Comments on UNIVERSAL SALVATION REVISITED -- RESPONSE TO UNICORN

Go to BUILDING A NEW RELIGION FROM THE GROUND UP - Add a comment - Go to UNIVERSAL SALVATION REVISITED -- RESPONSE TO UNICORN

Agree to disagree

Everyones opinion is important to GOD. After all, our opinions ARE what we think...what is in our hearts and minds. And it is our hearts and minds (our love) that Our Father seeks. I hope that you can find time to read my coming blogs, as I will be sure to read yours...and comment.

posted by 7th_Trump on September 25, 2004 at 3:20 PM | link to this | reply

7thTrump

The Bible sets forth certain rules of conduct. We are given the choice whether or not to follow them. We suffer the consequences of our actions. Yeshua says the "straight and narrow is a path that fefw follow -- accepting that many do not. In Deuteronomy, YHVH "sets before you the choice -- life or death", paraphrasing.
God does not will in these cases, abrogating the free will of the chooser.
However, it is stated that God wills that all be saved.
My take on this is that anyone who does not feel that all will be saved is doubtful that god can perform what god wills.

posted by Xeno-x on September 25, 2004 at 9:06 AM | link to this | reply

Key word..."will".

You are correct in your assertion that Our Father "wills" that all would be saved. It is His will that we not do drugs, drink, beat and kill eachother, rob, murder, rape, pillage and plunder...but we will otherwise. It is His "desire" that all would come to Him, that we would repent, and accept His sacrifice for our salvation. But, sadly..."all" won't. We are beings of free will. We all have the oportunity to lend ourselves to GOD's "will". GOD wants our love, that's all. Love cannot be forced or bought, it must come from within. In the New Heaven and New Earth, to think that a loving GOD would bring with us those who have committed these attricities against Him and His people; those who do not love Him and their Brother, who hate all this called GOD is a rediculous notion. If what you say is true, then why would He try to reach us at all...what would be the point? Just tell us about it later. What you suggest demeans GOD, His plan, and those who trulu love Him. Nice read though...adding you to my favs.

posted by 7th_Trump on September 25, 2004 at 7:53 AM | link to this | reply

some seem to think it is a sin to explore new paths of spirituality

check out REV WESTWEND SPEAKS TOO -- there, I show scriptural backing for a person not accepting what is accepted and exploring to discover new spiritual realms.

remaining where you will keep you where you are.

attaining spiritual realms (kingdom of heaven) takes more than just standing where you are.

posted by Xeno-x on September 23, 2004 at 1:55 PM | link to this | reply

you will notice Nicodemus calls Yeshua, "Rabbi"

and Nicodemus is a "teacher in Israel" -- Yeshua had some importance among the Jews -- he could castigate Nicocemus, and the Pharisee in Capernaum who invited him to dinner, saying "let the lower class people have the choice seats".

This all indicates that Yeshua was recognized as a Rabbi -- a master, if you will -- much as Great Rabbis have been respected through the ages.

posted by Xeno-x on September 23, 2004 at 1:51 PM | link to this | reply

born of the spirit.

the verse says it

not a fleshly birth, like a hcild from its mother's womb

but an entirely different birth
that which is born of the spirit (pneuma) is spirit (pneuma) -- pneuma is a word meaning wind, spirit, thoughts.

born from above -- the mind is reborn -- the mind, the spirit, the pneuma, the thoughts, are as if the person is a new person.

Paul said that didn't he? A new person in Christ. It's the same thing.

the death and rebirth -- old dies and new is born -- the person is reborn.

and yes, multiple times -- we are born anew daily. If we have a one-time born-again experience without the daily renewal, then that new birth does not thrive as well.

in fact, we can be reborn moment to moment -- a whole new world opens up to us with each passing of time if we are of a mind (pneuma) to see it.

posted by Xeno-x on September 23, 2004 at 1:47 PM | link to this | reply

Your own research?

Do the scripture verses come from your own research? Are you a paricipation member od a bible based church? Do you participate in any bible study small group study? The reason I ask is because I believe your use of scripture to be short sighted in the respect that the context of the verses you quote is not give. For example:¹Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. ²He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
³In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.^[1] "
⁴"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
⁵Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. ⁶Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^[2] gives birth to spirit. ⁷You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You^[3] must be born again.' ⁸The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
⁹"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
¹⁰"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? ¹¹I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. ¹²I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? ¹³No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.^[4] ¹⁴Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, ¹⁵that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.^[5]
¹⁶"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,^[6] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.^[7] ¹⁹This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. ²¹But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."^[8]

Here the more complete context of the "born again" verses is given. It does not say ; "born again... and again ... and again". Nor does leave any doubt (IMHO) that the entire world WILL NOT be saved, and that those who do not believe stand condemed, not recycled.

posted by neamer on September 23, 2004 at 1:35 PM | link to this | reply

Westwend

This is all beautiful and true. It is a wonderful gift from a loving God who wills for all men to be saved but also gives man the right to choose. You see, I'm afraid that I could never change my beliefs now, not even if I wanted to. I do respect you and your search for truth and the fact that you also share that with others. If you have any desire to see where I am coming from, I have posted a very personal description of my life with my God.in Go to When God Is Far Away, Who Moved? Thanks for all your answers to my questions.

posted by TAPS. on September 23, 2004 at 9:17 AM | link to this | reply

guilt and fear - redefined

I am thinking of the Confession of Sin in the Book of Common Prayer.

basically it asks forgiveness of sins, both seen and unseen, things done and things left undone, against god and our neighbor.

This makes us stop, ask ourselves what we have done, look over it and "truly and humbly repent". We see ourselves through the mirror of the precepts previously quoted. We feel guilty that we have violated them.

What I fear -- is that I have hurt someone. If there is a punishment that I fear, it is possibly repurcussions to my action or inaction that can harm others and myself.

But at the same time, I know I was forgiven even before all these "sins" and that I can go on -- having condemned myself, then knowing salvation erases the condemnation.

posted by Xeno-x on September 23, 2004 at 8:54 AM | link to this | reply

Powerful tools of control - yes! Many Control Freaks abound

not only in hierarchies and bureaucracies and religious bodies but sad to say even in families. (Good example: my mother-in-law. LOL) But, one must be discerning. Surely a scholar of concordances and lexicons can see a difference between those religious bodies who use the name of God to their own advantage and a loving God who gave to humans those qualities of fear and guilt to prompt us to seek himself.

posted by TAPS. on September 23, 2004 at 8:02 AM | link to this | reply

guilt and fear

no basic disagreement on the role pain plays in life.
we have precepts to live by if we can see that.
They are simple
love thy neighbor as thyself
do unto others as you would have others do unto you
Love, joy, peace -- against these there is no law.
then there is Law -- laws and punishment -- good for the political subdivisons that must keep peace and order.
good for those "immature" -- if you will.
then comes grace and faith, where the "Law as governess" leaves off -- which is the mature person understanding better how to live and interact with others.
guilt and fear can be powerful tools of control by hierarchies and bureaucracies and religious bodies.
we pass these up and find the light to which we positively attempt to move.

posted by Xeno-x on September 23, 2004 at 7:48 AM | link to this | reply

West -

Your statement, "Religion reflects the society that created it." is right in step with one of my own beliefs, "One's religion does not dictate his morality--One's morality dictates his religion." This is the way I am picturing it -- Along the road of life your morals were born, formed, adapted, whether consciously or subconsciously and you began to reject churches, religions or beliefs that did not fit in with the morality you chose for yourself. And so, you began to dig deeper into books to create a religion that would fit in with what you had already accepted as your beliefs as dictated by the morals you adopted. Your belief "the whole of the universe is god" fits in with your religious package because you have discounted heaven and hell due to "guilt and fear". Don't depreciate "guilt and fear" too much. They are to a healthy mind and soul what pain is to seeking physical health and wellness--a warning sign, a signal that help is needed. A lot of us would already be dead if it were not for the pain we experienced at certain times of our life.

posted by TAPS. on September 23, 2004 at 7:22 AM | link to this | reply

thoughts -- first -- I have an idea in my head about "God" -- only thing is no matter what you read or hear -- god is incomprehensible.
My concept of GOD AS THE UNIVERSE AS AN ORGANISM is the closest that I can come to comprehending god.

Secondly -- I can't say for sure -- you'd have to research historical tomes to be sure -- but it certainly does look like this: religion reflects the society that created it. The gods of the ancient world were generally hierarchies, reflecting the autocratic hierarchical and bureaucratic monarchial systems from which they arose.
There was a reason for this: so that people would have the impression that their gods wanted them to worship not only the hierarchical pantheon of gods, but the state as well, particularly the king.

See what I mean? These gods are unreachable, contact is allowed only through access through priests and priestesses of the god or goddess. The gods are all-powerful, all seeing, etc., just like the rulers want their subjects to view them.

What is interesting, though is especially the book of Genesis, where YHVH walked and talked with people. The Gardenof Eden -- the encounters with Abraham -- heck, Abraham even dickered with YHVH concerning the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah -- a very accessible YHVH, if you ask me.

I would think that there were ancient perceptions and other aspects of this YHVH that have been lost, would be profoundly interesting to know, and would probably change our ideas about god profoundly.

In Deuteronomy and I Samuel, there are passages that are warnings of what would happen if Israel chose a king, just like the nations around them. It's not a pretty picture: taxes, military conscription, use of girls for the king's purposes, etc. The writer was adverse to having a king.

We understand that Semitic peoples in particular had a democratic form of government. Clay tablets found in a library in the Syrian ruins of Ebla testify to this. In Deuteronomy, the judges are people that meet certain criteria and are chosen by the people -- in other words, elected.

The religion reflected this, according to historians and archaeologists. Worship was scattered through the Israelite peoples; god was easily accessible.

With the institution of a monarchy, however, Solomon and his successors emphasized worship only in Jerusalem, at the Temple, and took steps to remove all other places of worship. This caused the breakup into what would be called Judah, around Jerusalem, and the Ten Tribes of Israel, in the northern lands. The Ten tribes worshipped in a place separate from Jerusalem.

The Ten Tribes were conquered by Assyria and relocated. The Jews were conquered by Babylonia and returned when Persia conquered Babylonia. The Jews, being now the "keepers of the word", emphasized the monarchical nature of God to fit their concept, and reinstituted worship only at the Temple in Jerusalem, later redesigned by Herod the Great and known at "Herod's Temple", where Yeshua preached and taught.

Medieval religion is no different -- it closely parallels the monarchial structure of the times. God is supreme, just as a king is supreme -- there are levels of hierarchy in Heaven and on Earth, just as there are levels of hierarchy in the feudal Middle Ages.

So this remains -- this governs our definition of God.

Thus Webster's.

I feel we need to no longer attempt to define god. We need to realize that the whole of the Universe (what is called Creation) is God -- that there is not an easy way to define God in this light. Throughout the ages, there have always been hints that we should regard humans as gods. We can then perceive of this today as seeing people as part of the entire sacred Universe -- as sacred objects -- as dieties -- as objects of worship -- we are valuable, in other words.

Webster's definition is from the ages old perception -- it is what people usually talk about when they talk about God.

I can't see god that way.

posted by Xeno-x on September 23, 2004 at 6:09 AM | link to this | reply

Westwend - I have to admit to you that I have not read you extensively

and at this time am trying to take the easy way out by asking you questions rather than going back to try to digest everything that you have already written. I'm afraid that I just don't have the energy for that. It is too exhausting for an old head already filled with stuff. I am not asking you the questions because I want to leap upon you and prove you wrong. I am asking because I would like to understand what you believe because you write so much on the subject. That being said, I just need a little clarification on this one. When you say "people see god as such and such" are you saying that is your belief about god? (I have trouble putting the question that way because I always write "God" because that is the way I believe). You speak of human life as sacred and I believe that with all my heart but the definition of sacred has always been to me as put forth by Webster, "dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of diety." And, since the definitions of diety include supremely good and powerful, divine, and supreme being, even without going to any version of the Bible we have set before us a precedent of God being divine and supreme. So, am I missing something in your teachings?

posted by TAPS. on September 22, 2004 at 7:30 PM | link to this | reply

what is god?

I'm trying to explain what I understand about what people understood about what "God" is.
ok do this -- read the Book of Common Prayer.
absorb what Sunday School has taught you. Look at the Sistine Chapel ceiling depiction of God.
I perceive religion as putting God up high on a pedestal and then a pantheon of sorts -- the Trinity -- Dad son and Holy Ghost -- then angels and saints

NOTE -- KOOKA JUST TOLD ME THE PARK IS FLAGSTAFF, ABOVE BOULDER

I believe Yeshua tried to explain that people are on the same level as god. Several passages in the Epistles follow along those lines.
Seems odd doesn't it?
but we are called "sons of god"
it's perception. it comes back to what is god? is it the classic anthropomorphic male figure to which people attribute all sorts of supernatural powers?
this comes, I believe, from the idolatry of a developing nation of "Israel", where Yahveh was the tribal god -- a figurine and a male figure inscribed on clay votive boxes (had a female consort, too).
and yet, as I've said in GOD AS THE UNIVERSE AS AN ORGANISM, the word, YHVH (in the KJV, LORD)has the meaning of "to exist". Also, take the name in the burning bush episode I AM THAT I AM. We've got hints here. The hint is that god is EXISTENCE --all that is ,seen and unseen, all matter, force, energy, anti-matter, every thought word and deed, whether good or evil. YHVH also is a gender neutral name -- Y and V are male and H is female (letters are assigned gender in Hebrew).
So when you encounter anything, that is god.
It should be held sacred.
People in particular, of course.
The deity of people lies not in the concept of the traditional concept of God -- but in actual sacredness. We hold ourselves sacred. We should hold others just as sacred.
Medieval religious thought revolved around feudalism -- Kings, dukes, lords, etc. the King James is translated from that paradigm. People are the serfs. Jesus is "Lord", as in a feudal lord.
in my TRANSLATIONS, I have re-translated, if you will, the Sermon on the Mount -- I hope I explained how I did sufficiently -- if not, ask and I will explain.
This was a time when I explored, investigated, and discovered.
I think the Old Testament holds hints at the sacredness of humans -- then I think the New Testament is a springboard of sorts to discover how and why humans are sacred -- in that it departs from the god figure and the temple as where he is worshipped and the Holy of Holies as his dwelling place where only the high priest can gain entrance, and this just once a year.
It tells us that we have to hold ourselves sacred -- hold others sacred -- hold the entire Universe as sacred.
You know you asked a complicate question don't you?

posted by Xeno-x on September 22, 2004 at 6:58 PM | link to this | reply

Yeah, I can see that--guilt and fear are heavy duty stuff.

My next question returned to me. You said that all humans are gods (I think I'm remembering right--if not slap me down). There are quite a few definitions of "god" in Webster's and I am sure more elsewhere. Can you give me your definition of "god" so I will understand exactly where you are coming from?

posted by TAPS. on September 22, 2004 at 6:19 PM | link to this | reply

Westwend - Thanks for the pic location. Now that I know the

State, I can find what I'm looking for. I'm sure I have a pic in the exact same spot although some years ago. lol

posted by TAPS. on September 22, 2004 at 6:16 PM | link to this | reply

why's it important?

Unicorn has debated with Kooka some in the past couple of days.
She is of the mind (shared by some Christians, but not all) that only Christians that accept Jesus as personal savior will go to Heaven while everyond else will go to Hell.
There is this guilt and fear thing, see.
Every once in a while I resurrect this when the subject somes up, basically.
There are some people, I believe, who need to at least investigate this "option" if you will.
Too many people don't feel that they ARE ok.
I believe in living in the here andnow more than in worrying about some unknown after life anyway.
Here and now is our salvation, if we realize and live so.
But back to being erudite and all that -- I just explore -- investigate -- ask questions -- do not accept without proof, if you will, what is stated.
There are many reference works that can inform.
I come from the Christian paradigm and attempt to explain through that. In general, there are thoughts enough in the New Testament in particular to support what I have concluded.

posted by Xeno-x on September 22, 2004 at 6:09 PM | link to this | reply

it's above boulder

a county park I believe -- Kooka knows better that I do. All I do is let him and his sister show me around when I go out there.
his sister took that photo.
love the panorama

posted by Xeno-x on September 22, 2004 at 6:03 PM | link to this | reply

Westwend - I read every single word in this long post. You seem to be

a man with much learning. You have a persuasive way with words. And, this seems to be very important to you. I have a lot of questions about what you have shared but, I would like to ask just a few of them (mainly because by the time I get finished with one or two, I will forget what else I wanted to ask). I would like to understand you better but I'm sure my questions will sound pretty stupid. First, If, as you say, there is universal salvation no matter what, then why is this an important issue? Why not just put it all aside and go on to other things since everything will pan out in the end anyway? Next question all ready flew away. I will have to come back again. LOL

posted by TAPS. on September 22, 2004 at 4:52 PM | link to this | reply

Westwend - May I first ask a question about your blog picture?

I have been very curious about where this was taken. It looks very familiar to me. What it looks like to me is a spot that I like on Rampart Range Road in Colorado. Could it be?

posted by TAPS. on September 22, 2004 at 4:44 PM | link to this | reply

we are all already exalted

the Psalmist says, "Ye are gods."
The book of Hebrews says we are "a royal priesthood" and "kings and priests"
In other of Paul's writings, we are "sons of god" (through adoption).
we are there right now.
let us hold each other sacred

posted by Xeno-x on September 22, 2004 at 10:23 AM | link to this | reply

I think there are too many contradictory statements in the Bible to establish a doctrine of universal exaltation. Mormons believe that all men will be saved (be reinstated to their body) but that only the faithful and obedient will gain exaltation (have their body and inherit Godhood with Heavenly Father and Jesus). Maybe that's a decent way to harmonize the various readings from the Bible.

Personally, I don't know.

posted by aardvark on September 22, 2004 at 9:54 AM | link to this | reply