Julie’s Letter to Rejecting Christian Family Members

Julie’s Letter to Rejecting Christian Family Members

Julie’s Letter to Rejecting Christian Family Members

Julie Ferwerda, author of Raising Hell, is ruffling some feathers and catching some heat on Facebook today for sharing this “Letter to Rejecting Christian Family Members,” with the intent of providing constructive words for people who are facing similar circumstances to copy/paste/edit/share as they see fit.

There’s an interesting dynamic between her approach to conflict and the approach recommended by Frank Viola in his recent blog post, What To Do When Other Christians Hurt You — 8 Responses. The most operative line in that post, in my opinion, is “In cases of repeated abuse, which I’m not addressing in this post, getting others involved is often wise and necessary.”

Many believers seem to have a problem distinguishing Jesus’ teaching to privately deal with personal conflict and Jesus example of publicly dealing with conflicts that arise from religious hypocrisy, specifically, hypocrisy involving shunning and persecuting people who believe differently. In my opinion, conflicts that arise from religious hypocrisy will inevitably produce personal conflicts. Airing those kinds of personal conflicts publicly is a form of shining light in the darkness. Keeping those kinds of conflicts private is like whitewashing tombs and pretending there are no “bones of the dead and everything unclean” inside.

If you attend a church with leaders who encourage you to disassociate yourself from another believer over doctrinal differences, woe to you — and those are Christ’s words, not mine. His harshest rebukes were reserved for the religious leaders who practiced and taught emotionally abusive behavior like pretending someone no longer exists and expecting everyone around you to do the same. The salt in the wound is that they also expect you to keep what they are doing a SECRET.

Guess what, believers… the system that has protected and sustained the shameful protocols governing the way believers interact with one another and with not-yet-believers is being turned upside down and inside out. All kind of stuff is falling out, where everyone can see.

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Here’s Julie’s letter:

Dear Family Member,

Since you took the liberty to say things to me that you’re thinking, I’d like to do the same. Please don’t “hear” an angry tone in this letter, I’m just matter-of-factly letting you know a few of my responses to yours. I would sincerely love to hear your thoughts in response to this letter, because I would like to see things from your perspective.

1. I still find it interesting that you are rejecting my beliefs, yet you don’t even know what they are. You reject my beliefs based on assumptions and misinformation. I can understand how it seems impossible to counter 1500 years the making of one’s beliefs (held by the majority of Christians today) but the 1500-2000 years of people making theology is precisely why we should be willing to question how those beliefs morphed over time.

As I told you, the first 500 years after Christ held the orthodox position of universalism, which the Eastern Church maintains to this day (which was the church of the apostles); the Western Church (Rome) is the one that deviated from that position in the 5th century after Christ. You can read a bit more about the early church position on Universalism on wikipedia (FB won’t let me post the link).

Also, in my book I offer many universalism quotes and sources from early Church Fathers, which can be located from books and papers scanned online.

I will also say this..when you look honestly into this topic…there is not a shred of evidence for a place of eternal torment as a destiny for most of mankind. I can’t imagine for an instant why anyone would not be incredibly interested to know why and how this radical idea can possibly be suggested. Why wouldn’t every Christian be interested in hearing a case for God’s love and plan for mankind being big enough to include everyone, and why wouldn’t they want to know how it actually or supposedly lines up with the true Bible teachings?

Anyhow, I find it very unfair to close me down and reject me before you are even willing to see what I have to say or how I came to my beliefs. I took the time to painstakingly record my journey in my book so that people could see that Christian Universalism is not at all contrary to Scripture or what Jesus or Paul or other writers of the Bible actually taught, but is completely in line with what they taught. The world could have never moved forward in any kind of capacity (i.e. science, technology, medicine) without the willingness to listen to other perspectives.

2. I think it’s strange that you accuse me of “influencing your children,” yet they are all basically adults. How can you desire to have that much control over your adult children’s thoughts, beliefs, or the outcome of their lives? They are out in the world every day being influenced by every kind of belief and doctrine, so what about that? Is your God so uninvolved or impotent, or your lifetime of influence so ineffective that your children are that unsafe in this world?

Is it necessary that everyone they are around has to agree with them or their faith will crumble? If that is true, why do you let your kids go on mission trips where they encounter people without God? Or why do you let them go to a secular college where they are surrounded by atheists and agnotics in their classes and on campus daily? Part of the answer to that is that they are now adults and you cannot control their lives, their thoughts, or their beliefs. Yet will you try to keep them from being around me, someone who loves them dearly, even though you cannot (or do not try to) stop them from being around people every day who don’t care about them? Is it fair to single me out as unworthy of your children or your family?

Also, I doubt you would have a problem talking about your faith beliefs in front of my children (and you have) because you are convinced you are right and you sincerely believe you should share that faith with everyone as much as possible, right? Why is it okay for you to talk about your faith with others, but not for others to talk about their faith with you?

I’m at the age where I am not going to pretend to be something or someone I’m not, and I also don’t feel that I should try to pretend when I am around your adult children, who now have their own lives and thoughts independent from others. If they are not “safe from corruption” around me, they will not be safe anywhere else either.

As an aside, I feel sad that you are worried about your children being so easily influenced by someone like me. I think your children are all strong, independent, wonderful children who will make up their own minds about whatever is true by the authenticity and love they witness (or not) in everything.

3. I find it also very sad that you are the one who has continually rejected me over my beliefs, but I have fully accepted you and loved you with open arms and total tolerance/grace, even though I have suffered incredible rejection and loss from you at times. You have often treated me like an untrustworthy person, even though I have never manipulated, rejected or shunned you for anything or been the one to leave. There has been no reciprocity of love and grace in this relationship. You say you love me, but you do not accept me or allow me to be in my own process of becoming. I don’t know how you see this as lining up with the Bible. It feels to me that you have always picked the parts you want to believe and ignored the parts that don’t line up with your personal feelings.

4. You have demonstrated an air of being completely right and sure of your beliefs over the years, even though those beliefs have changed considerably. Does this not ever make you feel more humble that you may not be right about everything? There are 30,000+ Christian denominations that all interpret the Bible differently (many, QUITE differently), all SURE that they are right. Whose interpretation are we going to decide is correct? The point is, we all need a lot more humility, openness, and tolerance in each other’s beliefs because nobody is 100% right or there would be more consensus. It seems to me that Jesus never criticized anyone for differences in doctrine, but he did a lot of criticizing over people not being loving and fair to others. He cared a lot more about how people acted than what they believed.

6. You said something like, if you are wrong, there is no consequence, but if I am wrong, there are drastic consequences. I beg to differ on the point that there is no consequence if you are wrong. If you are wrong, you are guilty of profoundly misinterpreting the character of God, and then misrepresenting His character to others, which to me is also very serious (and warrants further, thoughtful investigation of the matter).

Not only that, if you are right, the universe is not safe and you end up doing things like living in fear for your kids and having to try to control their life choices (and keep people with any differing theology away from them) because God truly isn’t big enough or loving enough to overcome their false beliefs or defiant wills with love. You end up spending inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to keep yourself and your kids safe in an otherwise out of control universe. I know, because that was my old belief system and it caused untold psychological suffering, and it was not the true representation of the God who says that “love does not fail” and that “nothing can separate us from God’s love, not even principalities or powers, nor anything in all creation…” If anything can separate us from God’s love, or if God’s love fails for most of mankind, then God has not told us the truth. Not only that, why would we ever trust a God who made a universe in which he would fail most of his creation? How could this be possible that a God could not find a way to remediate (and overcome) any “problems” or insufficiencies brought about by his own creative design?

Anyhow, I don’t know that you will be open to seeing my side from this letter, but I wanted to say these things. I guess the ball is in your court to decide if we are to have a relationship. Just to be clear, I have not and will not be the one to reject you or your beliefs. I have always accepted you and will continue to do so, if you are willing to be in my life and accept me for the person I am.

Julie

Comments
  • Lanny A. Eichert May 20, 2015 at 2:52 am

    Alice and Julie, you don’t put a bottle of poison in a youngster’s hands. Likewise you don’t put novices in the ministry. That’s just common sense. So shunning is wise and you should learn its lesson instead of griping about it.

    Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration in active discussion with Jesus and His three disciples ruins your universal reconciliation and proves post-mortem consciousness between physical death and resurrection, validating Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 as a true life story proving conscious unending torment for unbelievers immediately following physical death and bliss for believers immediately following physical death. Orthodoxy is vindicated by God’s perfect literal Holy Bible, not by church history.

    Church history can be manipulated by the historian to prove her own bias and that’s what Julie has done.

    Alice Spicer May 18, 2015 at 8:14 pm Special relativity is a theory used to explain time dilation.

    Alice wants to apply the THEORY of time dilation to somehow “prove” Universal Reconciliation is not ruined by Moses and Elijah audiably speaking with Jesus in the presence of His disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration. The parameters of the theory don’t even fit the Transfiguration’s conversation and it is impossible to make them fit. Why do you think for the last two plus months she has found excuses to not fully state an opposing view?

    Lanny A. Eichert May 19, 2015 at 12:52 am In their conversations, all six persons on the Mount of Transfiguration were participating in the same environment of time, space, matter, gravity, and speed.

    Lanny A. Eichert May 18, 2015 at 10:58 pm From Wikipedia
    In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

    What are the plural events?
    Who are the plural opbservers?
    How are the observers moving relative to each other?
    How are the observers differently situated from gravitional masses?
    Remember the plural observers are not inside the plural events.
    These are the parameters of the theory and I don’t see them fitting Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration in the presence of Jesus and His three disciples. I anticipate disputing how you suppose to apply these parameters.

    Alice, pick it up here and apply your theory here if you can.

    • Alice Spicer May 31, 2015 at 1:55 am

      Unbelievable. Lanny, it seems like you’re more interested in putting on a show than having a conversation. You write, “The parameters of the theory don’t even fit the Transfiguration’s conversation and it is impossible to make them fit. Why do you think for the last two plus months she has found excuses to not fully state an opposing view?” That’s quite comical to me, considering that I have yet to define any parameters, as I am still trying to get you to agree with me on defining terms (defining terms is imperative in order to engage in meaningful discussion). How would you know whether it’s “impossible to make [the parameters] fit”? We haven’t even HAD THAT CONVERSATION. I’m asking you to agree or disagree with whether time dilation actually exists. You have not answered that question. Instead, you say I am finding “excuses to not fully state an opposing view” – but you are not taking into consideration that in order for you to wrap your brain around my view, we must define and agree on the terms, the actual meaning of the language I use in describing my view, including verifiable scientific evidence. Perhaps this is just too much for you. I don’t know why you insist on painting me as someone unwilling to dialogue with you. I have demonstrated repeatedly my willingness to dialogue with you about the transfiguration, but I’m not going to do it without defining terms first. You are wasting my time, and I’ve had enough. Therefore, I am DONE DONE DONE trying (and failing) to engage in this discussion with you.

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2015 at 11:47 am

        Alice, I’ve been asking you for weeks to “define the parameters” and you haven’t done that because you are not able to make them fit.

        • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2015 at 9:28 pm

          Lanny A. Eichert May 18, 2015 at 10:58 pm From Wikipedia
          In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.
          It is inside the theory and therefore merely theory, not fact.
          What are the plural events?
          Who are the plural observers?
          How are the observers moving relative to each other?
          How are the observers differently situated from gravitional masses?
          Remember the plural observers are not inside the plural events.
          These are the parameters of the theory and I don’t see them fitting Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration in the presence of Jesus and His three disciples. I anticipate disputing how you suppose to apply these parameters.

          Lanny A. Eichert May 6, 2015 at 3:54 pm Alice, perception is the KEY WORD by which you confuse yourself. Perception in the theory is the distortion of reality. That’s what the entire theory concerns and it falsely calls the distortion reality. To the unbeliever “seeing is reality” and it is therefore impossible for him to truly understand unseen reality.

          I’m waiting for you to acknowledge that on the Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah were as unaffected by Relativity as were Jesus and His three disciples; and that ruins your UR doctrine making it false. You haven’t yet stated WHAT difference you think Relativity makes and I wish you would. Since all six persons on the Mount were participating in the same environment of time, space, matter, gravity, and speed you have nothing to qualify the two different from the four. Are you able to prove otherwise? Let’s see it.

          Lanny A. Eichert April 30, 2015 at 12:28 am Alice, I’ve been waiting since the nineth of March for you to explain three difficulties with your ideas about Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. Please cut to the chase and just
          #1) Explain how Jesus’ three disciples could see, hear, and understand Moses’ and Elijah’s conversation with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration if they were in a different time-space than the two prophets.
          #2) Explain how wind shear would not be a problem to both sight and sound between two different speed-gravity systems.
          #3) Explain observer/participant roles of the six without conflict.
          I expect you to see these as unsolvable problems that make your ideas void because your ideas don’t fit the parameters of the theories you seek to apply.

          May 31, 2015, today, Alice, I’m still asking you to explain how the parameters could possibly fit. Those parameters I’ve mentioned at the end of the above 6th of May come from that same Wikipedia article quoted 18May and they are the basis for my #1, 2, &3 questions. Therefore I’ve been asking you for well more than a month of weeks to make the THEORY fit the Transfiguration discussion. It is a proper conclusion to be drawn that you don’t know your subject. I’ve even given you an opportunity to prove me wrong by asking you to define the parameters, and you are still stalling. Besides all that it doesn’t affect, according to you, whether or not Moses and Elijah prove or disprove eternal torment. I introduced them to prove to you the reality of everlasting torment beginning at physical death making universal reconciliation false. Ater all these weeks you haven’t proven anything wrong with Moses’ and Elijah’s conversation verifying everlasting torment for the unbeliever who physically dies in his unbelief.

          If you truly want to clear away misconceptions, then please confess eternal torment is true and universal reconciliation is false.

  • Mary Vanderplas May 20, 2015 at 5:26 am

    Wow – what a beautiful model of courageously speaking the truth in love when rejected and maligned by those whose beliefs differ from one’s own. While I don’t agree with everything she says by way of confronting her oppressors, I think she makes some excellent points about how God expects us to live in relation to one another across differences in doctrine. I agree totally that being open to hearing other perspectives is prerequisite to genuine human community and that, apart from willingness to consider other viewpoints, there is no real interest in seeking the truth of God. I like what she says by way of countering the (absurd) claim that her speaking what she believes in the presence of their (grown) children is a detriment to them. I agree that their fear for their children’s spiritual safety betrays both their expressed confidence in God to guide them in the truth and their confidence in their children’s ability to discern truth and error. I think she’s right on in what she says about their refusal to accept her not squaring with the Bible they claim to believe – and her accusation of their being self-serving in deciding which parts of the Bible to believe and heed. I agree totally that the presence among people of faith of widely differing understandings of what the Bible says ought to be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that s/he has complete knowledge of the truth. And I love her point that Jesus was far more interested in how people lived in relationship to one another than in what they affirmed. I think she makes a good point that, contrary to their claim, affirming the doctrine of eternal torment does have negative consequences, both in terms of producing a false understanding of who God is and in terms of engendering fear and a drive to control (in an effort to reduce the chances of having oneself or one’s loved ones be rejected in the end).

    I have some trouble with her assumptions regarding the thinking of those who don’t go along with her doctrine of universal salvation. I would maintain that it’s possible to affirm “God’s love and plan for mankind being big enough to include everyone” while at the same time not being convinced that in the end everyone will be saved. My view is that, as hard as it may be to imagine, it is at least possible that some will forever resist God’s grace. Also, to believe that in the end some may not be saved does not, in my view, require believing that God’s love has failed or that God spoke falsely in promising that nothing can separate us from his love. The issue here is whether God will coerce the resistant to receive his gracious gift. But I don’t rule out – and in fact am inclined to believe – that in the end God’s loving purpose will win, that even the most resistant will be brought in.

    Thank you for sharing this grace-filled response to those who practice hate and rejection in the name of protecting and preserving their beliefs. It’s an inspiration – and a challenge – to exhibit the unity of the body of Christ even in the face of fellowship-breaking mistreatment.

    • Lanny A. Eichert May 20, 2015 at 10:56 am

      Mary, let us rephrase to apart from willingness to consider “poisonous” viewpoints, there is no real interest in seeking the truth of God to make your error obvious. Only adults are capable of handling poison with respect for what it is and universal reconciliation is that kind of poison. Which parts of the Bible do you believe and heed since you will not trust every word to be spelt exactly as God gave it? Moses and Elijah intelligently and actively discussed with Jesus in the presence of His disciples detailed words of the literal perfect Holy Bible concerning His coming death when they were present on the Mount of Transfiguration. You’re not willing to take a FIRMLY DISTINCT stand against universal reconciliation as promoted by Alice and Julie even though you’re an adult because you don’t know they are selling poison to you in the form of the devil’s Garden of Eden lie. Even some adults don’t know how to identify poison and handle it safely. You’re trying to mix it with truth but that only delutes and disguises it slightly. That’s a Satanic device and the devil is using you. Neither one of these two girls are persuaded they are wrong in holding tight their errors.

      Hasn’t it dawned upon you that people of faith of widely differing understandings are in error, that is, everybody is not right, nor could be? It is illogical that opposing views could both be right. No, I don’t suppose it has dawned upon your understanding because you are holding opposing views in the harmony you call tension, your favorite word for contradiction. I wish you’d wake up.

      Mary, Satan is NOT in the body of Christ. It is true he has his own synogogue and possibly a seat in the church, but he is not actually part of the Body of Christ; he has infiltrated the church as a sickness. That’s what universal reconciliation is, a destroying sickness, a poison. Julie’s family members know that and have isolated themselves from her. That’s what you do with infectuous diseases: isolation. It is sensible.

      Now will you acknowledge Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration ruin universal reconciliation because they prove the rich man and Lazarus are true life persons as told by Jesus verifying everlasting torment of the unbeliever immediately following physical death?

      • Mary Vanderplas May 21, 2015 at 4:54 am

        I don’t have the time or the inclination to respond to your obsessions. Besides, you already know what I think on the issues you raise, considering that I engaged with you in discussion of them for three years before deciding that my time and mental energy would be (far) better spent on other things. The fact is that I disagree with your fundamentalist views on most subjects, and I view your obsessive using of the Bible to “prove” your preconceived doctrines as a flagrant violation of the biblical witness and an expression of the religious impulse at its worst (seeking and claiming spiritual certitude and possession of ultimate truth). Moreover, I don’t feel a need to subject myself to the verbal abuse and condemnation that define your approach to “dialoguing” with people who don’t share your views. You’ll have to find someone else who isn’t averse to your anxious need to have the final answers and to prove yourself right to engage with you in “discussion.” As for me, I’m happy and content to be sitting on the sidelines.

        • Lanny A. Eichert May 21, 2015 at 10:34 am

          Mary, spiritual certitude seems to be a problem for you. You need to get some. I mean the real thing. It is the Biblical word “to know” as in 1 John 5: 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. If you only would believe every word as spelt in the Holy Bible you could have spiritual certitude if that believing were saving faith. Your anti-supernatural approach to the Bible prevents such faith and that approach is grounded in the liberal theology you learned from your liberal denomination’s schools. As a liberal you cannot claim fundamental spiritual certitude. If you want certitude, then come over to the fundamental camp and learn from us. If you want to deny the truth of certitude as Satan would have you do, then stay in his liberal camp. Doing so just goes to prove “the many” go to everlasting destruction in the Lake of Fire since many more are liberals than are fundamentalists.

          I’m only telling it as it is, which Stephen has so highlighted is Julie’s claim in her letter to her family member. As such I seek your movement toward salvation, not damnation, dear woman. Reread 1 John 5: 13 and see if it might not hint at a sort of believing which leaves a person without “the knowing” he has eternal life. Why shouldn’t I want you to have that knowledge and get truly saved? Isn’t that the Great Commission of the Gospel?

          In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. {2 Timothy 2: 25 & 26}

        • Alice Spicer May 21, 2015 at 9:34 pm

          :::hands Mary a bowl of popcorn and a soda:::

          • Lanny A. Eichert May 21, 2015 at 11:28 pm

            Sideliners with their soda and popcorn are unbelievers and they go to hell. Believe or burn, Alice.

          • Mary Vanderplas May 22, 2015 at 5:13 am

            🙂

    • Lanny A. Eichert May 20, 2015 at 2:10 pm

      Mary, aren’t you able to keep the context of your statement: nothing can separate us from his love.

      To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints {Romans 1: 7a}

      The anticedent of “us” is SAINTS, believers, not every human creation of God.

      {Romans 8}
      Prior from verse 28 the “us” is:
      to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose {28}
      in verse 29 they are foreknow & predestinated conformed to His image
      justified & glorified in verse 30
      God’s elect in verse 33

      Nothing in this life can separate God’s saints from God Himself IN THIS LIFE, dear Mary, and if it is “in this life” they are saved “in this life” meaning nobody gets saved post-mortem. Post-mortem saints are with God and therefore cannot be separated from Him. The promise of no separation is only to saints, not to their children, family, friends, or enemies. Ity is only to those ALREADY IN THE FAITH.

      When you make such a mistake as applying this promise to every human being regardless of faith, it is impossible to believe you are “in the Faith”.

      Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. {Matthew 7: 21 – 23}

      Wow – what a beautiful model you are, Mary.

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 21, 2015 at 1:39 pm

        Mary, will you acknowledge Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration ruin universal reconciliation because they prove the rich man and Lazarus are true life persons as told by Jesus verifying everlasting torment of the unbeliever immediately following physical death?

        If you will handle these four texts of the Transfiguration properly and resolve this issue in your own heart, it will be the beginning of 2 Timothy 2: 25 & 26 taking effect in you and possibly the correction of Alice’s and Julie’s errors. You, too, can have spiritual certitude as demonstrated in Romans 8.

    • Alice Spicer May 21, 2015 at 9:25 pm

      Suppose these three main views were a sliding scale with Calvinism on the far left, Universalism in the middle, and Arminianism on the far right. I would put you somewhere between the middle and the far right. Where would you put you?

      Calvinism (God doesn’t want to save everyone)
      Arminianism (God can’t save everyone)
      Universalism (God wants to and can save everyone)

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 21, 2015 at 11:36 pm

        Alice, Mary is a Presbyterian and that puts her Reformed Theology nearer Calvinism than Arminianism. You suppose her on the wrong side. I’m also interested to see if she disputes your unfair description of each one, because she should.

      • Mary Vanderplas May 22, 2015 at 5:15 am

        I don’t believe that God has arbitrarily chosen some and rejected others, that he wants only some to be saved (Calvinism) – a claim that doesn’t fit with the loving God revealed in Jesus Christ. Nor do I believe that he lacks the means to make good on his purpose to save everyone, that he is unable to save those who sinfully resist him (Arminianism) – a claim that underestimates the sovereignty of God and overestimates human ability to thwart God’s purposes. I would put myself in the camp of universalism – imagining a loving God getting what he wants, the salvation of all. But I consider myself a hopeful universalist, because I don’t think that God’s way is to bully anyone into the kingdom and that therefore it is at least possible that some will forever resist his grace. In other words, I would say that God could, if he chose to, bring those who continue to resist him into the kingdom by means of coercion, but that he chooses to wait for them to embrace his gracious gift – which makes it possible at least that some will not be saved.

        • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2015 at 4:12 pm

          What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. {Romans 11: 7 & 8}

          It is written that Who does what to whom, Mary? It is from Isaiah 29: 10. Yet the reason is given in 29: 13 as applicable today as it was then: a perfect description of your liberal Christianity, dear Mary.

          Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men

          instead of God’s perfect literal Holy Bible.

        • Mary Vanderplas May 29, 2015 at 6:23 am

          My best friend, your brilliant and ever-pragmatic mother, counters my assertion by arguing that, while it may be theoretically possible that some will forever resist God’s grace and thus not be finally saved, it is nevertheless far from likely (read: impossible) that some will never enter into the joy of the kingdom, given the depth and intensity of God’s love and desire for all his human creatures, God’s limitless power to accomplish his purpose, and the (endless) duration of eternity. I can’t disagree with her. 🙂

          • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2015 at 12:22 pm

            Mary & Marie, if you’d only read in context the Revelation chapters 9 and 16 where it is written twice in each chapter that they repented NOT, you’d understand that humanity is utterly set against God. Thinking that time (eternity) will change everything even after reading of man’s distress in the terrible climatic judgments of God is foolishness.

            And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented NOT of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: NEITHER repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. {Revelation 9: 20, 21}

            And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented NOT to give him glory. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented NOT of their deeds. {Revelation 16: 9 – 11}

            Alice, see how you have even corrupted these two women to discard orthodoxy for heresy? You will answer for this wickedness. Since you aren’t able to refute it, please have the honesty to acknowledge Moses and Elijah prove everlasting torment and ruin universal reconciliation. You are about clearing away misconceptions, aren’t you?

          • Alice Spicer May 29, 2015 at 2:03 pm

            Does that mean you agree with her? Or are you comfortable with the tension of can’t disagree, can’t agree? Just curious…

            • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2015 at 4:03 pm

              Alice, you can’t stop pushing, can you? See how you have even corrupted these two women to discard orthodoxy for heresy? You will answer for this wickedness.

              Since you aren’t able to refute it, please have the honesty to acknowledge Moses and Elijah prove everlasting torment and ruin universal reconciliation. You are about clearing away misconceptions, aren’t you?

            • Mary Vanderplas May 30, 2015 at 5:15 am

              Not entirely. I still think that inasmuch as salvation is a gift, not a fate, a given, there exists the possibility that some will reject it forever. While I don’t rule out the possibility, even likelihood, that God’s love will win in the end, overcoming all resistance, I don’t think it can be said with absolute certainty that everyone will eventually be brought in. But her argument (similar to yours) for universal salvation, centered on the unfathomable love and determination of God with respect to his human creatures and on God’s power to accomplish what he desires, is undeniably compelling.

              • Lanny A. Eichert May 30, 2015 at 12:54 pm

                Lanny A. Eichert May 30, 2015 at 12:50 pm Mary, we, humans, have a sovereign right to keep or destroy our pet animals and we call it humane, so why shouldn’t God calling it divine judgment?

  • Stephen Helbig May 20, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    Below are some of the comments located in the comment section of the Facebook post noted above, in regards to Julie’s letter above, and I use these few comments as a preface to my comment which follows below ~

    [Note the following; ~ ( _ _ _ _ _ _ , and XXXXX ) ~ are symbols that represent people’s names omitted by me, ~ However the names, “Julie” and Julie’s husband, ” Steve”, are not omitted in this thread below]

    Also with regards to other comments left in the comment section located below Julie’s letter on facebook, (which are not listed here), were mostly positive and the post had 50 different likes with thumbs up
    ——————————————————————————————————

    SOME OPPOSED COMMENT THREAD ~

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Why is this being posted in public? You’re not protecting the person’s identity — the letter is clearly addressed to a specific person. I doubt airing private grievances in public will help with reconciliation!

    Julie ~ _ _ _ _ _ _, I am posting it in public for the sake of my many friends who have been affected/hurt by similar scenarios. I am allowing others to use the points made in this letter if they will be helpful. The person to whom this is addressed is not able to view any of my posts. That doesn’t mean they won’t ever get wind of it, but after 16 years of religious separation, I am not all that hopeful of reconciliation between us anyhow.
    As an aside, one of the family member’s adult children even affirmed that they were happy I posted this for the benefit of others in similar, rejecting situations.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ To be blunt, in my view it’s still not very nice to use personal interactions with somebody as a public ‘teaching moment’ without that person’s consent. If this is something you really want to share with people, it should be anonymized further. Otherwise you are basically casting stones in public.

    Julie ~ Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I’d be appreciative if you pointed out where I’m “casting stones” in this letter.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ You don’t see how this is disparaging of someone else?

    Julie ~ No. I don’t see this letter as “personal,” rather universal for people who disagree with narrow-minded, indoctrinated “loved ones”, be it friends or relatives.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ I’m just pointing out that if you truly desire reconciliation, as you say in the letter, then this approach doesn’t seem like the best bet. It’s targeted at an individual, and casts them in a bad light before a public audience.

    (Julie’s Husband)Steve ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ , seriously? Casting stones in public pales in comparison to the damage that the doctrine of hell has caused on untold millions over the centuries, the injustices brought upon “sinners” because of it, the people that were killed as heretics, and all family members that were rejected because they didn’t believe in hell or orthodox Christianity. It’s exactly your type of reaction where you’re more concerned about Julie exposing some hypocrisy in a straight up way, than you are about the damage that religion and hell have caused on millions…. that causes more and more people to leave their faith.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Steve. This isn’t a general post against orthodox Christianity — it is targeted at an individual, and personalized to their family situation. If you are truly spreading a message of love, disparaging people in public doesn’t seem consistent. I’m criticizing the medium/approach, not the message — which is fine if delivered in private.

    Steve ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ , you have absolutely no history in this matter and don’t know anything about Julie’s history with this family member. Given their history, it’s not going to change their relationship even if this person did get wind of this. You are correct, that she probably could have anonymized this post further, but Julie was trying to connect with all of her friends/followers who have faced similar issues with family members. There may be some readers like you who are offended by this approach but there are likely many more of her friends who are fine with her calling out BS. There are many examples in history where a person was called out publicly and it turned out to be a good thing. Just because a person is a family member doesn’t mean they shouldn’t necessarily be called out if there is a greater good.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ So you would be fine with me writing personalized public letters to my heretic relatives, and encouraging others to share widely? I understand you don’t want me posting here, and I never claimed to have any history or authority in the matter. But perhaps I am actually very similar to you two — I am likewise not afraid to stand up and be counted

    Tom XXXXXX ~ For my part, _ _ _ _ _ _ (fully aware that I’m not part of the family situation, but nice to meet you here online), this letter seems like an outreach to reconciliation and understanding. For the group of people with whom it is shared publicly, it perhaps more so presents a template of words that one might adapt, using their own voice and setting, for restorative conversation with their own family/friends who may have traditional mainline North American evangelical views apart from studied alternative explorations.
    Peace and grace to you, good sir.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Tom, thanks for your thoughts. To clarify, the family situation is irrelevant… Just responding that the medium/approach seems odd to me, and that it’s unlikely that it would foster reconciliation. Others can certainly disagree; this is just my opinion.

    Julie ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ , you have yet to tell me how this letter was casting stones (I see you removed that comment, but I think you still think it). It was very (imo) loving, neutral, and stuck to objective facts, rather than personal or subjective attacks.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Julie, I’ll stop polluting the wall now, but imagine how a reader would perceive this person. It casts them as narrow-minded, unwilling to consider alternate viewpoints, overly protective of their children, living in fear, unwilling to reciprocate love/acceptance. These are all fairly negative assertions! It gave the impression that the target of the letter was a bad person, not just someone who disagrees with you. Perhaps this is true, but do people need to know that? Coupled with personal details about the age of their children, direct quotes, the histories of your interactions, etc, it reads as a personal rebuke.

    Tom XXXXXX ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ , speaking again for only my part, I did not take the words shared in the letter to be casting the recipient as narrow-minded, nor too overbearing apart from what might be any parent’s concerns for their children. I didn’t “read that into it,” though that may be because of my own personal context. And that seems to be a bias/fault we might all have, I suppose.
    There’s a larger history here than just the letter, or the posting itself of the letter. I’m thinking we might all have to consider whereabouts we might each be at, and give grace to the restorative efforts and patience for the future things.

    Doug XXXXXXX ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ , you said, “It casts them as narrow-minded, unwilling to consider alternate viewpoints, overly protective of their children, living in fear, unwilling to reciprocate love/acceptance.” I don’t see that as casting stones. There are people like that. I used to be like that. And if that’s the way this person is, then that’s just calling a spade a spade. But here is where you are in error (IMO)…”It gave the impression that the target of the letter was a bad person…” I don’t see that at all, and I didn’t sense any remnant of that when I read the letter. ‘Good’ people and ‘bad’ people is the very type of judgmental, upside-down thinking that Julie and untold tens of thousands like her have come out of. We have woken up and shook loose the chains of religious thinking that in many ways is actually more anti-Christian than Christian.
    My two unasked for cents.
    .
    Julie ~ So true, Doug XXXXXXX; all of it.

    Aj XXXXXXXX ~ It’s still amazing to me that the message of Christ’s goal, plan, purpose of Reconciliation of all things and his desire and ability to save all is met with such resistance from Christians! People feel more comfortable embracing a God of eternal torment!
    I thank God for opening my eyes to truth. I feel like why don’t people see this. Tradition is blinding! Your letter was fine! You wanted to release some things from your heart

    —————————————————————————————————-.

    Now let me add my comment to the gist and joust of the matter, ~ Stating first of all with. ~ “Alice, I truly love the addition of how you bring forth the use of (Ephesians 5:11)” ~

    … (Children of Light)… (11)Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; (12)for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. (13)But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is LIGHT.…

    Knowing of the hearts of the matter, Jesus outlined the correct method for us in dealing with situations as presented above, which can be seen in Matthew chapter 18. ~ This whole chapter deals with our relationships, (brothers and sisters of the Kingdom); ~ issues like (who is greater)(stumbling blocks)(the woes)(Ninty-nine plus that ONE) (forgiveness) and the like, ~ but now for brevity let me bring our heart together on this. ~ Jesus states, ~ “If your brother acts wrongly towards you, go and point out his fault to him when only you and he are there. ~ If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not listen to you, go again, and ask one or two to go with you, that every word spoken may be attested by two or three witnesses. If he refuses to hear them, appeal to the Church” ~ Now we know that the church is “a people of believers” and is made up of lively stones, and these “lively stones” (found in 1 Peter 2:5) are ~ the true temple and Light of the world. ~ And as “Children of LIGHT”, Julie’s heart agrees with the attitude established, (as seen in letter form), to reconcile and restore with the Spirit of meekness and the leading of the heart of God given, considering her own trials and journey lest shee fail ,(Gal. 6:1). We also see throughout the content above, Julie’s unwanted estrangement and the drifting apart relationship which has occurred for many years and is yet to be reconciled within the numerous events throughout the last 16 years. ~ I applaud her “seventy times seven” stance in the Lord, and her desire for ONENESS in all the things of God.

    p.s. ~ Notice, in the last comment in the thread listed and the quote ending as, ~ “You wanted to release some things from your heart” ~ and I rightfully add that this was true worship with thanksgiving in a discipline of prayer that will be answered by the Lord of Glory
    .
    p.s.s. ~ a fuller account to relationships as seen portrayed by Julie ~ http://biblehub.com/nasb/matthew/18.htm

    p.s.s.t. ~ again note to whom Jesus addressed the discourse ~ ( v.s. 1) ~ disciples ~ Greek word mathētḗs (from math-, the “mental effort needed to think something through”) – properly, a learner; a disciple, a follower of Christ who learns the doctrines of Scripture and the lifestyle they require; someone catechized with proper instruction from the Bible with its necessary follow-through (life-applications)

    • Lanny A. Eichert May 20, 2015 at 8:32 pm

      But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. {Luke 16: 25}

      Such is permanent. I wish you all were able to read with the understanding of the words.

      And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. {Luke 16: 26}

      The test for orthodoxy is not the good or harm it does, but what the perfect literal Holy Bible defines the truth to be. It defines the majority burn everlastingly and few are saved. See Matthew 7: 13 & 14 which are Jesus words recorded and He knows the truth since He is God. You call yourselves believers, but you don’t understand His words.

      • Stephen Helbig May 20, 2015 at 11:31 pm

        Lanny, We are NOT told that the rich man got his estate by fraud, or oppression; but Jesus does in fact state that, the RICH man having a great deal of the wealth, pomp, and pleasure in this world, we actually find to be perishing In the next, (his hereafter). ~ Now if I were to draw my beliefs with your process of believing every spelt word of God’s perfect literal bible, ~ I would have to say that the rich man was in as you would describe, “eternal torment”, and that being poor ( like Lazarus) is actually granted to an automatic entrance into that of being happy for ever. ~ I don’t know if you fall into either of these recorded economic statuses, ~ but for your sake, with your literal rendering of interpretations, I truly hope your class economic status is that of a poor man, for the sake of your enterity,~ (By the way I DO NOT ascribe to this thinking or interpretation at all) 🙂

        ~ What is plausible and of more import, (at least for me), is thinking along these aspects presented in the parable, and as seen in the following links ~ ( Here we see Jesus to be describing the ushering in of the new covenant and the passing of the old, with greater understanding of the command of LIFE Forevermore) (Ps. 133), ~

        http://www.whatgoddoes.com/1829/uncategorized/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-part-one/

        http://www.whatgoddoes.com/1831/uncategorized/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-part-two/

        http://www.whatgoddoes.com/1833/uncategorized/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-part-three/

        http://www.whatgoddoes.com/1835/uncategorized/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-part-four/
        ————————————————————————————————————–

        p.s. ~ Lanny, Thanks for commenting on my comment ~ Love in Christ

        • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2015 at 1:15 am

          Stephen, have you read the Beattitudes lately?

          Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. {Matthew 5: 3} is the first one. The poor in financial wealth are nowhere near as proud as the rich, my dear boy, and that’s why they are poor in spirit. Remember also that it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

          You minimize his torment and fail to see him speaking of the flames and his thirst expecting even a single drop of water to temporarily reduce his pain. He then speaks of preventing his brethern from coming there because of unbelief. In verse 28 it is a PLACE of torment, not a situation of torment. That place is filled with literal flames generating physical thirst from heat.

          Lastly, there is no union in Christ between you and me, and certainly no love. You’re way too far over the edge in handling Scripture for me to accept as a brother. Having joined hands with Alice in universal reconciliation makes you also a heretic and an enemy.

    • Alice Spicer May 21, 2015 at 9:33 pm

      I’m so thankful that my family members with opposing beliefs welcome me into their homes and conversations. I’ve experienced with friends what Julie and others have experienced with family members, and I imagine it’s probably a little bit harder dealing with that junk the closer it hits to home (immediate family compared to, say, uncles and aunts or cousins).

      • Stephen Helbig May 22, 2015 at 8:13 pm

        A good hope is that, when it comes to God’s character and plan, each would move together toward the vision that Paul gave the church in 1 Corinthians 1.10: ”I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.” ~ And a good prayer is, “May God’s leadings guide us closer to this unity as we pursue greater understanding of the contents of His Word”.

        Sometimes we don’t realize the magnitude of influence that traditions have had, (in our way of thinking), and this leads us to be less able to objectively scrutinize our own positions and distinguish our inferences from what Scripture actually teaches ~ . Let us encourage one another to try to read Scripture afresh with this mindset of discovery, rather than theological categorizing of verses (a tendency we all have, 🙁 I think). ~ One can find that the Scriptures are much clearer on all issue if more data is allowed, (data as in open discussion and courteous dialogues ~ for iron sharpens iron). . ~ Dialogue can and must be the useful and helpful tool which sharpens one’s thinking, and clears away the dross of improper thinking that leads to improper ideas. ~ If one can do this correctly, it won’t be nor appear as fighting, but will be seen as seeking the truth, (the very thing we “all” truly desire!).

        • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2015 at 8:22 pm

          Stephen, tradition is also used in the Holy Bible in a good sense. Discernment is necessary to know when tradition is bad and when it is good. Contradictory doctrines cannot both be true, so separation from error is necessary in the love of the truth. It is wrong to love erroneous doctrine.

        • Alice Spicer May 23, 2015 at 6:13 pm

          Well said, Stephen. Even after 5 years out of the system, I still find myself viewing scripture through those lenses sometimes.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 21, 2015 at 12:49 am

    Alice, you still haven’t yet dished out any meat on the Transfiguration discussion. You know the parameters, don’t you?

    Moses and Elijah were at that brief moment on the Mount of Transfiguration in the same time, the same space, and the same matter as Jesus and His three disciples. All six persons were in the same moment of time and in the same geographical location and the same physical environment. They shared the same seconds of the same minutes they were together. So how does time dilation even apply?

    From Wikipedia
    In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.
    What are the plural events?
    Who are the plural observers?
    How are the observers moving relative to each other?
    How are the observers differently situated from gravitional masses?
    Remember the plural observers are not inside the plural events.
    These are the parameters of the theory and I don’t see them fitting Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration in the presence of Jesus and His three disciples. I anticipate disputing how you suppose to apply these parameters.

    Don’t you see that their discussion there with Jesus while His disciples heard and identified their subject matter and offered to build three booths for them is clear proof of post-mortem active consciousness which verifies Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus as indeed a true life accounting meaning unbelievers enter conscious unending torment immediately upon physical death ruining your universal reconciliation heresy? Even Jesus’ statement in Matthew 12: 40 likening His death to Noah praying in the whale’s belly proves post-mortem consciousness which disproves universal reconciliation for the same reason. Jesus’ prayer in John 17: 12 identifying Judas Iscariot as perished before Judas even physically died ruins universal reconciliation. Who better to know the truth of everlasting torment than Jesus Christ, God the Son, speaking of it in Matthew 7: 13, 14, 21 – 23. God gave Jesus the Revelation to give to His servant John and that revelation ends with the Lake of Fire populated without remedy. When will you acknowledge the picture set before you and stop forcing your heresy?

    Everlasting torment is reality, pretty or not; and all who deny it will burn in it. Believe or burn.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2015 at 12:14 am

    Alice, your two airplanes you wrote as examples of time dilation {May 21, 2015 at 9:07 pm Speckled Goats} are not real and neither is your movement of time; AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the conversation of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

    Both of your observers are at the same the U.S. Naval Observatory, so they aren’t moving relative to each other. You have another set of observers, but they are PARTICIPANTS in the two events: the people aboard the two airplanes. That’s contrary to the defined parameters.

    Lanny A. Eichert May 18, 2015 at 10:58 pm From Wikipedia
    In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.
    It is inside the theory and therefore merely theory, not fact.
    What are the plural events?
    Who are the plural opbservers?
    How are the observers moving relative to each other?
    How are the observers differently situated from gravitional masses?
    Remember the plural observers are not inside the plural events.
    These are the parameters of the theory and I don’t see them fitting Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration in the presence of Jesus and His three disciples. I anticipate disputing how you suppose to apply these parameters.

    Alice Spicer May 21, 2015 at 9:07 pm Here is one example. There are others.
    What are the plural events?
    Four super-precise clocks ticking on two commercial airliners.
    Who are the plural observers?
    1. People in one airplane
    2. People in the other airplane
    How are the observers moving relative to each other?
    One airliner is going east and one is going west around the earth.
    How are the observers differently situated from gravitional masses?
    Each airliner is flying at the same altitude (distance) from the gravitational mass (the earth). Super-precise clocks are also ticking in the U.S. Naval Observatory on planet earth.
    Remember the plural observers are not inside the plural events. <– I don’t really understand what this is about. A possible answer: People at the U.S. Naval Observatory who observe the west-moving airplane and people at the U.S. Naval Observatory who observe the east-moving airplane.
    After three trips around the world, the east-moving airplane lost time. Time moved slower on that airplane than it did on earth. The west-moving airplane gained time. Time moved faster on that airplane that it did on earth.
    These are facts. This is time dilation. Special relativity is an attempt to explain time dilation (and other weird things).
    Once again, time dilation is fact. Do you agree or disagree?

    Alice, you used a theoretical example to explain time dilation, so time dilation according to your example is not fact, but wrongful faulty theory.

    • Alice Spicer May 23, 2015 at 6:32 pm

      This isn’t a theoretical example; it actually happened. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c2 There are other examples, as well. If you agree that time dilation exists, then I can attempt to explain one possibility about the nature of the transfiguration. It won’t prove or disprove anything about universal reconciliation or eternal torment, though. If that is your end goal in this conversation, we might as well move on, but if you want to talk about it, I think it is interesting and am willing to go there. We can’t go there until you say whether you agree that time dilation exists. If you say yes, then I’ll explain. If you say no, then I won’t waste my time explaining.

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 24, 2015 at 1:13 am

        Alice, 0.15 microseconds is virtually nothing to human life. For two and an half months you side-stepped the subject to something that has no meaning to the Mount of Transfiguration DISPROVING universal reconciliation? Haven’t you been reading in almost every series of posts I included statements that Moses and Elijah prove intelligent post-mortem consciousness contradicting both soul-sleep and universal reconciliation and even asked you to acknowledge it? You say it doesn’t prove or disprove anything about universal reconciliation or eternal torment, yet you offer no reason to support such a statement. I told you over and over again that their presence on the Mount proves physically dead people continue with intelligent consciousness and you haven’t argued otherwise nor confirmed it. You are ignoring their testimony as a significant example of that fact. I even gave you Matthew 12: 40 Jesus’ statement of His three days and nights in the grave being as intelligently conscious as Jonah praying in the whale and yet you refuse to acknowledge intelligent post-mortem consciousnness without telling me why. I told you Moses, Elijah, & Jesus confirm the rich man and Lazarus in post-mortem intelligent consciousness disputing it as a parable and makes it a true life account by the Son of God Himself. I’ve given you those several reasons confirming post-mortem intelligent consciousness as proof of eternal torment and therefore no universal reconciliation. You haven’t refuted that they don’t prove eternal torment, you have only denied they do without reason. That’s not good enough just because you say so. SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 24, 2015 at 1:45 am

        Alice, it is not reasonable to ignore Moses, nearly a millennium and an half afer his physical death, and Elijah, more than nine hundred years after his departure, intelligently talking with Jesus in the presence and hearing of His three disciples, as evidence that the physically dead continue in uninterrupted intelligent active consciousness. It is not reasonable to think they have nothing to do with the rich man and Lazarus as told by Jesus, Who also spoke of His own post-mortem intelligent consciousness as like Jonah in the whale. Get your head out of the sand. Count the witnesses. Jesus told His Father in prayer Judas Iscariot was lost without offering hope. You say, No, but you speak against witnesses without discrediting them. You MAKE misconceptions instead of clearing them. What is a liar?

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 24, 2015 at 2:33 am

        Alice, to be perfectly clear, the issue I brought is Moses and Elijah on the Mount proves everlasting torment because they prove active intelligent post-mortem consciousness before resurrection. Do you understand active intelligent post-mortem consciousness before resurrection also proves everlasting torment? To date the only resurrected person is Jesus Christ {2 Timothy 2: 18}. Post-mortem saints are in conscious bliss, but post-mortem sinners are in conscious hades’ torment reserved for Judgment followed by the everlasting Lake of Fire’s conscious torment. The orthodox view is proven by Moses’ and Elijah’s active intelligent post-mortem consciousness. I’ve asked you to prove otherwise about the effectiveness of Moses and Elijah being on the Mount and that’s been your assignment which I doubt you are able to accomplish.

        If you are not able to accomplish it, will you please have the honesty to acknowledge Moses and Elijah prove everlasting torment and ruin universal reconciliation.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2015 at 1:46 am

    Alice, in accommodating you, I have asked you to apply time dilation TO THE CONVERSATION of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus in the hearing of His three disciples. Why aren’t you doing that? Try doing that and I hope you will see it doesn’t apply.

    Then we will be back to asking you to acknowledge that specific conversation on the Mount proves post-mortem consciousness before resurrection and the rich man’s unending torment immediately after physical death; thus ruining your universal reconciliation heresy.

    Where’s the meat? I didn’t ask for non-applicable examples. Get to the subject.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    Again I ask you, Alice, how time dilation applies to the discussion Moses and Elijah had with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration in the presence of His three disciples?

    From Wikipedia
    In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

    So in the Transfiguration discussion what is the difference in elapsed time in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or years between the two events?
    What are the two events occuring in the Transfiguration discussion which have a difference in elapsed time?
    What two or more observers of the Transfiguration discussion are measuring the two different elapsed times?
    How are those observers of the Transfiguration discussion moving relative to each other, or
    How are those observers of the Transfiguration discussion differently situated from gravitational masses?

    Now once you have tried to define the parameters in this context, is time dilation applicable to the Transfiguration discussion? Does it in any way change Moses and Elijah being in the same exact environment as Jesus and His three disciples? In what ways does time dilation cause Moses and Elijah to not prove post-mortem intelligent consciousness between physical death and resurrection?

    Then, if time dilation is ineffective in changing anything about the discussion of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, will you acknowledge their presence in witnessed conversation ruins universal reconciliation?

    • Lanny A. Eichert May 23, 2015 at 3:48 am

      Alice, how long has it been from 09March2015 to today? Isn’t it 75 days or two and a half months and you haven’t delivered anything substantial for clearing away misconceptions of everlasting torment supported by Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration discussing His coming death with Jesus as witnessed by His three disciples? Their presence proves intelligent post-mortem consciousness between physical death and resurrection which in the case of unbelievers means immediate torment in hades until Judgment when they are thrown with hades into the unending Lake of Fire without remedy. That ruins most-mortem reconciliation as well as universal reconciliation. Since you don’t appear to have a reasonable dispute, will you please acknowledge universal reconciliation is false?

      • Stephen Helbig May 23, 2015 at 1:26 pm

        from 09March2015

        Stephen, black/white, blowing whistle, with melodious songs, and whispering notes on the heavenly musical scale thru time and eternity now, …

        p.s. ~ … “Lord teach us to number our days that we may “apply” our hearts… ~ unto… ~♥~ ” …

        p.s.s. ~ 09March2015 ~ 🙂 ~ http://www.whatgoddoes.com/3511/uncategorized/having-words/

        p.s.s.t. ~ ¸.✿¸.☆¸.•°*”˜ ƸӜƷ ˜”*°•.•.¸ღ¸☆ ” ’A Good Read!’ ” .☆¸¸.•°*” ƸӜƷ ”*°•.•.¸ ~✿

        • Lanny A. Eichert May 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm

          Lanny A. Eichert March 9, 2015 at 12:09 am
          ALICE/Stephen, What about the Law-giver, Moses, and the Prophet Elijah who BOTH appeared with Jesus on that which is called the Mount of Transfiguration {Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9}?http://www.whatgoddoes.com/3548/book-reviews/privileged-slave/#comment-70031

          Alice Spicer March 10, 2015 at 5:10 pm
          Interesting point. I’m itching to respond to this, ….

          • Lanny A. Eichert May 25, 2015 at 2:01 pm

            So Alice, has your itch turned into an ulcer?

            Wasn’t Moses and Elijah actually there on the Mount of Transfiguration?

            Weren’t they there hundreds of years after they ceased to be mortal?

            Weren’t they there before their resurrection?

            Aren’t they proof that physical death doesn’t terminate intelligent consciousness?

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 27, 2015 at 3:13 am

    Alice, do you remember me making reference to 2 Timothy 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Have you noticed τὴν ἀνάστασιν is singular rather than plural. Your point that each person’s resurrection is taylored to their individual time of readiness, the plural would have been used. That is not the case. Here the singular is use expressing a single resurrection of all saints which is still future. None of God’s saints to date have been resurrected. You err at “every man in his own order” by not completing the text: “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming” and keeping the context. The resurrection here spoken happens “at his coming” and not otherwise. His coming is a single event yet future, therefore the resurrection is a single future resurrection including all saints of His church. 1 Corinthians 15: 23 had already been taught, so to teach the resurrection is past is to teach Christ had already come back for His church.

    Do you understand therefore Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration establishes the everlasting torment of sinners and ruins universal reconciliation? Aren’t they proof that physical death doesn’t terminate intelligent consciousness? That’s way more than saying physical death isn’t the end. ET is the end for sinners is what it says; am I not correct?

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 28, 2015 at 3:53 am

    Alice, … “prove or disprove anything about universal reconciliation or eternal torment” is the purpose of this site’s dialogue and you refuse to engage with “meat” you so much expected.
    {Alice Spicer May 23, 2015 at 6:32 pm} Since you don’t appear to have a meaty reasonable answer to the Transfiguration, will you please acknowledge universal reconciliation is faulty?

    I have contended Moses and Elijah were there in post-mortem intelligent consciousness, which is typical of both saints and sinners, verifying the reality of Lazarus and the rich man of Luke 16, thus proving the immediate torment of sinners at physical death and everlasting torment following the Judgment thereafter.

    You have failed to effectively discredit my contention, so I ask you to admit (#1) the immediate torment of sinners at physical death and (#2) “eternal” torment following the Judgment thereafter and (#3) that universal reconciliation is faulty*.

    *Universal reconciliation fails fundamentally because humanity is continually intelligently conscious after physical death as proven by Moses, Elijah, the rich man, Lazarus, and by Jesus own prophetic grave statement.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 28, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Alice, since you aren’t able to refute it, please have the honesty to acknowledge Moses and Elijah prove everlasting torment and ruin universal reconciliation.

    You are about clearing away misconceptions, aren’t you?

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Mary & Marie, pay attention to Romans 11: 7 & 8 (May 22, 2015 at 4:12 pm)

    What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. {Romans 11: 7 & 8}

    Do you two seriously think what God has accomplished in blinding people He will undo in eternity? That’s unbalanced thinking. In the Revelation 9 & 16 mankind is proven unsaveable by their own choice. That’s the message you should be getting: they will never choose salvation, but wish to hide from God and will do everything possible to accomplish that. That’s the story throughout the Bible. Why are you arguing with God’s book? Because you don’t like what it says, so you appoint yourselves to be the source of truth. You have more faith in yourselves than in God and His Book. You call yourselves Christians?

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    Alice, when are you going to clear away misconceptions? Universal reconciliation is a misconception. Since you aren’t able to defend UR against Transfiguration, please have the honesty to acknowledge Moses and Elijah prove everlasting torment and ruin universal reconciliation.

    • Alice Spicer May 29, 2015 at 2:01 pm

      Does time dilation exist, Lanny? You answered, “…0.15 microseconds is virtually nothing to human life…” Please tell me. Yes? No? Maybe?

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2015 at 4:00 pm

        Alice, WHAT relevance does it have? You stated it proves NOTHING (Alice Spicer May 23, 2015 at 6:32 pm) regarding eternal torment, therefore it is a non-issue, or do you change your mind. The parameters don’t apply and elapsed time makes no difference since all six persons involved occupied the same environment and time on the Mount. You haven’t shown me differently.

        Please have the honesty to acknowledge Moses and Elijah prove everlasting torment and ruin universal reconciliation, if you are about clearing away misconceptions.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 30, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Mary, we, humans, have a sovereign right to keep or destroy our pet animals and we call it humane, so why shouldn’t God calling it divine judgment?

  • Lisa Bertolini June 12, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    So much of the current theology that has come from the dominating and narcissistic cults paint us as stupid humans not able to understand God. God isn’t so complex that we can’t get to know him without passing an academic scantron test with a #2 pencil. God isn’t black and white. Our Divine Creator is as colorful as the planet he placed us on. All things are made by him and from his own imagination, So I imagine he is more colorful than fundamentalists paint him to be.

    For people who claim to fear hell so much, you would think they’d be thrilled to hear a perspective where hell doesn’t exist. But they prefer to live in their own hell limited by their black and white views.

    I’m tired of hearing how demented some Christians views are. Lets paint the colorful God as he is, in all his glory. I’d rather see the vibrant spirit of God manifesting in the lives of people deep in despair that are searching for the Hope of all. Those who wish to stay outside the gates can do so on their own. I’d rather walk into that blessed garden and drink of the fount that’s available to all.

    • Alice Spicer June 13, 2015 at 12:06 am

      I was never really convinced of eternal torment in hell; I just didn’t have accurate information with which to refute it, nor did I have the personal drive to go searching for “the pearl of great price.” So, although I completely understand Julie’s frustration (been there, done that), I also remember the fear involved with even considering belief-opposing ideas. When it all really clicked for me was when I saw those beliefs as the church’s beliefs rather than my own, which left me asking, well, then, what do I believe? The drive to search began after that. I guess you could say that I preferred to live in my own hell limited by my black and white views, but as it turns out, I preferred to live in the church’s hell limited by the church’s black and white views. Why? Because I was convinced that the pastors and teachers and theologians were all more spiritually mature than me. Even though deep down I knew something was out of sorts, I just couldn’t put my finger on it. God is the One Who orchestrated the upheaval of the church schema in my head and heart. He will do the same for everyone voluntarily imprisoned in cults, for everyone fearing hell, for everyone fearing belief-opposing ideas, for everyone searching, and especially for everyone believing that staying outside the gates is their best option.

      • Lanny A. Eichert June 13, 2015 at 12:06 pm

        Alice Satan, not God, “orchestrated the upheaval of the church schema”, because God in Christ affirmed multiple times everlasting torment in hell. You are not thinking correctly. God doesn’t contradict Himself. You have the witnesses of three, Moses, Elijah, and Jesus Himself, that physical death doesn’t interrupt intelligent awareness of anybody. Satan used your emotions to encourage you to put more weight on God’s love than His justice. You are his evangelist and prophetess. That’s not a good thing. Escape if you can or you’ll burn forever.

    • Lanny A. Eichert June 13, 2015 at 2:46 am

      Neither Lisa nor Alice will stay outside the gates of hell by mere denial of hell itself, because that’s denying reality. It has been right in your face for the last three months and counting from 10March2015. Hundreds of years after they left mortality and before the resurrection, Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration intelligently discussed with Jesus in the hearing of His three disciples His future death on the cross in the light of prophesy demonstrated active intelligent consciousness of post-mortem persons proving everlasting torment is the unbelievers unalterable condition immediately upon physical death. How can you two deny it when it is right in your face for the last ninety plus days except it be pure rebellion on your parts?

      • Lanny A. Eichert June 13, 2015 at 2:51 am

        For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. {Romans 3: 3 & 4}

    • Lanny A. Eichert June 13, 2015 at 11:50 am

      Lisa & Alice, how much more “demented” is it that you for the last three months have been faced up with two well known Biblical personalities hundreds of years after they passed from this mortality having an intelligent conversation with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration witnessed by three of His disciples and you two continue to deny post-mortem intelligent consciousness of post-mortem persons in hell? What also did Jesus say of His three days and nignts between His death and resurrection in Matthew 12: 40 that He’d be as consciously aware as Jonah was in the whale’s belly? You are faced up with three personal witnesses of experiential events and still you refuse to believe the truth and would rather give authority to Satanic lies. Don’t you get it to whom you belong, whose children you are? Christians believe the Holy Bible, not the father of lies. You’re in the wrong family and the only way out is to be born again. That’s Fundamentalism and for you two it is either believe now or burn forever. What’s it goning to be? The rich man or Lazarus? Three witnesses make them literal.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.