Vinnie

Part of this depends on how you define forgiveness as well.

Richard Purtil in Justice, Mercy, Supererogation, and Atonement rote this:

Up above I was thinking of forgiveness is a unilateral sense. God's forgiveness is always there. He forever has his arm out to reach us but until we realize that and "accept" his forgiveness how do we have "at-one-ment"?

Purtil would seemingly equate forgiveness with solidarity here. I think that may well be accurate. If forgiveness is "solidarity" or "at-one-ment" then such is dependent upon our acceptation of it or our solidarity with God for the same reason highlighted in my previous post. In this case I would say God's unconditional forgiveness is not "completed" until solidarity or "at-one-ment" is reached. This understanding probably corresponds better to actual cases in our lives where we forgive others.

To me God's forgiveness is unconditionally there or extended. But solidarity itself includes forgiving others. Solidarity is to share wills in some sense. To have that sharing of a will with God who forgives unconditionally means you too will forgive as such. If forgiveness is solidarity in Purtil's sense then this makes sense. I think Borg and Purtil's understandings are compatible but different aspects" of forgiveness are being highlighted. For instance, Stump said that "To forgive a debtor is to fail to exact all that is in justice due." This forgiving the debt most likely includes "at-one-ment" though. What good is unconditional forgiveness if it doesn't produce "at-one-ment"?

The definition of forgiveness yields these:

1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>
2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : PARDON <forgive one's enemies>

I was using it in that sense before. But others like Purtil and many more would probably view forgiveness as being "at-one-ment". I accept this as valid as well. They help explain "forgive not and you will not be forgiven"

But we have to be careful to point out what we mean lest we use different defintions and become hopeless lost.

Vinnie

Radorth

Failure to repent, resulting in continuing sin. Continued sin warrants continued torment, and I have no trouble imagining a hell full of conscious people who refuse to obey God, or even to act unselfishly, and continue to suffer the consequences of their own actions.

People may argue that no one would be that foolish, but of course they will. In fact one frank skeptic here has asserted "I'd rather burn in hell than serve in heaven." I suspect some people are so debased in their thinking that they couldn't tell God from the devil.

"Eternal torment" is repugnant and I don't think any of us will feel any joy that some have refused to join us. But it is hardly unjust if it turns out that we are all eventually divided into two kingdoms, and somehow eternally separated. I have chosen to live in God's kingdom and be ruled by praying grandmothers, whom we should take to lunch at every opportunity. Others apparently will shun a kingdom inherited by "the meek" and take their chances elsewhere, and I say with C.S. Lewis that some will even be able to see into heaven and still reject it simply to maintain their pride. The two camps, the sheep and the goats, could also be fairly labeled "the righteous and the self-righteous" I think. (They ought to be separated, and I'm not sure both camps will not, in the end, find separation a relief). In some sense hell is the place where you simply get what you ask for, and remain eternally self-righteous, self judged and self-condemned. There is nothing unjust about it.

Rad

Behold the goodness and severity of God

Radorth

Going back to one of Bill's comments, which caused me to lose 12 minutes of sleep

Well I did qualify this earlier by saying no one lost anything they care about now.

Bill you really should do something about that plumbing, and other tasks around the house. BTW, I didn't read Paine's particular comments as I should have because I was installing a sprinkler system for my wife.

Rad

Radorth

Now that we've had time to think after mine and "brother" Vinnie's, ahem, disagreement, I've concluded that I'm not quite as stupid as advertised. "Stupid" was a poor choice in my case, though other less than complimentary words might have applied.

He went into his rant apparently thinking I did not even know what he was arguing. My assertion that "Nobody's arguing he couldn't forgive without it" (PS that is) was more a figure of speech, which he siezed upon to release what now appears to be pent up anger. However my statement could have been better worded, i.e "I don't think people are arguing God does not have the power to forgive without it, but rather that to do so is unjust."

I said that as well, but Vinnie redlined on and quoted that sentence, which we sometimes carelessly do when we are upset at someone for questioning our favored beliefs. Hopefully he will at least consider this belated explanation, which I offer for what peace it can bring. As for myself, I must realize I am not going to get the benefit of the doubt, and try to word my statements more carefully.

As for Vinnie, I guess we'll see how his doctrine works in practice.

Rad

Vinnie

I take it you go the "separation from God route"? And do you think it is possible for people to leave hell? If they can continue to sin surely they can repent as well? It would be a denial of free will to say exhaustively before the fact that no soul would ever leave hell.

Most Christians take hell as closed don't they? Is it appointed for men to die once and then face judgement for their actions which determines their eternal state or not?

Same difference. Can God be tempted by evil? Or do you disagree with the book of James? If God is the standard for good and evil then how could God have the pwoer to do something unjust? Are God's actions judged on whether they are just or unjust through some outside force or external moral rule that God should obey? If so "God" would become "god". I thought what is just had to be tied into God's nature so as to avoid this problem? How can God then do an injustice when God is the standard used to determine whether our acts are just or not? You know, the whole "lack of good" argument?

I don't see how your distinction does anything but create more difficulties. The rest of your post is drivel not worth the cyberspace it is taking up so I will not bother with it.

Vinnie

wade-w

Let's all play nice, now.

Radorth

I suppose I'm wary of short definitions, so I can't say.

I said I view hell as Lewis did, full of people who do not want to leave, at least not for heaven, even though they know what heaven is like. They WANT to stay in their sins, and refuse to be servants of God. People find that hard to believe, I suppose because they think people in hell are suffering physical pain. I don't think it is physical, but rather mental- a kind of undying thirst.

I've heard at least wo skeptics say they would rather go to hell than a heaven where the horrid Jesus rules, so I won't be the least surprised if I am right.

Huh? If you want to have an intelligent discussion, please don't ask inane questions.

Ah, we have a failure to communicate here, which I suspect will continue. I'm simply saying that God could forgive without a blood atonement, but it would be unjust because there would be no way for every jot and title of the law to be fulfilled. One of my complaints about your essay is that you do not take on the many verses which must be reconciled with the ones you picked out to support your case. If you are going to just take the info in the Gospels and basically forget about the rest, you should say so. Then we won't waste any more time.

I believe God says "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." Is it just or reasonable? Well I suppose that's for everyone to decide, but personally I think the whining about how unjust that is just self-righteous crap. I find PS (as I understand it) especially reasonable and just because nobody lost a thing, no cute little lambs are sacrificed anymore, a thief can be saved on his or her dying day, a person who had a horrible life can still be saved, the heart is (ineffably) washed clean and free of guilt, and all righteousness is fulfilled.

If I'm not mistaken, you, et al, are essentially arguing that God could have done all that without "PS" and that it is unjust for one person to pay for the sin of another. But if such is NEEDFUL in God's eyes, who am I to judge that? And who cares anyway, if Jesus lost nothing and in fact endured the cross "for the joy set before him"?

Rad

Yellum Notnef

So theres no difference between my life now and after I die on Earth and go to Hell? I'm fine with my "sins" right now and feel no "undying thirst" to be with this thing you've adopted as your god.
Whats going to change my mind about this later when I'm in Hell living my life just as I do now? Is your god going to somehow insert this feeling of "undying thirst" into my brain?

I personally don't believe either place is real,but if I had to make a choice I'd pick Hell. Not because the "horrid Jesus" is in charge,but rather because of the people who are said to inhabit this bizarre wonderland.

Radorth

You mean like praying grandmothers?

Of course if I was "a worse witness than Hitler" as you have judged me, you probably would then wish you were in heaven. Right?

Rad

Radorth

Oops