Good thoughts, Norm!  I primarily go to service on Sunday because I believe God mandated it and it's an opportunity for me to participate in corporate worship of Him.  Also very high on my list, and a big motivator when I don't feel like going, is that the Sunday a.m. meeting is a time for me to serve my brothers and sisters in Christ, via encouragement through conversation, prayer with individuals, being the contact person for the children's church workers should they have any difficulties, being a greeter, etc.  Our pastor doesn't expect everyone to be there every Sunday.  He is actually doing an excellent series right now on this subject.  In a nutshell, he says that the corporate gathering is important, but of greater value to the individual will be his or her participation in a smaller, more intimate group.  But of great importance, too, is for the believer to be out in the community that God has placed him in.  All these things need to be in place for us to make a difference in the world.

Of course, the private time with God in prayer, praise and devotions and studies is necessary, too.

TG: Pastors were not orators for 330 years until the time of Constantine.

Is your argument here, that Pastors shouldn't be called pastors?  Or that there shouldn't be speakers in "church"?

TG: If you go back in the Old Covenant when God wanted to dwell with the jews and they said give them a king instead, that is what todays modern day pastor has become. A King.

It's interesting that you phrase it this way and then seemingly blame the pastor.  Was it the king's fault here that he was chosen?  No, it was the people's.  As for the pastor = king argument, I would agree that there are places where this is true.  But I don't know where you got that based on my comments above. 

Jen,

There's an interesting contrast in paragraphs of yours Jack.

For the record, I know about "soloists" as I tried to indicate in my background above.  Whether that speaks for all soloists I can't say.  But what I can say is that there is a contrast found in them.  For instance I would say this is a community of believers.  We don't all have the exact same beliefs as each other.  Yet amazingly I think this place attracts "soloists" who are looking for the type of interaction with other believers they aren't getting from other places. 

But that's just my opinoin. 

I missed the terroristic view I guess.  Or I'm not sure to what exactly you are referring.

I'm also not sure what you are referring to as traditions of men.   If it's gathering with fellow believers I would have to disagree that it is a man made tradition.  But I'm not going to carry on too much on that route until I'm certain that's what you are saying.

As for who killed Jesus, I don't think it was the religious of that day and it wasn't satan.  Jesus died for me.  I killed him.  There is nothing I can do to make up that gift (nor is he asking me to.). 

A) You believe all are saved.

B) You believe the good are saved.

C) You believe those good and those who believe are saved.

D) You believe we get a second chance after death 

I don't know what you believe because while telling others that they are wrong, you do so in a manner which manages not to say anything.

John 3:16  says

which is what you say you walk out.  Believe = should not perish.

Yet your statement at the end of your link says

It is absurd isn't it ........... this doctrine of eternal damnation

We could argue about what is good (which was the other argument in your link).  But we already have.

True or False?

For that matter I could ask you the same question of the verses I listed above.

I made it through 5 questions.  Truth be told, I had trouble making it that far because I wanted to read the surrounding verses.  Then I hit the 1 Timothy 2 verse.  I was immediately curious because you specified a translation (ok, I would have been curious anyways) and so I went and read the surrounding context.  If you can read all of chapter 2 of 1 Timothy and still take the verses quoted as support of your claim, I don't think there is much room for discussion.

The same is true of the rest. 

More on the church thing.

Reading Acts in the last week or so.

Jack,

Another question for you (since you didn't answer the other true/false's.)

It was at this point that the answer of "Nothing" was given, right since there is no Hell?   Wait, that's not right.

We could do this all night and all day.  Fear is not what holds me.  Reading the full verse, the full context is what holds me. 

Jack,

There are many issues with what you say.  I'm tempted to quote a bunch of things, but really a question seems relevant here.  If every knee will bow is a testimony to every person being saved at that point, what's the point of any of the teaching Jesus did or any of the disciples or apostles did? 

BTW, who am I excluding? 

Why is "Punishment without Purpose is Perversion" in quotes?

Where does this teaching of punishment is always remedial comes from?

I understand the point of emphasis.  However you need to provide a reason for that point of emphasis.  Putting in quotes also suggests you took it from somewhere.  You didn't do either.

Your words are "Punishment is always remedial".

Your verse is interesting because you don't account for the "anger".  What if God does correct with anger?  You're picking the part of that verse you like and ignoring the rest.

If punishment is always remedial, what am I to believe Jesus learned when He was punished by being bearing the weight of my sins? 

Labelling it as child abuse is a great scare tactic and ignores the question.  However it also doesn't answer the question.  Why is the angry portion there?  If we are going with True or False, you would label that portion as false then?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I just would like an answer rather than as you say "word games" or ignoring it.

BTW, did God punish His Son when His Son did nothing wrong or not? 

And no I don't know the point you were trying to make.  If it is me playing word games, it should be easy for you to explain yourself, right? 

Actually let me restate that last sentence slightly.  I do not know the point you were trying to make if the word "always" is insignficant to the argument.  Without the word "always" there is no argument.  Punishment can be for the purpose of teaching a lesson.  However that is not it's only purpose.

But for the purposes of your argument, it seems the word "always" is not only important, it's the cornerstone of the argument. 

How is asking if "always" is the cornerstone of the argument tripping you up?  And if you do answer that (which I suspect you won't), will you explain whether or not I am wrong in my thinking that "always" is the cornerstone of your argument?

And why is it, your arguing with me for that matter is not you trying to trip me up?  Especially since you continue to introduce Bible verses and then ignore some part of them.

Jack, I believe my time of discussion with you is wrapping up here.  It's pointless.  You take things you don't like in the Bible and thrown them out.  You've even said that things are mistranslated and translate them to your liking.  Then you use Biblical quotes here and when I question you about the very things in the quote you use, I'm the one "playing word games". 

You know what? Satanists, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Wiccans, and so on have been doing the very same thing with the same Bible (taking things they don't like and ignoring them, taking things out of context, and so on) for a long time.  If you want me to rip pages out of the Bible so that your version of God works, I'm not going there.  Additionally if I'm somehow wrong, I'm just fine with your interpretation *anyways*.  I would/will eventually be saved. 

So we are free to worship other gods, reject the Supreme God, ignore the Bible (chop out the parts we don't like), think God never gets angry ("You hypocrites!") and so on.

It's also interesting that you don't quote verse on the "Holy Bible" section above.  It seems it's because there isn't a section in the Bible that reads exactly like what you wrote.  You pulled together a mishmash of verses to have it say what you want to believe.

I do believe all will be made alive again.  You know (and I know) that isn't the issue.  We all have to stand before the judgement seat of Christ.  So let's look at the full verse. 

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

I would ask more questions, but you wouldn't answer them anyways.

So I'm wrapping this up in this manner.

1) You are free at any point to come back and answer the questions I have asked.

2) If you're not here to answer those questions, I'm going to ask you to refrain from posting anything.  In an open forum, I've been more than gracious to you allowing you multiple chances to defend your opinion (and even plug your own stuff).  But you're not being equally gracious to me because you refuse to answer the questions I ask.  Or defend the contradictions of yours I point out.  Instead you keep scrambling to hold on to something that resembles a god more in the image of what you want God to be.  That to me sounds like the traditions of man.

Except 1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't make much sense if I take it to mean it the way you do.

who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

If I take it that way, I'm reminded of a scene from A Few Good Men which goes as follows:

"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider." 

So reading the verse again the way you present it, "Everyone is saved".  "You mean including the believers?"  "Oh yes, especially the believers."  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  That's a verse I will have to look at more later.

You say it answers John 3:16 to fill "out" the part that you feel it's not specific enough on.  But then what about

or back to John 3

Actually pretty much read all of John 3 and it's hard to say one verse in Timothy answers it.

One other point on John 3:36.  According to Merriam & Webster's "wrath" can mean either:

1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation

2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement

So either you have an angry God or one who punishes for purposes other than remedial.  Or both.  You might also want to look at Romans 3:5.  And of course there are many more instances of that.

Why would I consider the possibility that man can be an enemy of God?  Because I find it in James.

If you look up the word enemy in the Greek you will find it matches the word "enemy" used in 1 Cor 15:26. 

:

Alright, so you made your point of why many don't want to go to Church.  Which is your main point, or so you say.  Yet you continue on afterwords and we have now moved from "God can't be angry" to "God can't be extremely angry" (See the point about strenously objecting).  I also am not going to be the one who asks God... "On the anger scale is this a 5 or a 7?".  You wonder why I say that I would consider man an enemy of God, yet when I point to a verse, you say oh "enemy".  Now you decide to try to pick apart John 3:16 after I introduce further proof from John which you don't address.  I imagine so you can separate the two if I continue with those questions.  Again I am going to tell you to go back and reread John 3.  The whole chapter.

We could go down the faith "vs." believe path, but your intent here is not to prove this point.

You're just interested in getting more to go to church.  Let me ask a rhetorical question. 

Do I like to go to the doctor?  Obviously you can't answer it for me, but I'm willing to bet the majority answering that question for themselves say "No".  And I can tell you why I don't like going to the doctor.  It's because he might find something wrong.  Does that mean I shouldn't go to the doctor? Of course not.  Does that mean the doctor shouldn't tell me the truth if it is bad news?  No.   As a matter of fact later on when I was paying the price because the doctor didn't tell me the truth, I would be a bit torqued off.

The church (whether it be a large gathering or a single member) isn't any different.  If the truth is that there is bad news that goes with the good news, our job is not to sugar coat it.

So thanks for your opinion, but I need to move on to other things.

Jack,

Any particular reason you chopped off verse 9 there?  I thought I specifically asked you not to do that.  It's incredibly dishonest and does not help your argument.  The more you do it, the more I get the impression you are trying to trap me.

So let's grab a little larger context.  

Honestly I'm probably chopping it off earlier than I should, but it only gets worse for those who believe in there being no punishment for purpose other than correcting. 

Furthermore Jack, what you have never explained is what is the purpose of the correcting.  Is it your opinion that it is to bring them to salvation?  

And AM, you too did the same thing.  You decided to endcap John 12:46-50

Actually I'd like to back up even a bit further in John 12 (specifically starting with 39 and then close out the chapter) because that causes even more trouble for those who believe all punishment is remedial.  However that would get a little long so for now let's take the section you have.

So looking at verse 49.  It says that the Father gave Jesus the commandment of what to say and what to speak.  So when in verse 50, He says the commandment is eternal life, He is saying that eternal life is what He was commanded to speak.  As a matter of fact the very end of 50 just goes on to reinforce that what He is talking about is speaking.  This cannot be used as a text that says that "eternal life" itself is a commandment of God.  We've actually got to look at what Jesus said about it.

By the way, before you go pointing to 47 as 'Save the whole world' please go back to John 3 again. 

3:17 sound vaguely familiar?  And it's got the bookends on either side to clarify what it is He is speaking about.

Actually you might want to continue on with John 3:19-21.  Or maybe all of John 3. 

I suppose you don't think I saw what that originally said?  What you said about me would be quite akin to you kicking a cat (in me) wouldn't you say?

You can't relieve me of anxiety or fear, nor can you cause fear or anxiety.  You could answer the question I asked of you though.  Here I'll bring it down again.

Furthermore Jack, what you have never explained is what is the purpose of the correcting.  Is it your opinion that it is to bring them to salvation? 

Jack,

Let me ask you this.

If I said to someone after eating, "I like pickles".  Would it be an appropriate place to read the white between the black?

Now on the other hand when you said white between the black, guess what I had to do.  Read between the lines. :)

And there are even times where you have to account specifically for what is NOT said.

However as the verse AM used before pointed out Jesus was commanded to speak eternal life.  Therefore if Jesus followed his command, I don't think He would have any trouble actually speaking what is He was meant to have spoke regarding eternal life.  And so when He says something, I think I would want to figure out why He said it.  So looking at the context around it (ie don't just read that verse) becomes important.  So if what I came up with by reading between the lines is different than the reason it was said, guess who is wrong?

Look at the verse AM again short quoted.  You'll have to look at Matthew 8

So if 8:12 means us or people from some point in the future, what he just told the Centurion was. 

8:10 You have amazing faith.  Moreso than Israel.

8:11 You and others like you will gathered with the Abraham, etc. in the kingdom. 

8:12 Your kids will be thrown out of the kingdom you will be in.

8:13 Your servant is healed.

If that's what is meant, the centurion handles Jesus saying it rather well.

If however, this is how it was understood

8:10 You have amazing faith.  Moreso than Israel.

8:11 Gentiles will gather with the Jews in the kingdom 

8:12 Those without faith will be thrown out.

8:13 Your servant is healed.

To me it's also possible that 8:12 has the children of the kingdom as the children of Israel, since at the time He was speaking only Jews were considered worthy in the culture.

Either of the two last one possibilities makes a lot more sense in the context than Jesus making the 1st claim.  Your mileage may vary on that one.  However it becomes unimportant when discussing the lake of fire.

AM,

If a spirit gave you that we are living in the lake of fire I have reason to doubt that spirit.

Do a search for lake of fire in the Bible.  You'll find it only in Revelations and only there in 4 spots. 

I guess if you want to read between the lines there... Erm no.  Not much to read between the lines.  Some are written in the book of life.  Some are not.  The lake of fire is the 2nd death and anyone not found in the book of life God casts them out.  Not Satan, not man, but God.  God didn't come back to "defeat" the lake of fire.  He came back to defeat death and hell.  And he did.  They are tossed into the lake of fire. 

I think you may also want to start at Chapter 19 and read from there until the end of Revelations (22 chapters).  When you're done, ask yourself who gets out of the lake of fire?

So with that, I will say I've appreciated the questions because you've forced me to go back and define my beliefs better.  There are a couple of points that I've found because of reading with a purpose that I want to follow up on.  However I've also found it to be quite clear on why I believe what I do.  I'm done with the comments as this sums it up quite nicely.

Jack,

You know the thing I get most excited about when I read the thought you describe above.  The thought that I'm being corrected so that by my own righteousness I could come to the Lord and say, "God I did it.  I completed the test and weathered the storm and now I'm good.".  There was a time in my youth where I said I didn't have time for the Lord and I didn't want to come to Him until I did it (became good) on my own.   

However there in lies the problem.  I cannot be good without Jesus dying on the cross and giving me the gift of his sacrifice (His blood sacrifice which makes me righteous).  Hence if there is punishment now to make me "good" it can be for nothing.

Let me make a point you are missing from the Revelation verses above.

If we were thrown into the lake of fire because of what we did, shouldn't God be consulting the book containing judgements to determine whether we needed to be refined?  Instead He consulted the book of life.  And if people weren't written in the book of life, He threw them into the lake of fire.  It had nothing to do with what they did.  Period.  It couldn't or Jesus's death on the cross meant nothing.

So let's get a clearer picture of what is going on here (since apparently you can try to read between the lines without actually consulting the scripture that speaks about what is between the lines.

I would suggest reading the full Hebrews 9 & 10 passages here as they are pretty clear on what happens, however in order to make points I'm going to be skipping around a bit.

Copies of the heavenly things would be us.  You're going to want to go back to verse 19 to find that the these referred to at the end of 23 is referring to blood of the calves and goats.

So Christ purified us by His blood. 

So Jesus appears before God in Heaven for us (v. 24).  He doesn't have to die repeatedly, one death was sufficient to put away all sin.  (v. 25-26) This means that if we are being corrected now to become "good enough" we are being punished for no reason.  The price has been paid.

It was very tempting to short quote 9:27 as there are many folks only familiar with the first part. 

So let's go back to Revelation 20

Death first.  Then judgement.  Check and check.  What type of death?  Well this can be answered by where it occurs in the line here.  Death means death by dying.  Why is this important?  Again it comes back to the order this is laid out in in Revelations 20.  First death, then judgement.  Than a look into the book of life.  If your name isn't there you get tossed into the lake of fire.  The order isn't in question. 

The first comment was made without paying attention to time stamps and also considering previous actions.  After re-examining the evidence, I am withdrawing the comment as I was probably improper in making the statement in this case.  For that I apologize to AM.

As for the second I don't have time to follow up now. 

You're going to have to give me an example of what you mean here

so would you have agreed with how Jesus picked out scriptures that were scattered throughout the bible. Saying he was fulfilling them? Or would you have not believed? (if you were there at the time I mean)

because the question doesn't make any sense to me. 

AM:

Let's take your view on that verse (grabbing the whole section) and put your belief in this context.

You agreed that children of Israel is what that was talking about.  This is copied from above with me changing out the words we agree on.

When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the children of Israel will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

So re-read that now.  Israel lacks faith.   There will be many like Jews like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.  But there will also be Gentiles.  But the children of Israel will be thrown into the outer darkness because they lack faith.

And what you said is "I want to be that last sentence."

This is the exact picture of being saved by works.  God punish me some more.  I don't deserve the atoning blood of Jesus and I need to be punished to deserve it.

Either the blood of Christ is atonement for all unrighteousness or it's not.  If you don't believe it is, go on trying to be saved by works.  It just won't happen. 

Norm if I may pipe in.  It seems with you, one must use the whole Bible when quoting scripture less you accuse them of pulling scripture out of context. lol

I think that's an effective end to the conversation with you Jack.  If I've got context and you've got context who wins?  And how can you call me or anyone "in the Church" wrong?  Relativism does not rule.

So yes sir, good day to you.

Corrected:  Quoted the first paragraph so it makes sense where that came from. 

for contextual purposes, this one is a long shot, what if someone stood up and said this at your church and you didn't know who they were.

You answer your own question.  You wouldn't believe someone who stood up in my church and said this.  Why?   Well let's take away one possible excuse.  Let's say this didn't happen in my church and instead happened over 2000 year ago.  In other words, before we knew who Jesus was.  If someone stood up and said this in a temple, would you just say "Hey!  That's my guy!". 

I've got to run.  I'll be back in a bit to answer the rest of the question.

Honestly it baffles me that you chose that passage to try to prove your point.

Let me state what I hear you saying.  God spoke His Word to man deceptively with the purpose of causing him harm.  Let me draw a word picture to further illustrate how this ends up looking.

George sends me directions of how to get to his place.  He states, "You have my word that this is how to get there."  I follow the directions.  Because I do, I fall into many pits and traps.  I realize that George is purposely tripping me up.  I get to George's place.  I ask him why he did that.  His response is "Well so you would listen to me and not what I wrote!"

Say what?  Additionally given this is the picture you're painting I've got two additional questions for you.

1) If you believe the Bible cannot be understood (and is effectively God trying to be deceptive), why do you try to prove your points with Biblical quotes?

2) Does that sound like a God that only punishes for remedial purposes?

This is how I understand this.  God was going to use His word to drive people to realize that they needed the Word.  Why do I say this?  I read the whole chapter.   Some things to complete this point.

Honestly you should continue reading through the end of this chapter, but lest you wonder the fate of the scoffers, at least check out verse 22 and 23

So 

 1) The Word of God is not less true if it's in the Bible as long as we aren't doing this so that "we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves".

2) You would have been better off sticking with your point that all teaching is corrective to explain those passages.  I don't believe that's true (that ALL punishment is corrective) as the end of verse 22 points out and as I have pointed out before, but it would have made more sense given the verses you used.

3) The version I chose above, I chose specifically to point out what was meant by the stammering lips.  He needed to use a "foreign" people to speak to His people because His people weren't listening to His Word.

4) Jesus is the Word made flesh.  If the Word can lie, so can Jesus.

Jack,

You don't understand the word "context".  The first paragraph you *ahem* copied says this.

There is some obvious symbolic language used in this verse and every careful reader will see that the language is entirely confined to the present.

Not 3 sentences later and referencing the same verse.

Much of what Jesus had to say dealt with the coming fall of Jerusalem and the entire Jewish system in 70 AD and the expansion of the Kingdom to include the Gentiles.  Jesus himself shows that the application was confined to those to whom he was speaking.

So which was it?  Entirely confined to the present?  Or referencing what was to come?  (And yes I realize I chopped off the 

So if he (I'll get to the he part in a moment) thinks that part of it happens in the future, how is Brad taking it in different context than what is stated here?  The disagreement here is over when it happens.

By the way, if this set of verses by Jesus was only to refer to those He was talking to, how do you explain this part in the middle:

So if He is only telling this crowd only with regards to the crowd in front of Him, how can you hold to the belief that as a Gentile who wasn't there, this is the lake of fire and you've been thrown into it?  

Actually you know what.  I'm not interested in your answer to this.  There are plenty other holes that you haven't answered.

Couple of other wrapping up points.

Make up your mind about whether you're going to copy and paste (Search for "The language teaches that only a few walked in the narrow way marked out by Christ during that time.").  The way you did it now makes it look like it's your words.  And the fact that you chose to add words which actually don't help the argument any without giving any indication that you were, doesn't help.

The other thing that I've been noticing.  You have criticized me and many others for "following" a pastor.  Yet most of the content you use is not your own, but rather things put together by other Universalists (see the top of the link I sent).  You ask us to question our pastors, but do you do the same?  Has it ever occurred to you that you who say we should be following Christ, look to these men for your answers?

You say you don't attend church.  Let me ask this rhetorical question.  If I said I got together with a bunch of other people who believed like I did and had a meeting on a somewhat regular basis, at what point does that become a church?  It's not when I start calling it that.  I'm not about to start calling what you do a church.  You don't want me to and so I won't.  But you aren't superior to those of us who believe differently then you do because we gather together and DO call it church.  Before you decide to argue with me and say you don't ever meet, you may want to scan up and take a look at your conversation with AM on this very blog when he just happened to show up here.

I started this thread to see whether the reasons I had for my arguments stood.  I think they have held remarkably well.

I don't plan on answering any more of your questions here because you don't appear to have any real interest in hearing my answers.

AM,

You say that you would have to be quiet on a blog where I've allowed you and Jack every opportunity to make a point?

There is nothing left to argue here.  I will continue to go to a church where Truth is more important than what I can reconcile.

AM,

I sent you your comment in e-mail.  As I said, I have no problem letting you state your case.  However you seem intent in having the last word.  You also seem intent in repeating things we've already covered.  

Until you can say something new, enough is enough. 

Chafas, I have trouble reading your stuff because there are too many partial sentences. 

You seem like a very bright guy but I read the above and have no idea what you're trying to say.