Post your favorite UR verse for inspection

[ScottA]

...that God imprisons God's own creatures in eternal torment.

This is not the case, but is rather a complete misunderstanding of what is written.

You say "creatures"...which is fine, but it is obvious that you hold a different definition of the term than that of God. You see, the term is first qualified first and foremost as mankind being rather an "image." That is His definition.

In that greater biblical definition and context, imagine you yourself drawing an image for your own children about all that is good and evil--an image using "dust" to draw it out. Would it be right for someone to come along and assume that your "images" were anything more than images? Or that some of your images would be thrown in the trash while others were to be framed and treasured?

Most have no idea of the reality of this "created" world...even though it is written.

 

[Chadrho]

it is obvious that you hold a different definition of the term than that of God

No, it's not obvious because I completely agree with you that the position of ECT asserts that God imprisons those created in the divine image in eternal torment. I didn't use that qualifier in my post but I wholly agree, which only exacerbates the problem with ECT. I get the sense you agree with me, but I'm not sure. At any rate, I appreciate you pointing that out.

God creates humanity in the divine image, knowing fully that we will be unable to free ourselves from sin without grace, and yet creates us knowing that some will suffer eternal torment? Could a more horrendous doctrine and a more blasphemous notion of God be conceived?

 

[St. SteVen]

Steven is having his little tantrum fit because he can't prove his blessed UR to be true.

So he spits at us who call him out, claiming we support the torturer of man.

I'm sure God is very pleased with you, Steven!

LOL
You're pretty funny. Tantrum? Say what?
Who is "us" and "we"? You look like the Lone Ranger on this topic.
Call in some support, if you have any.

 

[St. SteVen]

... It also tells me that you are hard of learning!

Say what?
Is that a mixed metaphor? Possibly a mixed-up metaphor. - LOL

 

[St. SteVen]

I agree with Steven that your unwillingness to accept your own interpretation as one of a number of possibilities prevents productive conversation.

Exactly.
I would say the premise of this topic is on par with a fool's errand.
The goal of proving wrong what has already been proved historically as a reasonable difference of biblical opinion.

So what might a productive conversation between us look like? It would begin with our mutual agreement that the ambiguity of the scriptures regarding this issue results in differing interpretations.

Right.
Is that too much to ask?

Your insistence that those who hold to UR are not faithfully interpreting scripture is disingenuous and uninformed. You might not be willing to relent and accept what I'm saying. But those who might be reading this thread need to know the truth.

Absolutely.

This issue is debatable precisely because the scriptures are ambiguous, leading to differing positions. That is not a sin, it's not due to a lack of faith or spiritual insight, and to not allow for the possibility that one's position is one of a number (3), can only come from ignorance and hubris.

Agree

 

[ScottA]

No, it's not obvious because I completely agree with you that the position of ECT asserts that God imprisons those created in the divine image in eternal torment. I didn't use that qualifier in my post but I wholly agree, which only exacerbates the problem with ECT. I get the sense you agree with me, but I'm not sure. At any rate, I appreciate you pointing that out.

God creates humanity in the divine image, knowing fully that we will be unable to free ourselves from sin without grace, and yet creates us knowing that some will suffer eternal torment? Could a more horrendous doctrine and a more blasphemous notion of God be conceived?

"ECT?"

But your last statement seems to be contrary to what I have already explained. You may view the notion of some of God's creatures suffering eternal torment in a horror movie as horrendous--but it's just a movie--an "image." --No "creatures" have been harmed during the making of this "image."

 

[Chadrho]

"ECT?"

But your last statement seems to be contrary to what I have already explained. You may view the notion of some of God's creatures suffering eternal torment in a horror movie as horrendous--but it's just a movie--an "image." --No "creatures" have been harmed during the making of this "image."

ECT = Eternal Conscious Torment

I'm not tracking what you mean in saying no creatures were harmed in the making of this image, but I'm glad to listen to a clarification.

 

[ScottA]

ECT = Eternal Conscious Torment

I'm not tracking what you mean in saying no creatures were harmed in the making of this image, but I'm glad to listen to a clarification.

If you yourself created an "image" of a man or a group of men--and then burnt half of the image...would you have actually harmed anyone?

No. Neither has God in creating man in His own "image."​

On the contrary, the "image" is an opportunity for everyone in the image to go to safety or go into the fire by their own choosing.

 

[ButterflyJones]

Hippolytus of Rome. Origin, lake of fire in scriptures.

 

[Chadrho]

If you yourself created an "image" of a man or a group of men--and then burnt half of the image...would you have actually harmed anyone?

No. Neither has God in creating man in His own "image."​

On the contrary, the "image" is an opportunity for everyone in the image to go to safety or go into the fire by their own choosing.

I see. That's a novel approach. It's far outside the pale of what image has been understood in the various traditions, but to each their own.

 

[St. SteVen]

Not sure if we have looked at this one yet. cc: @Charlie24

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

[ButterflyJones]

If you yourself created an "image" of a man or a group of men--and then burnt half of the image...would you have actually harmed anyone?

No. Neither has God in creating man in His own "image."​

On the contrary, the "image" is an opportunity for everyone in the image to go to safety or go into the fire by their own choosing.

Quite frankly, that's not a good analogy when referring to an Omniscient sovereign creator who exercises his will and plan that he predestined before the creation of earth or humans.

If I created an image of myself and then burned it because it was flawed and I judged it unworthy of remaining as a reminder of how I created it, and I chose to burn it because of its innate flaws that were my doing as creator, the flames wouldn't erase the fact I made a mistake I sought to destroy.

Rather, it would demonstrate I make mistakes.

If I burned that image while claiming its innate flaws were the responsibility of the created , and it therefore chose the flames of destruction, I'd be mistaken again.

And irresponsible for blaming that what I created flawed on the flawed creation itself.

People don't choose to go to the supposed lake of fire.
God chooses to judge them worthy of being sent there.

Human nature is God's responsibility.

Omniscience created Lucifer.

 

[St. SteVen]

You make some interesting points, thanks.
Charlie dislikes rational discussion. But let's have some while we await his return. - LOL

If I created an image of myself and then burned it because it was flawed and I judged it unworthy of remaining as a reminder of how I created it, and I chose to burn it because of its innate flaws that were my doing as creator, the flames wouldn't erase the fact I made a mistake I sought to destroy.

Rather, it would demonstrate I make mistakes.

Yes! Agree.
The concept of a meaningless forever burning hell is a colossal blunder. No end to it.

If I burned that image while claiming its innate flaws were the responsibility of the created , and it therefore chose the flames of destruction, I'd be mistaken again.

And irresponsible for blaming that what I created flawed on the flawed creation itself.

Right. Like he couldn't see this coming?

Human nature is God's responsibility.

This is where UR really shines. God taking responsibility for what is his.

 

[Chadrho]

Rather, it would demonstrate I make mistakes.

Exactly. We can be more generous and ask, "Does God take risks with creation to lose the good God brings into being, particularly that which bears the divine image?" God doesn't make mistakes, but does God gamble with creation? Is the good God creates worth the risk of loosing? If what is lost is of little value, then what is gained is of little value, i.e. the "image."

@ScottA Your theory eliminates human value, but at least it's fair. Lol

 

[St. SteVen]

Exactly. We can be more generous and ask, "Does God take risks with creation to lose the good God brings into being, particularly that which bears the divine image?" God doesn't make mistakes, but does God gamble with creation? Is the good God creates worth the risk of loosing? If what is lost is of little value, then what is gained is of little value, i.e. the "image."

I would say, that if you love something, you don't gamble with it.
Actually gamblers might do that. But we would view it as part of their illness.
(I'm talking about gamblers with a life controlling problem)

So, would God make sport of his creation? Motive?

 

[ButterflyJones]

You make some interesting points, thanks.
Charlie dislikes rational discussion. But let's have some while we await his return. - LOL

Yes! Agree.
The concept of a meaningless forever burning hell is a colossal blunder. No end to it.

Right. Like he couldn't see this coming?

This is where UR really shines. God taking responsibility for what is his.

I think if someone commits to finding how the Bible was created they'll find that man and politics had everything to do with it.

Men also burned people at the stake for various offenses against God and the church.

Watching someone be consumed alive by fire provides great incentive unto obedience unto that what claims shall save you from them eternally after you're dead.

Further, in my view one is hard pressed to overcome what God says in Ecclesiastes 12.
Our bodies, no distinguishing feature regarding the saved or condemned there, returns to the dust from which we came. And our soul returns to God who gave it.

It's interesting that the Bible is said to be God breathed, and so too are we.
When God created Adam he breathed into Adams nostrils and Adam became a living soul.

God would then be sending part of himself to eternal flames were he to send a soul to the lake of fire.

Church politics aside, I look to what Jesus said when telling us not to believe every spirit, but test them to see if they are of God.

Holding to Jesus full example of God, as God, in the New Testament covenant we see in my view a marked difference between his perspective concerning humans, as compared to the OT God.

 

[St. SteVen]

Further, in my view one is hard pressed to overcome what God says in Ecclesiastes 12.
Our bodies, no distinguishing feature regarding the saved or condemned there, returns to the dust from which we came. And our soul returns to God who gave it.

Interesting.
I hadn't really considered that as a UR text before.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 NIV
and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

 

[Chadrho]

I would say, that if you love something, you don't gamble with it.
Actually gamblers might do that. But we would view it as part of their illness.
(I'm talking about gamblers with a life controlling problem)

So, would God make sport of his creation? Motive?

That's a better way to put it. Would God make sport with creation? To speak in those terms immediately assumes there's odds; two things of value, perhaps equal value, are in competition. Is that our starting point for Xn metaphysics? Or do we assume God is Creator? Lol. I swear, eternal damnation is Manicheanism disguised: two equal powers-good and evil-duking it out.

 

[MatthewG]

God will judge and do rightly, what man says doesn’t amount to much.

Opinions, but not proof.

That is why faith in Jesus is faith, trusting and experiencing the ability to have relationship with the Father in heaven.

And from the scripture there are a ton of questions that of answers that needed to be given that most are able to not carry around to deliver as it could be to meaty to cover and if it’s like getting a chicken bone lodge in your thread and people are still on milk, or babes in the Christian community.

They see people fight and bicker, and hopefully they learn that is not the way it had to be as it is childish, and Paul said when he became mature he put away childish things.

The argument if God will torture and place people on literal fire is questionable itself, what if you got there today and said sorry sir, yes you said you had faith but you did not have my son, and then you are thrown in the lake of fire, which is in front of the Lord and his angels, I believe anyway and Yahweh smile and it happy seeing you burn alive.

Yeah ok, I believe I don’t know what Fire feels like in a spiritual body, and those who have a part in the fire are never said to be done away with.

 

[ScottA]

I see. That's a novel approach. It's far outside the pale of what image has been understood in the various traditions, but to each their own.

I submit that the use of the words/terms "image" and "likeness" are not without purpose, and that God would have used other words/terms if things were what people perceive them to be.