moral or prescriptive classes of persons in v. 23: "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike…”
    4. Do you agree or disagree that the terms righteous and unrighteous are morally or prescriptively evaluative terms? If not, please provide arguments for your denial.
    They certainly are. Yet you've done nothing to prove the rest of your claim in B.


    This is a popular notion in evangelical circles, but it’s incoherent.
    No it isn't.

    Hatred is a cognitive function.
    It's a spiritual one.

    Flesh in a literal sense has no cognitive function except to materialists.
    Flesh is contrasted to spirit in several places in Paul's writing. It is what gets purified last at our resurrection.

    The tension is resolved by moving “flesh” from material to intangible, as many Christians do.
    Well they are wrong.

    Here, “spirit and flesh” [good/bad, true/false, etc.] refer to contrary value components in spirit or soul and the tension is resolved.
    It's wrong. Flesh is dualistic in both physical and moral application. Flesh is where sin reigns. it is what is resurrected and changed from corruptible to incorruptible.

    As far as I can see, comparisons of spirit/flesh as true and false components in essence can be appropriately read into all verses in which this contradistinction is made in the Bible without contradiction.
    As far as I can see, flesh is what is physical, and where sin lies, and spirit is where the intangible is. Reading the dualism of physical flesh's fallen nature being the core of sin makes the most sense in the sacrificial system. It's why Jesus had to physically die, so that sinful flesh could be defeated once and for all.


    This is amusing, have to give you a point for zeal. The text this refers to was simply an observation, not a proposition. Fallacies refer to arguments.
    Sorry, but when you declare your observations, they become claims. Claims can be fallacious.


    And this despite the fact I explained in an early post that I would be using the term “metaphor” in its more common usage, to indicate the broad signification of passages that are representational in nature. We do this for at least two reasons; 1) it’s cumbersome and unnecessary to have to carefully define each type of representation when discussing the highly figurative Bible, and, 2) a considerable variety of the definitions of representational language types are found among the intelligentsia probably due, in part at least, to semantic overlap between terms. You seem unaware that latitude in discussion relating to emblematic language is the norm.
    I like grammar. sue me. He still used simile more than metaphor.


    Again with the liar accusation?
    You made a false accusation that we ban people for calling others "smart ass, liar and stupid". That's a blatant lie. Don't like being called on a lie? Don't lie!

    Another dare? The banning thing wasn’t supposed to be a literal allegation, it was an amusing overstatement of an underlying truth lots of folks will recognize from here and other boards.
    Back pedal all you want. You lied. Own it.

    I really admire your gnawing and ripping of my posts to find any little thing you can carp on. Very Christlike.
    And your lying is practically saint-worthy. dunce.gif

    My experience is that posters who find themselves lacking in valid arguments often fall into quoting every little snippet of their opponents’ posts they can find to respond to with typically one-sentence accusations, trite commentary insults and contemptuous remarks, probably to hide their own inability to mount reasonable arguments.
    And my experience is that when someone is making crap up as they go, they talk in extremely vague or large words, hide snipes inside long paragraphs of text, and chide others for breaking their 25 point paragraph down into the individual points.

    Presumably these folks think if they “drown out” their more astute adversaries it will draw attention away from their own unfitness for rational debate. I’m sure glad there’s none of that in this thread.
    Presumably these folks think that if they can't dazzle with knowledge, baffle with 30 sentence paragraphs full of bull snot.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #92
      1. Do you agree or disagree that God only destroys prescriptive, spiritual or moral badness, never goodness? If you disagree, please provide evidence from reason and/or Scripture.
      Agreed.
      Multiplicity is the property of being multiple. Lot, his family and numerous (v. 4) Sodomites are involved in the Gen 18-19 story.
      2.. Do you agree or disagree that this mixture of people can rightly be referenced as a multiplicity? Please provide reasons if you disagree.
      Agree.
      Abraham’s words in Gen 18:23 & 25:

      "Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
      3. Do you agree or disagree that these words confirm Point1a? If you disagree, please explain why.
      Certainly
      Abraham identifies two moral or prescriptive classes of persons in v. 23: "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike…”
      4. Do you agree or disagree that the terms righteous and unrighteous are morally or prescriptively evaluative terms? If not, please provide arguments for your denial.
      They certainly are.
      In the interest of moving the discussion forward intelligently and honestly, please concentrate on and reply to only the questions below, which concentrate solely on validity of the premises-argument- conclusion. Please, no insertion of caveats based on external bias. Thanks.


      a. If-God is the author of the Bible. He inspired human authors to pen the words, but is able to orchestrate the authors’ writings in ways that can provide symbolic or representational meaning beyond that of the literal.
      b. Then-Gen 18-19 account can have symbolic or representational meaning beyond the literal story.

      1. Based on previous discussion I assume you would agree. If not, why?

      c. (1a)The perfection of God’s justice entails He destroy evil, never good.
      d. Point 1a is confirmed by Point 2 [Abraham’s words confirm 1a.]
      [These are agreed to be uncontroversial.]

      * You agree that the people involved in the Gen 18-19 account can rightly be considered a multiplicity.
      * You agree that the terms righteous and unrighteous reference prescriptive or moral value.
      These are uncontroversial.

      A- If God can orchestrate metaphoric meaning in His word, and,
      A- If the Gen 18-19 account can have this metaphoric nature, and,
      B- If the people in Sodom constitute a multiplicity, and,
      C- If this multiplicity of people are divided into one of two value groups, righteous and unrighteous,
      D- then it is possible that the Gen 18-19 account can be a metaphor that depicts at least these two principles:
      1) the perfection of God’s justice [God will not destroy a whole in which good exists] and,
      2) God’s work in human essence/spirit/soul can be directed to a multiplicity of value elements.

      2. Valid or invalid? If invalid, why?

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
        In the interest of moving the discussion forward intelligently and honestly, please concentrate on and reply to only the questions below, which concentrate solely on validity of the premises-argument- conclusion. Please, no insertion of caveats based on external bias. Thanks.


        a. If-God is the author of the Bible. He inspired human authors to pen the words, but is able to orchestrate the authors’ writings in ways that can provide symbolic or representational meaning beyond that of the literal.
        b. Then-Gen 18-19 account can have symbolic or representational meaning beyond the literal story.

        1. Based on previous discussion I assume you would agree. If not, why?

        c. (1a)The perfection of God’s justice entails He destroy evil, never good.
        d. Point 1a is confirmed by Point 2 [Abraham’s words confirm 1a.]
        [These are agreed to be uncontroversial.]

        * You agree that the people involved in the Gen 18-19 account can rightly be considered a multiplicity.
        * You agree that the terms righteous and unrighteous reference prescriptive or moral value.
        These are uncontroversial.

        A- If God can orchestrate metaphoric meaning in His word, and,
        A- If the Gen 18-19 account can have this metaphoric nature, and,
        B- If the people in Sodom constitute a multiplicity, and,
        C- If this multiplicity of people are divided into one of two value groups, righteous and unrighteous,
        D- then it is possible that the Gen 18-19 account can be a metaphor that depicts at least these two principles:
        1) the perfection of God’s justice [God will not destroy a whole in which good exists] and,
        2) God’s work in human essence/spirit/soul can be directed to a multiplicity of value elements.

        2. Valid or invalid? If invalid, why?
        Depends. What do you mean by "directed to"? You've also substituted "human essence/spirit/soul" for a multitude of people. Do you mean human as in the entire species, or human as in an INDIVIDUAL member of the species?
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #94
          The fact remains, while God did save the righteous people out of Sodom he destroyed the wicked people. Same with the flood. He saved only 8 righteous people and destroyed everyone else. God destroys evil.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            The fact remains, while God did save the righteous people out of Sodom he destroyed the wicked people. Same with the flood. He saved only 8 righteous people and destroyed everyone else. God destroys evil.
            He seems to be trying to get to the point of stating that SOME part of us is good, therefore God will only destroy the BAD parts of us while saving the good parts of us.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              He seems to be trying to get to the point of stating that SOME part of us is good, therefore God will only destroy the BAD parts of us while saving the good parts of us.
              Then it really doesn't matter in the end whether one believes it or not. Of course universalism salvation being a dangerous lie for those who believe it true, it really matters that one actually should want to have the real truth.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                He seems to be trying to get to the point of stating that SOME part of us is good, therefore God will only destroy the BAD parts of us while saving the good parts of us.
                ah. Maybe he will split us into two, good and evil, like Kirk.

                evilkirk.jpg

                Comment


                • #98
                  1.
                  Originally Posted by Anomaly
                  In the interest of moving the discussion forward intelligently and honestly, please concentrate on and reply to only the questions below, which concentrate solely on validity of the premises-argument- conclusion. Please, no insertion of caveats based on external bias. Thanks.


                  a. If-God is the author of the Bible. He inspired human authors to pen the words, but is able to orchestrate the authors’ writings in ways that can provide symbolic or representational meaning beyond that of the literal.
                  b. Then-Gen 18-19 account can have symbolic or representational meaning beyond the literal story.

                  1. Based on previous discussion I assume you would agree. If not, why?

                  c. (1a)The perfection of God’s justice entails He destroy evil, never good.
                  d. Point 1a is confirmed by Point 2 [Abraham’s words confirm 1a.]
                  [These are agreed to be uncontroversial.]

                  * You agree that the people involved in the Gen 18-19 account can rightly be considered a multiplicity.
                  * You agree that the terms righteous and unrighteous reference prescriptive or moral value.
                  These are uncontroversial.

                  A- If God can orchestrate metaphoric meaning in His word, and,
                  A- If the Gen 18-19 account can have this metaphoric nature, and,
                  B- If the people in Sodom constitute a multiplicity, and,
                  C- If this multiplicity of people are divided into one of two value groups, righteous and unrighteous,
                  D- then it is possible that the Gen 18-19 account can be a metaphor that depicts at least these two principles:
                  1) the perfection of God’s justice [God will not destroy a whole in which good exists] and,
                  2) God’s work in human essence/spirit/soul can be directed to a multiplicity of value elements.

                  2. Valid or invalid? If invalid, why?
                  Depends. What do you mean by "directed to"? You've also substituted "human essence/spirit/soul" for a multitude of people. Do you mean human as in the entire species, or human as in an INDIVIDUAL member of the species?
                  Clarification:

                  Assuming no controversy in my typo of two “A”s above, then:
                  If AA-D are valid, then 1 is valid.

                  2 is entailed by 1 because:
                  i- matter/energy can’t be destroyed, so “destruction” cannot apply [absolutely] to physical death, a person’s atoms are merely reconfigured so that essence or spirit no longer endues the material arrangement;
                  ii- prescriptive value is ascribable to essence or spirit, hence the metaphor constructed in AA-D that validates 1 necessitates that destruction must be understood to be directed from whole persons in the literal to the value elements within each whole in the metaphor.

                  Is the logical structure of the presentation valid and if not, why not?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                    1.

                    Clarification:

                    Assuming no controversy in my typo of two “A”s above, then:
                    If AA-D are valid, then 1 is valid.

                    2 is entailed by 1 because:
                    i- matter/energy can’t be destroyed,
                    God absolutely CAN destroy matter and energy. He created it ex nihilo and can destroy it en nihilo.

                    so “destruction” cannot apply [absolutely] to physical death,
                    Wrong. The Hebrew word caphah used here in Gen 18 and Gen 19 simply means to sweep away completely. It's the same term used in Proverbs 13:23 that talks about injustice sweeping away blessings. It simply means something isn't there any more.

                    a person’s atoms are merely reconfigured so that essence or spirit no longer endues the material arrangement;
                    This is where you are begging the question. And as I stated at the very beginning, this is your hook into universalism. Nothing in this passage even hints at "atoms being reconfigured".

                    ii- prescriptive value is ascribable to essence or spirit, hence the metaphor constructed in AA-D that validates 1 necessitates that destruction must be understood to be directed from whole persons in the literal to the value elements within each whole in the metaphor.
                    No it doesn't. You've committed the fallacy of division


                    Is the logical structure of the presentation valid and if not, why not?
                    No. You've committed at least 2 fallacies. 2i is a begged question and 2ii is a division fallacy.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • God absolutely CAN destroy matter and energy. He created it ex nihilo and can destroy it en nihilo.
                      This is not disputed. “Cannot destroy” is not meant in terms of God’s abilities, it addresses one reason destruction as physical death does not satisfy a destruction of unrighteousness. Matter has no prescriptive value. This actually justifies why destruction of persons re physical death does not violate God’s perfect justice; the person is not destroyed by physical death, matter is just something to be manipulated. In one configuration it contains a soul, in another it no longer does. What’s important is not what happens to the body, it’s what happens to the person—the soul. Distinctions between flesh and spirit or body and soul are necessary to the logic of the metaphor.
                      …you are begging the question. And as I stated at the very beginning, this is your hook into universalism. Nothing in this passage even hints at "atoms being reconfigured".
                      I specifically asked you to respond only to the logical structure without the addition of bias. Doctrine is not a legitimate argument. Doctrine is not identical to truth. Arguments from doctrine are not appropriate to test the truth value of a logical argument. We aren’t yet at the point of discussing doctrine. That comes later. The material/energy reconfiguration of the physical component of a human is not controversial. It merely joins basic scientific facts (the body decays beginning at the point of physical death into other configurations--matter/energy can’t be destroyed, only changed from one state to another) with the common Christian assumption that the person is actually not a material body but a spiritual being. It was not claimed that atoms are in the passages in question.

                      …You've committed the fallacy of division
                      You must have scanned the internet a while to pull this one out of your….out of a dark place, cat. The explanations above show that the points above are borrowed from knowledge bases of basic scientific fact, metaphysical theory and customary Christian assumptions to show the metaphor contended for is logically directed to man’s spiritual, not physical, component. Nothing is divided. It’s clear you’re performing mental gymnastics in desperate attempts to deny warrant to an obviously reasonable argument at the expense of truth.

                      Your complaints have been overcome. Again:
                      Originally Posted by Anomaly
                      In the interest of moving the discussion forward intelligently and honestly, please concentrate on and reply to only the questions below, which concentrate solely on validity of the premises-argument- conclusion. Please, no insertion of caveats based on external bias. Thanks.


                      a. If-God is the author of the Bible. He inspired human authors to pen the words, but is able to orchestrate the authors’ writings in ways that can provide symbolic or representational meaning beyond that of the literal.
                      b. Then-Gen 18-19 account can have symbolic or representational meaning beyond the literal story.

                      1. Based on previous discussion I assume you would agree. If not, why?

                      c. (1a)The perfection of God’s justice entails He destroy evil, never good.
                      d. Point 1a is confirmed by Point 2 [Abraham’s words confirm 1a.]
                      [These are agreed to be uncontroversial.]

                      * You agree that the people involved in the Gen 18-19 account can rightly be considered a multiplicity.
                      * You agree that the terms righteous and unrighteous reference prescriptive or moral value.
                      These are uncontroversial.

                      A- If God can orchestrate metaphoric meaning in His word, and,
                      A- If the Gen 18-19 account can have this metaphoric nature, and,
                      B- If the people in Sodom constitute a multiplicity, and,
                      C- If this multiplicity of people are divided into one of two value groups, righteous and unrighteous,
                      D- then it is possible that the Gen 18-19 account can be a metaphor that depicts at least these two principles:
                      1) the perfection of God’s justice [God will not destroy a whole in which good exists] and,
                      2) God’s work in human essence/spirit/soul can be directed to a multiplicity of value elements.

                      Valid or invalid? If invalid, why?
                      Note: The propriety of God destroying or causing the death of unrighteous people is not disputed here. Literalists seem terrified that an allegorical reading of salvation somehow [i]replaces[/] the literal. It does not. Once understood, the allegory allows the literal to be placed in its proper light and resolves tensions a primarily literal reading of the Bible naturally imposes on doctrine. Wrath and blessing are directed to whole and parts simultaneously. That’s the point of the Gen 18-19 passages. When the wrath of destruction is performed by God, the living Lake of Fire against falsity in the human soul which burns like chaff, the whole suffers the just recompense for her sins. If this happens in time, it’s sanctification. God uses the same cleansing process whether sanctifying an individual or bringing him to physical death. In God’s merciful hands, rebirth follows death.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                        This is not disputed. “Cannot destroy” is not meant in terms of God’s abilities, it addresses one reason destruction as physical death does not satisfy a destruction of unrighteousness.
                        Sorry, but physical death is EXACTLY how God destroys unrighteousness. It's called the Crucifixion. Jesus took ALL of our unrighteousness onto Himself in His flesh, and He died a physical death to destroy the power of sin and unrighteousness.

                        Matter has no prescriptive value.
                        Then Jesus did not need to die.

                        This actually justifies why destruction of persons re physical death does not violate God’s perfect justice; the person is not destroyed by physical death, matter is just something to be manipulated.
                        Then destroying Sodom could not be classified as a judgment against their sin.

                        In one configuration it contains a soul, in another it no longer does. What’s important is not what happens to the body, it’s what happens to the person—the soul. Distinctions between flesh and spirit or body and soul are necessary to the logic of the metaphor.
                        Of course it is.


                        I specifically asked you to respond only to the logical structure without the addition of bias.
                        We've already agreed that your initial claim is logically structured correctly. However, some of the individual arguments themselves are fallacious. You hand waving them away as my "bias" and "doctrine" doesn't change the fact that they are fallacious arguments.

                        Doctrine is not a legitimate argument.
                        Yes it is. Just as much as any other claim.

                        Doctrine is not identical to truth.
                        Never claimed otherwise.

                        Arguments from doctrine are not appropriate to test the truth value of a logical argument.
                        But they are sufficient to show your question begging. An argument can be begged and contain truth at the same time.

                        We aren’t yet at the point of discussing doctrine. That comes later.
                        That's classic bait and switch tactics.

                        The material/energy reconfiguration of the physical component of a human is not controversial. It merely joins basic scientific facts (the body decays beginning at the point of physical death into other configurations--matter/energy can’t be destroyed, only changed from one state to another) with the common Christian assumption that the person is actually not a material body but a spiritual being. It was not claimed that atoms are in the passages in question.
                        I'm a dualist, so I don't assume we are a spiritual being. The resurrection shows that we are complete only when our body and soul are joined.


                        You must have scanned the internet a while to pull this one out of your….out of a dark place, cat.
                        I have better and more difficult things to do with my life than search for ways to refute your arguments - like clipping my toenails.

                        The explanations above show that the points above are borrowed from knowledge bases of basic scientific fact, metaphysical theory and customary Christian assumptions to show the metaphor contended for is logically directed to man’s spiritual, not physical, component.
                        You committed a fallacy. And you make a doctrinal error with this statement. Salvation is for both the spirit AND body. That's the purpose of the resurrection.

                        Nothing is divided.
                        You divide body and spirit improperly.

                        It’s clear you’re performing mental gymnastics in desperate attempts to deny warrant to an obviously reasonable argument at the expense of truth.
                        It's clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

                        Your complaints have been overcome. Again:
                        Sure they have, Mr. Quixote... on to the next dragon!


                        Note: The propriety of God destroying or causing the death of unrighteous people is not disputed here. Literalists seem terrified that an allegorical reading of salvation somehow [i]replaces[/] the literal. It does not. Once understood, the allegory allows the literal to be placed in its proper light and resolves tensions a primarily literal reading of the Bible naturally imposes on doctrine.
                        There is no tension.

                        Wrath and blessing are directed to whole and parts simultaneously.
                        But, as you admitted in post 31... " True, God does not save part of us. He does treat us as individuals. "

                        That’s the point of the Gen 18-19 passages.
                        giphy.gif

                        here we go...

                        When the wrath of destruction is performed by God, the living Lake of Fire against falsity in the human soul which burns like chaff, the whole suffers the just recompense for her sins.
                        No! The lake of fire is reserved until the end judgment. There is no "living lake of fire against falsity in the human soul".

                        If this happens in time, it’s sanctification.
                        Not even close. Sanctification is for the saved, those who have no part in the second death in the lake of fire.

                        God uses the same cleansing process whether sanctifying an individual or bringing him to physical death.
                        No He doesn't. The purification of the saved has nothing to do with sinners. They are not purified. There are all kinds of metaphors in scripture about faith and what remains after purifying fire. See Revelation 3:18 and 1 Peter 1:7 for example.

                        In God’s merciful hands, rebirth follows death.
                        Only if we die in Christ.

                        2 Timothy 2:11
                        This is a trustworthy saying: If we died with Him, we will also live with Him;

                        The unsaved do not die in Christ, and therefore they have nothing left after their sin is burned away. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • We've already agreed that your initial claim is logically structured correctly.
                          Good, let’s move forward.

                          I agree that some of the supporting arguments have not been clear, thanks for helping me see this and add clarity.

                          While the Gen 18-19 passages are able to withstand scrutiny as a standalone metaphor, they don’t provide anything like a coherent allegorical system. The arguments typically mounted against symbolic interpretation—a couple of which have been used in a coarse sense in this thread—by the champions of historical-grammatical methodology have weight. Metaphors, if they have no corroboration in Scripture, just aren’t objectively valid. Outrageous depictions used by some spiritualizers certainly support the notion that they aren’t to be trusted.

                          What give the Gen 18-19 passages substantiation are multiple corresponding metaphors from several books in both Testaments of the Bible. If the structure stands, it reveals an organization no human mind could possibly have orchestrated because the corresponding metaphors are from multiple authors from different backgrounds and cultures separated in many cases by centuries of time. Only God could arrange such a system.

                          The structure God uses for salvation in the Bible is simple:
                          1) Gen 18-19 is the framework or Supervising Metaphor (SM) for the allegorical system.
                          2) A few Level One (L1) metaphors unite with the SM to
                          a] form the allegoric structure,
                          b] finish the two-part configuration of salvation (rebirth); God reveals only the first part, death or destruction, in the SM). L1 metaphors contain the entire death/rebirth blueprint of God’s design for salvation.
                          3) Yet other metaphors—Level Two (L2)—are uncovered by the SM/L1 structure. L2 metaphors comprise the majority of associated symbols in Scripture for the allegorical structure. L2 metaphors are mostly from the figurative language, but some are found in language not taken to be symbolic in nature.

                          Framework revealed in the SM:
                          1) bad, never good components are destroyed [deviation violates the perfection of God’s justice]
                          2) human essence (spirit or soul) is represented as a whole consisting of true/false or good/bad elements. This is the “one and many” organization within which God symbolically shows He performs His work.

                          The story of the Exodus is a powerful L1 metaphor. Here, the nation Israel symbolizes a single person [whole] made up of many parts (Exo 12:37-38). Israel sinned repeatedly on the way to Canaan, complaining of lack of water (Exo 15), meat (Exo 16) etc. Israel lacked faith to take the promised land, rebelling (Num 13&14) and was sent back to the wilderness (Num 14:34). During the wilderness experience, Israel suffered. Many “complaining elements”
                          were destroyed (Num 21, 25, 14: 29-38), corresponding to the death aspect of salvation revealed in the SM.

                          God completes the cycle of salvation here, that as evil, unbelieving parts were destroyed from within Israel, new offspring were born to replace the old (rebirth). The Bible bears this out; compare the number that left Egypt (Exo 12:37-38) with those who entered the promised land after 40 years of affliction in the wilderness (Num 26:51). This despite the fact that thousands were destroyed in the wilderness. Destruction and restoration, death and resurrection. This work of God in Israel's soul produced faith to enter the promised land, revealing the grace of God to work benefit in the midst of affliction.

                          A much shorter but equally powerful L1 metaphor is found in Isa 65:8-9. “Thus says the LORD, "As the new wine [good] is found in the cluster, And one says, ‘Do not destroy [the whole]…, for there is benefit [good] in it, So I will act on behalf of My servants In order not to destroy all of them. [only the bad, in keeping with the SM]. And I will bring forth offspring [rebirth, replacing the destroyed] from Jacob, And an heir of My mountains from Judah; Even My chosen ones shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there.

                          The pattern is reinforced and enlarges, the allegoric structure is established. No longer does the claim for a coherent allegorical interpretation rest on a single metaphor in Genesis 18-19. In addition the incoherent notion of a “partial” soul left after bad parts are destroyed is solved: rebirth follows death. This idea isn’t new, Jesus taught in symbolic language that death precedes rebirth (Jn 12:24).

                          Comment


                          • It’s not surprising that my traditional brethren struggle to cope with the logical order of the allegorical system presented in this thread. You’ve been indoctrinated into an interpretive system that places strict control on what you’re allowed to think and believe. To deviate imposes, at minimum, rebuke from the religious powers within Evangelicalism that control the Biblical narrative. If you rock the boat overmuch you will be censured and risk losing membership in the organization. You thus accept as truth what other men tell you to believe and erroneously (as I’ve pointed out more than once in this thread) use your doctrine as the truth by which alternate views are to be judged. This is obviously circular; if your doctrine is truth itself, any view that deviates from it need not be seriously considered on its own merits and the possibility of open mindedness is quashed. This distortion has stained the thinking of status quo religionists since day one and remains in force in Christianity today.

                            In an online pdf titled “Author Intent” by Dr. William Arp, taken from The Journal of Ministry & Theology Spring 2000 36-50, Arp—after professing the usual allegiance to the inspiration and ownership of Scripture by God—writes, “…in order to know the meaning of the Bible, we must know the author's meaning…the goal of interpretation is to know the author's intended meaning as expressed in the text… The role of the author is crucial. The biblical author is the determiner of the text's meaning. The meaning of a text is what the author consciously intended to say by his text.”

                            Likewise, in another pdf entitled, “THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGLE MEANING”, Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament, writes, “Traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutics place tight restrictions on what the text can yield by way of interpretation.” Criticizing Professor Clark Pinnock’s evaluation of the grammatical-historical hermeneutics, Thomas notes, “I studied his alternative carefully and came to the conclusion that his approach was extremely close to Aquarianism. In responding to my response, he denied any leanings toward New Age teaching, but the similarities are undeniable.”

                            See the typical nudge of those who dare stand against the interpretive structure used by “real” Christians toward the abyss of heresy? Thomas goes on to say of Pinnock, “He writes elsewhere, ‘The meaning of the Bible is not static and locked up in the past but is something living and active.’ On the contrary, meaning is static and locked up in the past insofar as traditional hermeneutics are concerned…Traditional hermeneutics limit each passage to one interpretation and one only.”[my emph.] Bam! Yet these interpretive rules aren’t wrong per se. It’s natural and proper to understand what the inspired authors intended to convey. The problem is that treating these precepts as authoritarian—that this is the final say in Bible interpretation—blocks anything else God has to say in His word beyond these conventions. Like automatons, literalists throw rocks at allegory—eisegesis, imagination, contrived, manipulating God’s word—like candy tossed from floats at a 4th of July parade. But given the lack of logical structure in most claims for symbolic meaning and the fact that most evangelicals are raised to think only within the strict confines of grammatical-historical literalism, this stuff is expected.

                            Arp ably demonstrates the control placed on Christianity’s proselytes. After taking readers to the door of freedom: “Can God's ultimate purpose be much broader than the immediate purpose of the human author? Could God see or intend a sense in a particular passage separate and different from that conceived and intended by the human author? Did the human author always intend all the sense which emerges from the passage? Did he always understand all the referents in the passage? Is it possible that a prophecy may have a deeper meaning56 or "fuller" sense than the prophet envisioned?”…the conclusion he seems to want us to draw ( in a somewhat muddled ending) is, “…the meaning which God has assigned to any passage of Scripture can only be ascertained by studying the verbal meanings of the human writer. There is only one verbal meaning to a passage of Scripture unless the author indicates that he has more than one aim in view.”

                            My high-spirited antagonists have in this thread expressed no (awareness of or) inclination to grasp fundamental truth criteria like coherence, congruity, consistence and comprehensiveness which are now quickly taking shape in the allegorical structure that emerged in the union of the primary framework metaphor (Gen 18-19) and the two supporting Level One metaphors.

                            Connections strengthen with additional metaphors. Goats and sheep (value components) of humanity (the whole) in Mat 25, wheat and tares (value components) or the whole field (Mat 13), and good figs and bad figs (value components) of the whole of Judah are found in Jer 24. Good and bad branches in the whole vine are offered by both Jeremiah (5:10) and Jesus (Jn 15:1-6). The sword of God cuts off value elements from the whole (all flesh, i.e., all humanity) in Ezek 21:3-5. Equivalent patterns of a multiplicity of value elements within a whole are repeated by numerous authors separated in most cases by decades or centuries. Only one so blind and stubborn he wouldn’t believe even if someone rose from the dead could dismiss evidence like this. The patterns in both Testaments correspond impeccably to the model.

                            The learned principles of status quo literalism—author intent as the only meaning, maintaining literal context, sensitivity to literature types, importance of the historical, etc.—crumble in light of the allegorical application God has sown across the whole of His word. Here, people circumstances are paints, and history their canvas. This ‘change of venue’ contributes greatly to the confusion of my literalist brethren to properly critique this system. God establishes His own contexts. For example, in Mat 12:35 the "…good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil” expands in meaning in the allegorical context from “good individuals perform good and bad people practice evil” to the higher implication of a single individual in possession of coincident conflicting thoughts, beliefs and behaviors. The former interpretation is experientially incoherent, while this tension is mitigated in the latter. Explanations able to resolve tensions are proof of enhanced ownership of truth content.

                            Thoughts?

                            Comment


                            • Anomaly,

                              Please accept my apologies. Real life changes are forthcoming that will limit my TWeb time, so I will not be able to continue to engage you in this thread.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Anomaly,

                                Please accept my apologies. Real life changes are forthcoming that will limit my TWeb time, so I will not be able to continue to engage you in this thread.
                                Okay, thanks for the refreshing challenges you've posed Catman. You've delved more deeply into the ideas presented than those on other boards and made me rethink some important things.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X