What do you guys think about universal salvation?
>>18494954If universal salvation requires our "purification" and "theosis" then what it implies is that no matter whether you are good or bad God is going to destroy every last part of you that is uniquely "you", and that death is not just inevitable but what God demands we hope for. God wants everything except our consciousness to die. That's the truth. Every part of us that isn't pure awareness he hates. You can come up with all kinds of excuses. "Oh we'll be like the angels, we'll have glorified bodies." Read the Church Fathers. You can't pour what is infinite into a finite container, and the eternal process of theosis necessarily means that we experience eternal death.
>>18494962I might be too retarded to understand this argument.
>>18494980Universal salvation means God doesn't actually love you as an individual. He only loves the spark of "pure awareness" inside you. To be saved, every unique part of your identity must be permanently deleted. Therefore, theosis isn't eternal life; it's eternal death of the self.
>>18494962>>18495012Are you the soul tranny orgy anon from /x/ who is obsessed with the idea that the goal of various religions is to force everyone to become a perfectly homogeneous slurry, and who seems unwilling to allow any other interpretation?
>>18495026No. I'm telling you quite clearly that if you read Paul and the Church Fathers that Christianity is an inherently world-denying faith that despises the flesh. Everything you know about yourself is according to flesh and blood. Therefore your spirit must simply be the only part of you that is unchanging and immaterial, i.e. your awareness. If universal salvation and theosis are real, then you, Mary, and Satan will all be stripped of whatever spiritual impurities, which means the loss of the unique self.
>>18495041I haven't read much of the church fathers, but I'm very partial to the Valentinian emphasis on the tripartite nature of man as body, soul, and spirit, where the soul is the primary seat of seat of mind and free will, and it's capable of salvation along with the spirit.http://www.gnosis.org/library/excr.htm>Now the spiritual is saved by nature, but the psychic has free-will, and has the capacity for both faith and incorruptibility, as well as for unbelief and corruption according to its own choice; but the material perishes by nature.Romans 8:5-6For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.Romans 7:25So then, with my mind I am enslaved to the law of God, but with my flesh I am enslaved to the law of sin.Mind doesn't equal flesh.
>>18495041Also orthodox Christians do believe in a resurrection and glorification of the very same body that dies, so for them nothing you're saying is relevant. They take flesh and blood as a metaphor.
>>18494954>>18494962>checks timestampsyepthis is definitely just OP replying to himself
>>18494962>>18495012>>18495041If this is truly the case then I would actually like Christianity. Unfortunately all the Christian retards I know irl are all extremely worldly people who are self-absorbed and have no degree of ascetic practices in their life
>>18494954Fifth Ecumenical Council (II Constantinople), Anathema 11>If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings, and all the other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by the aforementioned four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their godlessness persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned; let him be anathema.This is pre-emptive for all the Sophists who will come here and use the Serpentine argument from the Garden of Eden ("He *technically* didn't forbid that!"). By the way, it doesn't mean Origen went to Hell, at least not according to my Orthodox understanding of the situation. We by and large regard him as a well respected Church Father with a few hiccups that we used to argue over in the past, but now it's best to be conciliatory and simply educate the new generations on what he was wrong. Same as St. Issac the Syrian and his universal salvation for instance, though that one has a different theological justification and is more like optimism for the Salvation of the world than a mandate.If you want to know my exact opinion on the topic, I believe it's illogical because God fundamentally gives you a choice on whether you want to work towards Heaven or Hell. Hell, in Orthodox teaching, is where all those who consciously want to be away from God will *voluntarily* go with full awareness of what they are doing. Not every Church Father agrees with this, because the Church Fathers literally never conclusively agreed on almost anything. But individual quotes from any singular Church Father of the past do not necessarily invalidate it either, it's just a hiccup of otherwise great men that we make sure to not have repeat in the modern day. We can all agree the battle against heresies and misinterpretations is constant, however.
>>18495147Completely incorrect. If you want to be pedantic, the Orthodox answer is more often than not "We don't know", but we do know that Christ said those granted Salvation will be like angels in Heaven. That does mean a loss of the unique self as the guy above said, you are uniting your will with God's. Not only that but you exist in the present, past and future simultaneously (in fact they already exist simultaneously according to basically all Christian teaching) and present your physical body to many places and people on Earth to incite miracles and help them on their way to Salvation, which is all regardless of whether you have a physical existence in Heaven or not because we don't really precisely know.This is also the reason why demons can't repent and why Hell exists as I said in my previous post - theoretically they could, just like everyone else, but they saw everything there ever was and will be and willingly said "Nah, Heaven is not for me". How they did that, i don't know. It's a mystery, but one we will find out eventually. There's many things God wants to tell us, but only when He comes back because we cannot possibly grasp the full picture as we are now.
>>18494954All things created by God will eventually return back to God. Heaven and Hell are real but those too will collapse when the creation is finally over.>>18494962God absolutely will not take away your individuality even in complete union. God maintains fully unity without any loss of distinction (the Trinity), as upon full union you will still be "you", you will not become God itself.
>>18496560>God absolutely will not take away your individualityI sure hope he does. Being me is pretty lame.
>>18496560>Heaven and Hell are real but those too will collapse when the creation is finally overHeresy. How can God's own metaphysical abode outside space and time collapse?>God absolutely will not take away your individuality even in complete unionHe won't take it away, you'll give it up willingly. Everyone in Heaven serves God's will as best as possible, even now the Saints are performing untold amounts of miracles.
>>18494962>>18495012could you, like, start making sense?>>18495026ah, that explains it.
Any salvation scheme by which christards are saved makes no sense.
>>18496764based
>>18494962>NO GOD IM NO LONGER MYSELF WITHOUT LOLI PORN
>>18496620>>18496620Heaven exists in eternity, but not outside of creation. God exists entirely outside of the creation. >Give away your individuality.Sure, you have to want to go into Heaven, but following God's will completely won't dissolve your individuality. He created us with individuality for a reason. It's heresy to think you will become one fully with God, because you are not God.
>>18494954Its correct. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that in Christ the light of God would not be destroyed and the dark hell-spawned demons would have the one true living God to rule over the earth for their own good.
>>18497223where do these terrible dangers even come from? surely not from some limitation of gawd?
>>18494954The most intuitive Soteriology if we start from nothing. But the least supported scripturally. >>18497560He's Christian identity, his religion is entirely subordinated to his politics. He doesn't think much about that.
SALVATION IS UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO HUMANS, BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS «UNIVERSAL SALVATION».
>>18497572>Lamentations 3:31-32>1 Timothy 4:10>Luke 3:6>1 John 2:2>Micah 7:18-19In the Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, and Gregory of Nyssa were also universalist.
>>18497219>Heaven exists in eternity, but not outside of creation. God exists entirely outside of the creation. Lord save me from this heterodox gnosticslop cringe>It's heresy to think you will become one fully with God, because you are not GodYeah but that sounds a lot like what you claimed, not me.
>>18497631None of the verses you quoted are universalist, quite the contrary in fact. Salvation is, from a Biblical perspective, constrained to those who accept God's Grace of their own accord. Why was the repentant thief told that he will be with Christ tomorrow in His Kingdom, but the unrepentant one was not? That by itself breaks all universalist delusions. Even still, Christ was merciful to the unrepentant thief, because a merciful God would never overrule someone's will to not be with Him.
>>18494954From a Christian perspective? Inciherent but optimistic. I'm not a Christian and plan to join the Unitarian Universalists, funny enough.i reckon when you die, you are nothingness and thus with all things, seeing as all existing things are, at their core, the mixture of nothing and thing, or non-being and being. Sort of like a bubble in a pot of water taking form then returning to the origin when it pops.
>>18497572>Christian identityImplying any of pic related would have agreed with giving the rights of God's children to dark hell-spawned demons.
>>18498374Of course they wouldn't have, doesn't mean it isn't Christian to do so. Amerimutts are weird, you literally value the opinion of the founding baby daddies instead of the Early Church Fathers. At the end of the day you and I both know it would have been preferable to give American blacks their own nation somehow. I'm sure even the guys in picrel would have agreed with the Liberia plan in case of a total abolition of slavery. It would be best for the whole world to take the Biblical concept of ethnic nations literally.
>>18498386>instead of the Early Church Fathersup until basically yesterday all christians agreed that the dark hell-spawned demons are not God's children.
>>18498786>early Church Fathers (first to fifth century AD)>post Columbus modern Roman Catholic ChurchLOLEven if I take your argument at face value, don't you understand slavery is a temporary affair and the nignogs you imported *stay there* after they're freed? You're a dumb motherfucker if you think the political will exists to revoke civil rights, let alone the 13th amendment in the 21st century motherfucker. Slavery was bad for the United States. Everyone with an IQ above 80 can see it. Unless you ship them to Liberia or something, but your political elites in the 1860s worked night and day to minimise that project.
>>18498896slavery was bad, yes, but that doesn't mean dark hell-spawned demons deserve or ever should have been assumed to have the rights of God's children.
