I agree as well since the scriptures clearly talk about judgements , wages of sin , and destruction of body and soul and wide and narrow gates.
What parables do talk about is Gods willingness to forgive those who repent. They are given a whole life, though of different years, to choose goodness.
Just because they are metaphors doesnât mean they are independent. I like to show people how the tree of life is treated symbolically in much of the Bible. But you can only make that argument by making the obvious link of the reference to a âtree of lifeâ in other parts of the bible to the one in the garden of Eden. So that fact is that Jesus builds on the this imagery and metaphor of sheep throughout His ministry.
In John 10, Jesus speaks of the sheep who know his voice because He is their shepherd. And this builds upon the imagery of Isaiah 40, Ezekiel 34 and Psalms 23, 77-79, 100, where the sheep certainly do not refer to all mankind but those who belong to the shepherd. And then in Matthew 7 and 10 speaking about wolves possibly even in sheepâs clothing.
I can understand shying away from the idea of extending this too far where this imagery is used to say that non-Christians are all going to hell because they are not His sheep. I certainly donât think that is justified. It goes too far to turn this relationship around and say that if the sheep belong to the shepherd then the shepherd also belongs to the sheep, which I do not think is true.
But yeah my point is only that this âbestâ argument for universalism has a flaw.
Here Iâm talking about for whom the verse was intended. I assume the words had an intended audience. That is the sense in which they were targeted. Peace.
Right then . Sorry about that i just didnt quite understand that the first time. Take care!
Posit this: The knockdown is orthogonal, above the false dichotomy; walk away from, elevate above any presumption, assumption that anything Jesus said had anything to do with what happens after death. For a start, how would He have known? Thatâs too strong for most here (British understatement). But posit it as a proposition. His first sermon was that all prophecy was fulfilled, that the kingdom had come, that universal social justice, equality of outcome was declared. Two thousand years ago. Eternity can look after itself. His gospel only makes sense if it is about the here and now in the light of eternity. Eternal life has to be lived NOW. I despair of the damnationist formularies I see here as if His figurative language and that used of His death have anything to do with another eternal life. Eternal life is now. Therefore letâs not step over beggars.
I believe that is what NT Wright writes is the main focus of the Kingdom of Heaven and a large portion of Jesusâ teaching.
I dunno ⌠maybe ⌠ummm ⌠because heâs one with God?!! I donât give that flippant retort because I entirely disagree with you, or think of this as any sort of âknock downâ answer, but only because itâs the answer that most Christians around the world today would find obvious. It also showcases how big a gulf there seems to be between your cryptic musings and a typical believer. Not that âtypical believersâ are right about everything. Not by a long shot Iâm sure, but itâs no use not meeting them where theyâre at. I tend to agree that Jesus did not share [fully take in] his Fatherâs omniscience while he walked this dusty vale with us.
I also like and share your conviction that Kingdom life is already here and now - though we still wait in hope of a final consummation of that too.
I dont get it how the eternal life is now. I really donât
Because the Church fails to teach that obvious corollary from everything Jesus said Nick. Just try on those glasses when you read anything He said. Not damnationist glasses.
Surely you dont mean that we experience paradise right now correct?
You couldnât be flippant if you tried Mervin. Itâs not in you. Iâm barely housetrained mind. Feral. We need to explore these things. Painfully elaborate the obvious (which is how social, âsoftâ science works), examine all of our assumptions. The biggest one around here encapsulates your response. Of the so called obvious. Of the âplain meaningâ of almost utterly figurative scripture. The Kingdom is entirely about now. How we live now. We know nothing else. Apart from hope beyond this life as revealed in Jesus. Most here come with a fundamentalist historical-grammatic hermeneutical âhigh viewâ of scripture. Jesus didnât. At all.
I have been that typical believer. That historically normal believer. In fact not. Most normal believers have been and are folk Christians. Opinionated ones are the minority. Trying to work out the calculus of salvation, whoâs in, whoâs out. In and out are now. Love is about now. Kindness is about now. Addressing poverty is about now. Thatâs what Jesusâ first sermon said. It said nothing at all about damnation in the afterlife. Is that still too cryptic Mervin? 
And 100% full humans arenât omni anything. In the mystery of the hypostatic union of God the Son with the Son of Man, there were no omnis at all. How could there be? Jesus knew nothing of the afterlife except by faith. Being one with God by moral nature was all He needed to be. Big minded. Not pathologically ârighteousâ in some meaningless way.
Jesus said we did. From His first sermon. He declared paradise. Then. Immediately. There and then. Not future. Not after death if youâve said the sinnerâs prayer. Itâs a matter of perception. Itâs a matter of making it so. Living to make it so for those with less. Kindness, generosity, sacrifice, service, tolerance, gentleness, comforting make paradise now. How are we doing in these regards?
What i mean with paradise is the afterlife heaven. If you believe we all experience it now well since you are a universalist youve just became a damniosionist since not all people experience paradise on this earth(meaning for some life in earth is hell)
Bold of you to assume since you are a universalist you are an opiniotated one.
I think you dont understand that everyone can be moral equal with what God asks us. I also think you have a wrong theology about the connection of the father and the son. What i understand is that every time you deny that the son had a relation with the father whatsoever?
Without the Crusades, Spain would probably still be muslimâŚ
Agreed with that
What If it were? The evil un-Christian Crusades started in the East 500 years before the ethnic cleansing of Spain in the West.
So, do nothing about lifting the burdens of others now, as those of them that have said the winnerâs prayer will have them lifted after death.
You cant be a christian and reject the afterlife. Because that is what are you implying.
Never i said that. But yeah do nothing? Well yes you cant do nothing sometimes. Lift up the burden to the kids that die of poverty every single day. And i dont mean one. I mean all of them . But now you cant do that can ya?
Yeah what if all of Europe was? Well not Christianity for you only Muhammad and his crazy things
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.