I agree.

You (or anyone presenting a UR or other position), needs to read and respond to, the objections of professional theologians and philosophers. It’s what each theologian and philosopher has to respond to, if they wish to make their mark in history. No opinion. Just the way things are.

As an example, look at Two Objections to Universalism. How might you, Neil - or any other Universalist here - respond to these two objection examples?

Randy,

First, taking away man’s free will in order to make him into a subhuman thing does negate gods omnibenevolence. Even if you argue that it does not negate it for the man in question, it certainly negates it for those who love the man in question. In a “heaven” in which all men obey the Father perfectly, all men will love their neighbor as themselves and all men will love their enemy as themselves. We are commanded to do this that we may be LIKE our Father in heaven. If then we truly do love our enemies, we MUST love those who are God’s enemies, for who are our enemies, if not the enemies of our Father? And since we are one in Christ, who is one with God, we are one with God. If we are one with God, His enemies are certainly our enemies. If these lost force God to punish them with subhuman status, does that not show that they at least are His enemies whether or not He is theirs? Therefore, God must love these lost, since they are his enemies and we are commanded to love our enemies that we may be like our Father in heaven.

Love never fails. You can read the rest of the description of love in First Corinthians 13. This description can only describe God’s love, since none of us are capable of such love. If God loves his enemies and love never fails how can God fail to reconcile his enemies? The writer is willing to postulate that God may remove the free will of these enemies. I do not think that God would do such a thing; I think that God is in the business of MAKING men free, not of making them unfree. Nevertheless, going with the writer’s supposition, why would God then not infringe upon their free will in a manner that would be of benefit not only to them but also to all those who love them, including Himself?

I will never be a professional theologian. I will never “make my mark.” I am completely okay with that. So I will stop here, rather than address the remaining objections the writer puts forth, I think that’s more than adequate in any case, since his whole argument seems to ride upon this proposition: that is to say that God would be willing to remove the free will of those he deems unworthy. I realize there’s no way that my little laymen’s explanation would get through to this writer or possibly to you either, Randy, and that’s okay. Nevertheless, I do not find him at all persuasive. I don’t even know how he persuades himself, except that person perhaps he persuades himself of something that he believes he is obligated to believe, to wit: that God is in fact not good in the sense that we call good. Yet if God is not that which we recognize as good, what is that but to say in slightly different words that God may possibly not be good?

Blessings, Cindy

Randy,

First, taking away man’s free will in order to make him into a subhuman thing does negate gods omnibenevolence. Even if you argue that it does not negate it for the man in question, it certainly negates it for those who love the man in question. In a “heaven” in which all men obey the Father perfectly, all men will love their neighbor as themselves and all men will love their enemy as themselves. We are commanded to do this that we may be LIKE our Father in heaven. If then we truly do love our enemies, we MUST love those who are God’s enemies, for who are our enemies, if not the enemies of our Father? And since we are one in Christ, who is one with God, we are one with God. If we are one with God, His enemies are certainly our enemies. If these lost persons I only pray that God will not love ME in such a way force God to punish them with subhuman status, does that not show that they at least are His enemies whether or not He is theirs? Therefore, God must love these lost, since they are his enemies and we are commanded to love or enemies that we may be like our Father in heaven. I only pray that God will not love ME in such a way, nor anyone whom I love. Because we love our enemies and God loves his enemies (who are one and the same), we could never be happy and blissful without a care and without tears wiped away in paradise knowing that these whom we love dearly suffer horrendously or have become subhuman things.

Love never fails. You can read the rest of the description of love in First Corinthians 13. This description can only describe God’s love, since none of us are capable of such love. If God loves his enemies and love never fails how can God fail to reconcile his enemies? The writer is willing to postulate that God may remove the free will of these enemies. I do not think that God would do such a thing; I think that God is in the business of MAKING men free, not of making them unfree. Nevertheless, going with the writer’s supposition, why would God then not infringe upon their free will in a manner that would be of benefit not only to them but also to all those who love them, including Himself?

I will never be a professional theologian. I will never “make my mark.” I am completely okay with that. So I will stop here, rather than address the remaining objections the writer puts forth, I think that’s more than adequate in any case, since his whole argument seems to ride upon this proposition: that is to say that God would be willing to remove the free will (or suffer the removal of same) of those he deems unworthy. I realize there’s no way that my little laymen’s explanation would get through to this writer or possibly to you either, Randy, and that’s okay. Nevertheless, I do not find him at all persuasive. I don’t even know how he persuades himself, except that perhaps he persuades himself of something that he believes he is obligated to believe, to wit: that God is in fact not good in the sense that we call good. Yet if God is not that which we recognize as good, what is that but to say in slightly different words that God may possibly not be good?

Blessings, Cindy

Just to make sure I’m on the right track in following this thread - are the following things true?

God loves His enemies!!! (Sometimes I think I should repeat that about 10,000 times to get it through my thick skull.)
We are saved by grace. In the end, everyone who is saved, will be saved by grace. If they are very bad people, haters of God, grace can save them. It is not by their will alone, but by our Father’s grace, and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
He saves the sons and daughters of Adam - all of us in other words - not the self righteous. He died to save sinners. Some sinners hate God, I hear - He died to save them, by His grace.
What if they don’t consent? So what - are any of us so good in our fallen nature that we would choose God? And yet, here we are glorifying HIm for his salvation, by grace.

He will save whomever He wants to save - and I believe that means everyone.
I think the ‘haters of God who will resist Him forever’ is a fiction, a straw man. We are ALL like that by ‘nature’ - I don’t think any of us believe that we are saved because we were ‘better’ than the others??

This does not answer the philosophical question, perhaps, but it does bring a measure of Heart’s Ease. Priceless.

I like to get back to 2 items.

Terminology found in Before You Dismiss Rob Bell, Let’s Learn Some Terminology.

This short video

As I watch universalists debate, along with folks like Gaz and STP on the other extreme, I come to this conclusion. We are trying to solve everything at once. Instead, we need a hierarchy of things to solve. So let me propose this formula:

Let’s start with the video of the Anglican new testament scholar. And let’s answer these questions. Is the experiences of those undergoing what is described as hell (whether purgatorial, eternal, or temporary) literal or metaphorical? And whether heaven and earth will come together, in the new creation?
Do we limit salvation in the here and now, just to those who profess a belief in Christ? Or do we broaden the scope - based on scripture and other factors - as the inclusivists argue?
Is there a possibility - based upon scripture - that God will open the opportunity for all to possibility be saved - post mortem?
If someone should not chose salvation (i.e. perhaps like the Batman’s Joker villain), will they lose the Imago Dei or image of God in them? And would they lose immortality, as the conditionalists believe? And could this immortality include individual consciousness? Is lose of the image of God and immortality, one and the same thing? Or would God keep trying to save them, even if it it takes “forever and a day”? And what will their experiences be like - during the process?
After the loss in the prior point, what happens to them? Are they zombies in the philosophical sense (i.e. Philosophical zombie)? Do they get destroyed, like Annihilationism believes? Or perhaps their energy becomes part of the new earth, as the visions of the Catholic mystic and stigmata bearer show? Or do they continue to exist - as philosophical zombies?

And what about the devil and the evil angels? Do they suffer the same fate, as the humans not making the right choices?

So let me sum my view to all these questions:

I agree with the Bishop in the video. The Biblical hell experiences are metaphorical. And heaven and earth will finally come together. But I also agree with the Eastern Orthodox clergy, in the video - regarding their position. Heaven and hell are states - not places. When God becomes All in All, how we experience God’s love becomes our heaven and hell.
I agree with the inclusivists, that the scope of salvation is opened up to more - in the here and now. There are Protestant theologians that can argue this from scripture (I.e. An ‘evangelical inclusivist’ defends evangelical inclusivism and Why inclusivism makes sense) . A majority of Eastern Orthodox scholars agree with this (i.e. An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions). And Roman Catholicism made this a tenet of their theology since Vatican II.

I would agree that a port mortem offer of salvation - is a strong possibility. There’s an interest article by Bob Thiel, Ph.D., entitled:Universal Offer of Salvation: There Are Hundreds of Verses in the Bible Supporting the True Doctrine of Apocatastasis -
God will offer salvation to each and every person who has ever lived; Anyway, a Japanese Christian clergy member has an interesting article at Salvation for the Dead -Hades is not Hell- Biblical Second Chance Theology for Dead People in Hades
I don’t believe all will chose the conditions of salvation. They will lose the image of God in them and their immortality (as defined by Biblical heavenly standards). They will become philosophical zombies, without individual consciousness. But I don’t think they will hang around with us. There are two possible outcomes.

[list]There is a possibility, their energy will become part of the new earth (i.e. this is my belief - see Armageddon - Who What Where When Why How). In other words, they will exist as energy in the new earth - not anything resembling a human or philosophical zombie. And not having individual consciousness, Any experiences during the process of purification, will be like that in the movie What Dreams May Come (film) (according to what Lakota visionaries have shared with me, regarding people who have transitioned.) I side with this view.
They will be annihilated
[/list:u]
The devil and evil angels will suffer the same fate, as the philosophical zombies

Hi, Gaz. I believe you hope that the universalists are right. But probably side with ECT, believe in the literal descriptions of hell and are an Exclusivist (i.e. one must confess an explicit belief in Christ - during this life). Is this correct? If not - what do you believe, within the hierarchy of questions I proposed earlier?

Is it qaz - like the 3 letters on the left side of the keyboard? Or Gaz?

Maybe Randy is short-sighted and to him the lower-case q on qaz looks like a lower-case g

I thought gaz is either your real or pseudonym and you forgot to capitalize the first letter.

I do like your responds to the guy’s objections to universalism. It means you think your responses out. Good one

Just a footnote here. One can analyze and respond to a philosophical position that’s not their own. And they can do it from the perspective of the particular philosophical viewpoint. In one COD philosophy class, I was representing the viewpoint of a porn producer - during a philosophy presentation and debate. It’s certainly NOT my personal position.

Does gaz stand for Geeky Analytical Zombie

Randy… it’s QAZ not Gaz.

It appears that name letters have the same font size, whether the letters are lower or upper case. I’m not used to that. That’s probably what has been tripping me up. I’m happy to exchange views with Quick Analytical Zombie - however he capitalizes or doesn’t capitalize - the acronym abbreviation (i.e. I assume I guessed the correct acronym). Did I guess that right, Dave and QAZ

Anyway, I found a free source for learning Arabic at Medinah Arabic. I signed up and I’m puttering around with the Arabic alphabet. Who knows I might go on to learn it and change my name to something Arabic in nature

And you know what would drive hackers mad? Create master passwords, that are combinations of Arabic alphabet letters and Mandarin characters.

I did add “Quick” and “Analytical” to “Zombie”. I thought I was implying you were a real quick thinking zombie - hence, a compliment on the acronym.

Well, qaz, it looks like we share a lot of points in common:

The biblical descriptions of heaven and hell being metaphorical.
the annihilation view of the unsaved.

While you are unsure of the inclusive view - I am very certain - that prominent evangelical theologians, Eastern Orthodox scholars and the Roman Catholic theologians since Vatican II - got things right - in this regard.

You also think the postmortem view of salvation is possible. I think also that the universlists here have shown a purgatorial view, as a strong possibility. I also see a postmortem chance at redemption - as a strong possibility. Anyway, a Japanese Christian clergy member has an interesting article at Salvation for the Dead -Hades is not Hell- Biblical Second Chance Theology for Dead People in Hades. I just think some will resist it. So I agree with the Anglican bishop, that those not making it, lose the image of God in them. They also do not obtain immortality, since it is conditional. And, no. i don’t see the purpose of philosophical zombies. I think ECT might be preferable to that existence

And how are they annihilated? I like the vision of Tiffany Snow - Old Catholic Church stigmata bearer and mystic. Their soul energy becomes part of th new earth - whatever that is and however it coexists with heaven. Since they have lost immortality and the image of God, they are no longer conscious. Same goes for the Devil and evil angels.

And the Eastern Orthodox view of heaven and hell experiences being states - how we respond to God’s all embracing love - makes perfect sense to me.

IMO
There is no Biblical Hell. There is Sheol, Gehenna, Tartarus and the lake of fire. I think Hell is unbiblical, if one defines biblical by the scriptures properly translated. “Hades” is even very shaky, biblically. It is the proper name of a pre-exististing myth of Greek origin, inserted into the scriptures by the Greeks as a proper name- clearly carrying the baggage of Greek mythology. Sheol is the grave. Regardless of what anyone inteprets from multiple verses on sheol, it is not “hell” or Hades. Gehenna, is a metaphor for the supernatural correction of God, as is the lake of fire.

So could you clarify your current position, qaz, on the fate of the un-redeemed. If it’s not:

ECT
Universalism
Philosophical Zombie
Annihilation

Then exactly what is it

Or do you still run with Annihilation, even though it’s NOT “any more plausible” then Universalism, P-Zombie or ECT?

P-Zombie Solution

The P-Zombie solution (a name I came up with) is where folks lose the image of God in them. But they exist in some kind of exile. They are not tortured. But they are not helped by God either. And this doesn’t necessary mean they are sub-human. This is a popular solution with folks like the Anglican bishop and new testament scholar NT Wright. And also Protestant Christian clergy authors like Timothy Keller and Joshua Ryan Butler (i.e. their books are on Amazon)

Unsaved

Probably the unsaved are in Hades and how they are ministered to, is a fusion of:

The Japanese Christian clergy member has an interesting article at Salvation for the Dead -Hades is not Hell- Biblical Second Chance Theology for Dead People in Hades
The visions of Old Catholic Church mystic and stigimia bearer in What Happens When We Die – Before and Three Weeks After

Let me briefly quote from the Japanese clergy member’s article:

However - based upon the visions of Tiffany Snow - it appears one in Hades can go to God immediately - if they accept what God has to offer!

On behalf of the unversalists here, I should dedicate this next song to you

I like that video.