Universal Reconciliation

[Guest kingdombrat]

How does that make God a loving God by forcing someone to do what they spent their life [not desiring] to do?

 

Your description is making God out to be a {Dictator}!

[FineLinen]

3 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

God would be a cruel God if a human being lived their life purposefully denying God, saying I don't believe, I'd rather be in hell, take your God baloney and shove it and then force that human to spend eternity in Heaven.

 

Why would God force that person to be with Him knowing that he hates God?

The broken remnants of sin and despair are wee wills created out of the Will of all wills. His will ultimately prevails. Depending on the depth of stubborness of those wee wills, His thelo is manifested and always prevails. Always!

I will draw/ drag off in power/ impel ALL mankind unto Me.

[Guest kingdombrat]

Just now, FineLinen said:

The broken remnants of sin and despair are wee wills created out of the Will of all wills. His will ultimately prevails. Depending on the depth of stubborness of those wee wills, His thelo is manifested and always prevails. Always!

I will draw/ drag off in power/ impel ALL mankind unto Me.

So, you do Believe God is a dictator?

 

You believe if a person can hate God with their every being and live life to be against God that ultimately God is going to force that person to spend eternity with the God they devoted their life to hate?

 

That's a very twisted Doctrine!

What is your Doctrine called, specifically?

[Guest kingdombrat]

If you're going to end in Heaven anyways, why are you on a Christian format promoting your beliefs?

 

Shouldn't you be having worldly fun and living it to the max since you're getting the same reward as those refraining from their sin nature?

[FineLinen]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

 

What is your Doctrine called, specifically?

At-one-ment

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 minute ago, FineLinen said:

At-one-ment

Atonement

 

 

Atonement is the concept of a person taking action to correct previous wrongdoing on their part, either through direct action to undo the consequences of that act, equivalent action to do good for others, or some other expression of feelings of remorse

[Guest kingdombrat]

So you don't need God is what you're claiming to be good enough for Heaven?

[Guest kingdombrat]

I need to run for a bit but I'll be back.

 

Who teaches atonement, what Church, what minister?

[Guest kingdombrat]

Jesus of Nazareth: Week 2

At-One-Ment, Not Atonement
Sunday, January 21, 2018

The common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.

Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice (understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul). He was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) and gave a theological and philosophical base to St. Francis’ deep intuitions of God’s love. While the Church has not rejected the Franciscan position, it has been a minority view.

The many “substitutionary atonement theories”—which have dominated the last 800 years of Christianity—suggest that God demanded Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to “atone” for our sin-drenched humanity. The terrible and un-critiqued premise is that God could need payment, and even a very violent transaction, to be able to love and accept God’s own children! These theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught.

For Duns Scotus, the incarnation of God and the redemption of the world could never be a mere mop-up exercise in response to human sinfulness, but had to be the proactive work of God from the very beginning. We were “chosen in Christ before the world was made” (Ephesians 1:4). Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation—or we were steering the cosmic ship! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely and freely acts—out of love.

Salvation is much more about at-one-ment from God’s side than any needed atonement from our side. Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity (it did not need changing)! Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God!

God in Jesus moved people beyond the counting, weighing, and punishing model—which the ego prefers—to a world in which God’s mercy makes any economy of merit, sacrifice, reparation, or atonement both unhelpful and unnecessary. Jesus undid “once and for all” (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10) notions of human and animal sacrifice (common in most ancient religions) and replaced them with an economy of grace and love.

Jesus was meant to be a game-changer for the human psyche and for religion itself. But when we begin negatively, or focused on a problem, we never get off the hamster wheel of shame, separation, and violence. Rather than focusing on sin, Jesus—“the crucified One”—pointed us toward a primal solidarity with the very suffering of God and thus of all creation. This changes everything. Change the starting point, and you change the trajectory, and even the final goal! Love is the beginning, the way itself, and the final consummation.

God does not love us because we are good; God loves us because God is good. Nothing we can do will either decrease or increase God’s eternal and infinite eagerness to love!

Reference:
Adapted from Richard Rohr, Eager to Love: The Alternative Way of Francis of Assisi (Franciscan Media: 2014), 183-188.

[Guest kingdombrat]

Richard Rohr, OFM (born 1943), is an American author, spiritual writer, and Franciscan friar based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He was ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church in 1970