A phone conversation with a muslim missionary

[rodgertutt]

From a Christian Universalism point of view, that would be God given. But I think that is part of being human ... it made for for efficient decision making, though not necessarily effective decision making.

Temporary closed mindedness, though frustrating to encounter, is indeed part of God's plan in the unique spiritual development of both the closed minded person, and the individuals who have to interact with the closed minded person.

 

[rodgertutt]

I believe the vast majority of people in this world are well-meaning and are trying to make the best of the existence they have.

That's my assessment too.

I hope you don't consider people to be closed minded when they don't agree with you.

No I don't.

I think we all have to be closed minded, until strong enough influences (such as negative consequenses due to being closed minded) cause us to reconsider our point of view.

 

[bob x]

Was not offended Bob.

Good.

What I did say (instead of that) is that there is evidence that the Bible teaches universal salvation for all, not everlasting suffering for some.

And what I am saying is that the idea of everlasting suffering is and has been the prevailing concept of Christianity, everywhere, which is to say that you think almost all Christians have got it wrong. And why is that?

All evil (including false ideas about God's character) will temporarily prevail for reasons that will ulimately be perceived as good.

"Temporarily" seems to go on for an awfully long time...

God has the intention, and the ability to eventually successfully transform the existence of all evil into good.

Well, this is an idea that I have a great deal of difficulty accepting. For all eternity, everything that has happened will always be what it is. The suffering of a child horribly abused and finally murdered mercilessly will always be miserable suffering, and claiming that some point the child will experience enough joy to more than counter-balance it does not change the nature of that suffering.

 

[bob x]

Was not offended Bob.

Good.

What I did say (instead of that) is that there is evidence that the Bible teaches universal salvation for all, not everlasting suffering for some.

And what I am saying is that the idea of everlasting suffering is and has been the prevailing concept of Christianity, everywhere, which is to say that you think almost all Christians have got it wrong. And why is that?

All evil (including false ideas about God's character) will temporarily prevail for reasons that will ulimately be perceived as good.

"Temporarily" seems to go on for an awfully long time...

God has the intention, and the ability to eventually successfully transform the existence of all evil into good.

Well, this is an idea that I have a great deal of difficulty accepting. For all eternity, everything that has happened will always be what it is. The suffering of a child horribly abused and finally murdered mercilessly will always be miserable suffering, and claiming that at some point the child will experience enough joy to more than counter-balance it does not change the nature of that suffering.

 

[rodgertutt]

Good.

And what I am saying is that the idea of everlasting suffering is and has been the prevailing concept of Christianity, everywhere, which is to say that you think almost all Christians have got it wrong. And why is that?

"Temporarily" seems to go on for an awfully long time...

"Temporarly," until God's plan for the ages of time has been consummated.
Then everyone will agree that it was better that everything happened the way that it did, better than if it had not happened that way.
CHART OF GOD’S PLAN FOR THE AGES OF TIME
THE EONS OF THE BIBLE WITH CONCORDANCE
The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.

Well, this is an idea that I have a great deal of difficulty accepting. For all eternity, everything that has happened will always be what it is. The suffering of a child horribly abused and finally murdered mercilessly will always be miserable suffering, and claiming that some point the child will experience enough joy to more than counter-balance it does not change the nature of that suffering.

I suppose it's a matter of whether or not you can have faith in the idea.
I can, and do because I believe that after we have thought the very best thoughts that we can about God, I like to think that we can be sure that He is even better than that. This will help to explain why I think so.
KNOWING THE REAL JESUS
God is Love: God Is Love!  The Power of God's Love; Love Your Enemies! Knowing The Real Jesus

I have an important corollary to my beliefs too.
The corollary is that when the chips are down and I am overwhelmed by life's negatives to the point where I can't make my wonderful theology work for me in a practical way, yet even that sorry state of affairs is something that God will eventually transform into something better for me that it temporarily prevailed.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
evil.html

 

[bob x]

"Temporarly," until God's plan for the ages of time has been consummated.
Then everyone will agree that it was better that everything happened the way that it did, better than if it had not happened that way.

Emphasis added. I won't agree, as I said.

I suppose it's a matter of whether or not you can have faith in the idea.

I'm sorry, I just can't. I'm not made that way.

 

[rodgertutt]

Emphasis added. I won't agree, as I said.

I'm sorry, I just can't. I'm not made that way.

No problem.
For me, that's when my corollary kicks in and I apply it to your inability to believe the idea.

The corollary is that when the chips are down and I am overwhelmed by life's negatives to the point where I can't make my wonderful theology work for me in a practical way, yet even that sorry state of affairs is something that God will eventually transform into something better for me that it temporarily prevailed.

 

[citizenzen]

I think we all have to be closed minded, until strong enough influences (such as negative consequenses due to being closed minded) cause us to reconsider our point of view.

Couldn't we be open minded as well? Couldn't influences be positive?

Often, when I am compelled to reconsider my point of view, it is due to a moment of beauty or compassion strong enough to make me question my small and petty mind.

 

[rodgertutt]

Couldn't we be open minded as well? Couldn't influences be positive?

Why not?

Often, when I am compelled to reconsider my point of view, it is due to a moment of beauty or compassion strong enough to make me question my small and petty mind.

Excellent moments!

 

[OAT]

Temporary closed mindedness, though frustrating to encounter, is indeed part of God's plan in the unique spiritual development of both the closed minded person, and the individuals who have to interact with the closed minded person.

Two questions for you rodgertutt:
1. When each of us come to being, are we just a blank sheet that gets written as we go through life? (i.e., when the Bible said man was created perfect, what was meant that he was a perfect "blank sheet" and is let loose to develop. This question arise from your statement about the need for spiritual development.)
2. If man is required to be develop spiritually, is man given only one lifetime to do so or many lifetimes? (i.e. does Christian Universalism subscribes to the idea of reincarnation that Gnostic Christians did?)

 

[rodgertutt]

Two questions for you rodgertutt:
1. When each of us come to being, are we just a blank sheet that gets written as we go through life? (i.e., when the Bible said man was created perfect, what was meant that he was a perfect "blank sheet" and is let loose to develop. This question arise from your statement about the need for spiritual development.)

By spiritual development I mean what God intends each one of us to learn from our temporary exposure to evil and suffering

2. If man is required to be develop spiritually, is man given only one lifetime to do so or many lifetimes? (i.e. does Christian Universalism subscribes to the idea of reincarnation that Gnostic Christians did?)

Some CRs believe in earthly reincarnation (e.g. Hannah Hurnard)
To the best of my knowledge most do not though.

 

[OAT]

I think we all have to be closed minded, until strong enough influences (such as negative consequenses due to being closed minded) cause us to reconsider our point of view.

In my case, my belief in Christianity closed my mind but certain negative Christian doctrine, certain contradictions among the doctrines and my need to be honest with myself burst open the closed doors.

 

[rodgertutt]

In my case, my belief in Christianity closed my mind but certain negative Christian doctrine, certain contradictions among the doctrines and my need to be honest with myself burst open the closed doors.

That's to be expected Oat.
The strongest influences on our mind will dictate what we choose to believe or not believe.

In my case the strongest influence is the idea that God is eventually going to transform all of the negative things that happen into something better that they happened.

I believe God will do this through Jesus Christ.
Many do not.
I think that's because that idea is not the strongest infuence on their mind.

This link explains why I think like I do.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL - A.P. Adams
evil.html

Dr. Leslie Weatherhead (author of THE CHRISTIAN AGNOSTIC)
wrote

“God’s purposes are so vast and glorious, beyond all guessing now, that when they are achieved and consummated, all our sufferings and sorrows of today, even the agonies that nearly break our faith, the disasters that well nigh overwhelm us, shall, seen from that fair country where God’s age long dreams come true, bulk as little as bulk now the pieces of a broken toy upon a nursery floor, over which,
thinking that all our little world was in ruins, we cried ourselves to sleep.”

I LOVE THAT QUOTE

 

[Abdullah]

Well, it is entirely a matter of faith for a start.

Yes Brian that is right, but the islamic faith is backed up by intellectual/scientific evidence too ; i'll be starting up a new thread on that to show exactly how!

 

[Abdullah]

Exactly.

The Bible, a book written by men, interpreting the will of God.

Ahh, but how do they know it's the will of God?; how can man-made stuff be 'the will of God'?, especially when it is full of contradictions

The Quran, exactly the same.

not quite; the Quran is the litteral word of God, put to paper by men without change in the slightest; interpretations of it are contained in other books

Knowing the difference between interpretation and the actual "will of God" is a key part of this and other religious discussions.

this is a very important point; knowing the 'interpretation and the actual "will of God"'; the Quranic interpretation is fool proof, for it has been interpreted by Gods Messenger Himself and preserved throughout the ages...

 

[Abdullah]

I agree with CZ and Brian.
We have to take the word of a man that the book he wrote was directed from some divine source.
But that is just as questionable as Joseph Smith and his angelic inspired book.

questionable indeed, but when religions are investigated from an objective point of view, truth becomes clear from error

 

[Abdullah]

Here my preferred way to look at it, it is a reasonableness test:
God created man,
then God created hell for man,
Is that reasonable?
Answer: No.
Why? Whatever causes that man created to qualify him to hell, God cannot escape culpability because he is the first cause.

God is the first cause, OF FREE WILL, hence how can God be responsible for mans misdeeds?; man ahs a choice, and if he chooses hell, he gets it and if he chooses heaven, he gets it; isn't that in accordance with Gods attribute of justice?

 

[rodgertutt]

God is the first cause, OF FREE WILL, hence how can God be responsible for mans misdeeds?; man ahs a choice, and if he chooses hell, he gets it and if he chooses heaven, he gets it; isn't that in accordance with Gods attribute of justice?

IMHO "free will" is an illusion.

But I also believe that neither personhood nor morality is diminished by the existence of causality.

We do share one thing in common with robots, and that is causality. Everything we believe and do is the product of the combination of strongest influences that have been brought to bear upon our mind at the time.

We always, without exception, choose in the direction of the STRONGEST sets of influences every time.

It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it proves that we preferred it even though there may have been other influences that were almost just as strong. For example, try to believe differently than you do right now. You can't can you? And you won't be able to until/unless stronger influences CAUSE you to do so.

The idea that it would not be right for God to punish us for doing what we could not help but do is merely an ethical opinion that is rendered irrelevant by the irrefutable fact that WE ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, CHOOSE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE STRONGEST INFLUENCE, ALL OF THE TIME.

Very few Christians actually believe Ephesians 1:11.
"God works ALL things after the counsel of His own will."

 

[iBrian]

how can God be responsible for mans misdeeds?

Dunno, but, if Dr Frankenstein had realised that he would create a murderous monster, and then proceeded to create it, then seek to destroy it, the whole question of the monster having "free will" or not becomes kind of irrelevant, doesn;t it?

 

[rodgertutt]

God is the first cause, OF FREE WILL, hence how can God be responsible for mans misdeeds?; man ahs a choice, and if he chooses hell, he gets it and if he chooses heaven, he gets it; isn't that in accordance with Gods attribute of justice?

The definition of "free will" that I have in mind is the idea, that during the act of making a choice, it is possible to not choose something that is having the strongest influence on your mind.

I maintain that is logically impossible. Thus, no "free will."