No its true. I am dumb when it comes to formal schooling and understating more in depth studied concepts. Not that being dumb on those things is irreversible or a bad thing. Just is. Which is part of the reason why i have a hard time understating yours and some others posts. Add in i didn't really write more then my name for over a decade before i found 2p2 and i was never that good at in the first place and....trust me its my fault.


I think i kind of get what your saying though. Your saying being wet isnt a consequence of swimming its just the reality of the universe and inevitable.

So "getting into heaven" doesn't have requirements because its just a natural by product of existence and the natural feeling of "asking for" forgiveness.

Just what this thread needs. More obfuscation and disruption. I think now you're officially rage trolling in making this response. Funny since you're the one that ****ed with me in the first place. People...

Well just in case you're not trolling I'll indulge a response.

No, he doesn't forgive your sins unless you repent and beg for forgiveness, otherwise he annihilates you for your sins, in which case he effectively doesn't forgive you for them at all. And you can't say that some people "choose not to take him up on the offer". Because as Batair said, "Unless there is choice after death to ask for forgiveness its not unconditional permission to enter heaven. There would still be the condition of belief because you really cant ask for forgiveness from something i don't believe in". Not believing in something is not a choice to reject the offer and choose annihilation. (almost) nobody would "choose" to be annihilated, if they got the chance in Heaven to take God up on his offer. In our current hypothetical, people don't get the chance to go to Heaven and make that choice, so Atheists/other Theists don't get a choice to reject the offer because they don't believe in the first place. Therefore, God doesn't "forgive their sins and let them in". He simply annihilates them when they have no chance to ask for forgiveness (as again they don't believe in life).

Again you're assuming they have the in-the-afterlife choice to choose not to. FWIW though, I do personally believe it would be better to force them into Heaven than send them to Hell.

No mercy would be not annihilating them immediately upon death for not repenting/asking for forgiveness.

Again assuming they get the choice after death, or that forcing them into Heaven isn't more just than letting them have the choice.

Obviously that's a side discussion between me and Jib.

I don't even know what a troll is let alone what being 'officially' a troll means. There's certainly no rage on my part, though your first response to me seemed to be pretty cross. As for 'obfuscation and disruption' - someone not understanding you is doing neither.
Of course I can say that, that's the whole point of this particular approach to heaven. Everyone gets a choice - it doesnt have to be after death but everyone gets a choice. That's the position being defended it's not an assumption.

As for 'annihilating you for your sins' that's again missing the point of this approach. You're not annihilated for your sins, your sins are forgiven and you can (if you want) 'get into heaven' - alternatively you can cease to exist. Up to you.
Then (almost) everybody would get into heaven.
"In our current hypothetical"? I'm the one advancing a possible heaven, if you're labelling some version of heaven inconsistent where people don't get a choice well that's not what either Jibninjas or I are talking about. Again the whole point in taking this 'defence' is that everyone gets a choice (before/after death is irrelevant).
Yes - I'm suggesting one way in which the concept of heaven is not inconsistent and it includes people having a choice (in-the-afterlife, on-the-deathbed, moments-before-death, is irrelevant).
Hell being the permanent destruction they wish?
If God only forgives people who ask for forgiveness or if he won't forgive you until you repent then his forgiveness is conditional (obviously).
I don't understand this - hopefully it's covered above.

You cut off my quote before I was done making my entire point. Which is that "some people" don't have a choice, because they don't believe, and if they don't believe, they can't ask for forgiveness or repent, which is requisite for them to get into Heaven. It does have to be after death because if they don't believe all of their life and they die, then that would be their only opportunity, after they die.

Just demonstrated above that this choice is not a reality for some people.


Nothing wrong with that.


Well I was talking about just not getting a chance after death. But one of my points is indeed that some people effectively don't get a choice and that the "choose to be saved or choose annihilation" dichotomy is a false one.

Before/after death is extremely relevant to what the person believes in their life.


Again, when and how they get offered the choice makes all the difference to different types of people.


Who says an Atheist wishes to be destroyed? You don't know that. They might take the opportunity not to be destroyed if they got offered it after death. Their not believing in life is not a wish to be destroyed in death.


OK so then you've agreed with me all along?

Was saying you were assuming that they get the choice to be saved after death, or that It's not more just to force them into Heaven than it is to let them choose annihilation. Sorry if this still doesn't make sense. I don't know how to say it more clearly.

I am suggesting a situation (not that I believe it, I don't believe in life-after-death but it seemed to me this was something like what Jibninjas was suggesting):

1. Everyone gets a choice - those people you keep referring to (atheists, people who've never heard of God, members of incorrect religion) who don't believe during life either:

a. have an epiphany at the moment of death
b. enter some kind of 'purgatory' where they are presented with sufficient evidence
c. suddenly believe in God a moment before death
d. some other scenario I havent't thought of...it doesnt matter.

The situation I am outlining is that this happens for everyone before they make the choice to be annihilated or to 'get into heaven'. Everyone is given sufficient evidence to believe.

2. Having been presented with that, they are freely given a choice - live forever in God's presence or cease to exist.

3. That choice is presented to everyone, regardless of their sin, regardless of their repentance, regardless of whether they ask for it - this is where the unconditional comes in. God doesnt hold back the option of heaven, even from those we may deem to be 'unworthy'.

4. Those who choose (after having all required evidence) are annihilated of their own free will - practially nobody in your opinion, but that's hardly a logical hurdle.

I dont think the above is consistent with a benevolent God, but I think it is consistent with unconditional forgiveness. Your existence in heaven or ceasing to exist is entirely dependant on what you choose - God gives you completely free rein. It's not a punishment and it's not due to you 'failing' some entrance exam.

Hopefully that addresses most of what follows. Your objections seem to stem from the set of people not being given a chance to make a choice - the empty set if the above conception were to be correct.

Indeed - although I don't believe in an afterlife, if there is a heaven in the usual 'place to go after death' conception, then I think everyone gets in.
Yes, but the premise is that they are given sufficient evidence to make their choice before they have to make it. It's not relevant whether such evidence is provided in death, in life or at the moment of choice.
Not according to the premises of the argument.
Hopefully clear? Anyone who freely chooses to be destroyed wishes to be destroyed. I do know that.
I've always agreed that if God stands at the gates of heaven saying "Pass/Fail/Pass/Pass/Fail/....." then admittance to heaven is conditional.
I think I get it. Here it seems we have genuinely differing intuition. I think forcing people to exist when they don't want to is decidedly unjust. I agree that's an assumption or a subjective moral judgement. I'm surprised you would consider it unjust to fulfill someone's free choice, though I guess it's arguable.

This all seems reasonable. Although I'm not sure It's what Jib was trying to represent...and I was trying to refute what he was saying. Consistent with your beliefs, Jib?

Well first off, I'm curious how your would be univeralism would work exactly, if it wouldn't include forcing those who choose to be annihilated to go to Heaven? How else do you get everyone into Heaven without forcing some of them?

Secondly, although I am paradoxically a libertarian, sometimes I think it can be in a persons best interest to force them to do some things. Eternal torment/annihilation is a long time...It's forever. I think certainly at least preliminarily it could be in a person's best interest to force them into Heaven. Then if they truly abhor their existence there over the course of time, you could permit them to be annihilated. I think providing them the opportunity is worth the initial cost to free will. People are finicky. People make bad decisions, and people can change their minds and afterward they can be glad they didn't go with their initial choice. Especially when that choice is so permanent as this one.

Although the last few bits probably won't be acceptable to him. 1-4 was intended to be a paraphrase/broad outline.
If universalism is true, the scenario above isn't correct. There's no choice - everyone goes to heaven and everyone enjoys it. There isn't anyone to force.
Fair enough, I agree with you. In this case of course, it involves an omniscient being who knows who "really means it" (or who's going to remain in heaven once they get a taste) so no errors would be made. The situation is different when there's no chance of making a mistake.

A thorough defence to this counterpoint would probably require a more detailed account than the broad outline I gave above.

Ok, there has been a ton of stuff posted since I left off. I am not sure where to start, but grazing over the posts I will attempt to clarify a couple things.

1. I don't believe that people end up in "hell" because they are not forgiven. I would say though that one could make the case that under the traditional view of hell being eternal torment that they are not forgiven, as they are eternally being punished. But that is not my view. So someone ending up in "hell" has nothing to do with whether or not they are forgiven, thus it has nothing to do with whether or not forgiveness is contingent.

2. "hell" is the natural consequence of rejecting God. And when I say rejecting God, I do not mean rejecting the proposition that "God exists", but rejecting him in your actions and person hood. So no one is being "sent" to hell, they are choosing hell. But not in a "getting to the pearly gates and choosing A over B", but you are making that choice every day of your life. Eventually you get to the point that you are not capable of being aligned with God, thus you are annihilated.

3. We were created as beings to be in a love relationship with God. After making the choice (or series of choices) leading you to a point where you are incapable of being aligned with God, your existence would be terrible. God, being all loving, mercifully destroys.

4. I believe that Universalism stands in contradiction with free will. I believe that free will exists and that it is extremely important, thus I am forced to reject universalism as an option, even if on the surface it seems more loving (although I am not convinced that this is true)

There are just quick comments. If someone wants me to respond to specific posts, just give me the post number and I will address it point by point. But there is just too much for me to try and get to, and I have not had a lot of time lately.

Jib, i'm currently not aligned with God, and i certainly wouldn't describe my existence as terrible. Are you saying over a long enough time that would change and even i would view it as terrible? I guess i'm asking why you assume it would be terrible to not be aligned with God. Also, i didn't have the free will to not be involved in this choice. What are your views on that?

If you need to ask for forgiveness and repent, and the consequence for not doing so is annihilation, you are not forgiven for not doing these things. You're only forgiven if you do ask for forgiveness and repent, otherwise you are effectively punished with annihilation.

Doesn't "choosing" something require you to knowingly select an option that you understand the benefits/consequences of? Saying people "choose hell" is an extreme misnomer. They aren't selecting what they understand to be annihilation. They are only knowingly selecting to make love with someone (or whatever terrible atrocity it is). Then God makes his choice to annihilate them for it.


Why couldn't God just go ahead and realign you, after death, so that you could be nice and compatible? Is that beyond his power? He has to annihilate you?

I'm guessing you're going to say "that precludes some free will!". Well in this case the only 'freedom' you're losing in being realigned is the freedom to be annihilated, and miss out on eternal bliss in Heaven. I don't see why that's such a valuable freedom to have. In fact it has no intrinsic value whatsoever that I can see.


See above.

Why?

Because if Universalism is true, then everyone will chose God. If you can say ahead of time what someone will do (not might do), then that person is not free with regards to that choice.

If universalism is true, there isnt a choice to make - removing one choice doesnt equate to removing all choices (we can't choose to fly to the moon either - that doesnt mean we dont have free will). We still make choices, it's just that ultimately, everyone will end up at peace and in God's presence - that's not one of the choices we make.

Again, I said before that I do not believe that people end up in "hell" because God did not forgive them. You are equating forgiveness with entrance into heaven. I do not believe that to be the case.

from Wiki,

To me, the annihilation of lost souls is part of the forgiveness. God holds no ill will towards those lost, which is why he mercifully destroys them. If one chooses not-God, then God honors that decision (bad wording, but whatever)

I could not disagree more. Are you not aware that it is better to be loving towards others than to hate others? Are you not aware that being selfless is better than being selfish? Are you really going to stand here and tell me that when your neighbor came to you needing help and you couldn't bother to help them, that when God asks you "why did you do that", you're going to answer "What, that was the wrong decision?"


Is it beyond God's power to force someone to make a choice after giving them free will? Yes.

You either have not paid a bit of attention to what I have said, or you don't care. Either way, life is a serious of choices that leads to a destination. The difference between heaven and "hell" is not a singular choice.

If it makes you feel better, I never made it past 1 semester of College. Also, +1 never writing anything before I came to 2p2. This really is a great place to sharpen you mind.

I win. Well... if you want to call two years of community collage and studying photography without a degree because i just took the classes i wanted to a win. So not really a win...

I agree though. I think the best thing about posting here in rgt (because i have never really posted much of anything outside this forum) is that i have become a little bit better of a writer and a little bit more sharp in my thinking about things. Give me another ten years and ill be ready to take on the big kids.

From what i understand, at least about some Christian universalists, is that they believe in a purgatory like place where people and even Satan will be given the free choice to enter heaven or not. They just believe everyone will eventually choose of their own freewill to enter heaven. And given a God that is all hes cracked up to be and an infinite amount of time to choose it doesn't seem that far fetched of a theology compared to other Christian teachings.

From your own definition, forgiveness includes not punishing someone for an action. Annihilation seems like a punishment to me. Thus no forgiveness.

Considering God could realign them and send them to Heaven, annihilation doesn't seem as merciful to me.


Well you have a pretty strange expectation to have everyone innately know exactly what God wants and what's good to him and not good to him.

Your rhetorical questions are well cherry picked, but I'll respond the best I can.

I might not be if I was raised in a racist family and or I was abused.

Capitalism.

Too vague to answer. Help how? Am I going to risk my life for some guy I don't even know? Probably not. I don't think you would either. I think It's a pretty natural human instinct not to stick your neck out.

Now, what about my example? How should people innately know that making love is wrong wrong wrong, and that some God will annihilate them for it?


As I said, realigning someone to God after death would deprive them of no valuable free will.

But, even if you find the free will decision to be annihilated valuable, why not allow them the choice after death to either be realigned, or be annihilated? That way, they have absolutely no free will infringed upon, they could make the (more educated) choice themselves, and God is about 10X more benevolent, because almost everyone would choose realignment (whereas billions would be annihilated and denied Heaven otherwise).


I've been paying attention, and I do care. I just think God could be even more compassionate than annihilating all unrepentant sinners, if he were more creative and resourceful with his power...And I would give him credit for creativity and resourcefulness if I was going to believe in him. I figured you might too.

Jib?

(This is a complete non-sequitur)

Bunny, have you ever gotten enraged and attacked someone on a forum? I don't think I've ever seen you get mad or unpleasant, which is quite a feat on the internet. Barring some sort of personality predisposition or cultivated calm, you seem to me to be possibly the only person on this forum for whom religion seems to bring some sense of peace.

That's because he's an atheist who believes in God, any other conflict is trivial in comparison.

Stupid asso.

[/enraged]

Don't **** with bunny.


Btw, bump for Jibninjas.

I was hoping that would let you get all the pent up rage out. ... you're welcome.

You can continue to say this, but I have said many times before annihilation is God being merciful. It is not a punishment. So you might disagree, but you cannot say that my points are inconsistent.

Well, if that would be possible then we would have never needed the "trial" period that is earth. So this goes directly against Christian theology. So if we are to agree with you, you must come up with something more convincing than an assertion.


I disagree.




I disagree to an extent.

What? Capitalism does not mean that you have to not care for others. Either way, because people are selfish does not mean that they do not know better.

You can disagree all you like.

Completely disagree, and this goes against basic theology.

I never said that they didn't.


And I believe that God would be less compassionate if he were to not annihilate them. So where does that leave us?