Saturday, August 17, 2019

Armstrongism, Popular Atheism and Their Shared Concept of God

Armstrongism, Popular Atheism and Their Shared Concept of God

This topic must be introduced by stating that while there is a theme here, the categories are not clean.  Is Armstrongism the same thing to every follower?  Some Armstrongists would contend that it is not.  But for this topic, all forms of Armstrongism are sufficiently similar. And certainly, atheism can take on a variety of guises.  In the apophatic realm, the various forms of atheism are nearly identical in their denial of the existence of god or gods.  In the cataphatic realm, it is difficult to identify what atheists do believe in, if not god.  For this writing, I will use the views of pop atheists such as those found in the Dawkins-Hitchens-Dennett class.  
Forese and Bader have identified four principal Judeo-Christian gods that North Americans believe in.  So it should not be surprising that Christianity and its parasitic cults would not be united in a single viewpoint on god.  The assertion of this article is that among these views of god, the god that pop atheists do not believe in is the same class of god that Armstrongists do believe in. 

In Brief: The Pop Atheist God

Garrison Keillor made the statement once that in the Scandinavian communities in Minnesota even the atheists are Lutheran because it is a Lutheran god that they do not believe in.  One cannot merely state that god does not exist without explaining who the rejected god is.  Otherwise, we do not know what they are claiming to reject.  For example, I am a Christian but I do not believe in the god that pop atheists write about with such vitriol.   This would be, roughly, the Dawkins-Hitchens-Dennett god.  In that narrow scope, I suppose I could be designated an atheist in relation to that particular god.  I don’t believe that god exists either. 
In brief, the Dawkins-Hitchens-Dennett god is not the god that the Bible claims created all things ex nihilo.   They seem to be mechanistic materialists and, I believe, have fashioned for themselves a god that conveniently succumbs to materialist arguments. This is why they mistakenly believe that evolution or Memetics disprove the existence of god.  For them, there is the material universe and nothing else. They can apply the scientific method to this universe and make discoveries but there is nothing that transcends materialism.   The only thing they address is the contingent (made and sustained from outside; having no capability to self-create; not required logically) universe because that is the only thing they permit.  And their concept of god, their “straw man”, is a powerful, mythic being who may fabricate and manipulate things such as phenomenal artifacts, energies, and physical processes and by examining materialism they may disprove this god’s existence.  

The notable flaw in this line of reasoning is that the pop atheists mistakenly believe that god is like a contingent object among other contingent objects and not a necessary (uncreated, self-sustaining, logically required) being.  They are barking up the wrong tree.  For example, Dawkins’ view is that that the existence of god should be treated as a scientific hypothesis like any other.  He does not recognize that when Christians, and others, speak of god they are speaking of the Being who created “being” itself.   These atheists assume being or existence as a part of the ontological baseline and focus on lower order discernible artifacts, energies and processes like evolution.  Then they mistakenly believe that a sufficient accumulation of such contingent physical phenomenon will make god unnecessary in order to explain the universe. It is fundamentally a category error – the god they conceive of is like a powerful man, Zeus rather than Yahweh, immanent in and subject to the universe but not transcendent.  
The result is that these atheists do not disbelieve in god but in an anthropomorphic concept that they call god.  Hence, for them, god becomes a sort of demiurge (q.v. Wikipedia) in Platonic philosophy.

In Brief: The Armstrongist God

Herbert W. Armstrong defined for his followers a god that has the characteristics listed below.  These ideas do not seem to be Millerite in origin.   It is possible that this profile of God was developed by HWA in the public library in Des Moines, Iowa or progressively over the years in the Worldwide Church of God with input from others.  Here we might have “The Seven Principles of Armstrongist Anthropomorphism”: 


1. God has a body in human form, not an acquired body but an essential body – he has always had a body. When it says in the Bible that God lifts his “hand” in wrath, he literally has a hand. God is anatomically male. This is based on a primitive interpretation of the word “image” in Genesis.

2. God is not omniscient but must acquire knowledge. God must figure out things by experimentation and modeling. According to Herman Hoeh this is why there are so many hominid forms in the fossil record. God developed many test models prior to Adam’s creation.

3. God is not omnipotent. He is creating other gods who will be just as powerful as he is. Humans will one day be “God as God is God.”

4. God lives inside this universe, inside space-time; he does not transcend it. In fact, he lives in a specific location called “the sides of the north” – somewhere in the northern sky. As Garner Ted Armstrong once stated, if you had a rocket ship you could fly to where God is.

5. God did not create time and does not know the future; he is limited by time just as we are.

6. God’s eternity is a sequence of moments instead of timelessness.

7. God has a racial type. He is a White man. Adam looks like God and Christ who look like each other. And Shem looks like Adam. And Shem is the putative progenitor of all White people. So all Whites belong to the same special, supreme, eternal race that God belongs to.
The result is that Armstrongists do not believe in the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition but in a god that is like a powerful human.  Hence, they relegate god to a status much like that of a demiurge in Platonic philosophy.

God in the Image of Man

Both pop atheism and Armstrongism have converged on the concept of god as an anthropomorphic being of limited capabilities.   Nowhere to be found in their philosophies, and hence their inquiry,   is the infinite, transcendent, necessary God who donates being to those things he creates.  Armstrongism has created for itself a much smaller god perhaps as a misunderstanding or to be contrarian, who knows.  Pop atheism has also circumscribed god closely perhaps to sell books on the mass market rather than develop a comprehensive opposing case.  Pop atheism is a more apt denial of the Armstrongist god than the Christian God.  In any event, Armstrongism and atheism, over divergent routes and with different maps, have arrived at the same destination – God as Anthropomorph.  


submitted by NEO

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Or rather, instead of God in the image of man, man is in the image of God. Go figure!

km

Brian Drawbaugh said...

Interesting analysis. We humans love to create God in our image, as Xenophanes pointed out over 2500 years ago. For the record, going back to the 60's, east coast USA, I can recall points 1-6 being taught in one form or another, but I do not recall #7. - Brian

Byker Bob said...

It was subtle, Brian, but it was there. It always became a real overt and in your face concept during Gerald Waterhouse weekend.

BB

Byker Bob said...

PS I always liked the Apache version in which the Great Spirit fashioned the clay that became man, and baked it. The first model was removed from the oven too soon, was not done, and became the white man. The second was left in too long, got burned, and became the black man. For the third, the Great Spirit watched over the oven very closely, turning the clay model over carefully and rotating it until it was done perfectly. That model became the red man.

I may have gotten some of the details wrong, because this is what was taught to us in public school in Kindergarten. I always thought of it as quite remarkable. There was also a story about a young boy named Epaminondas, who consistently made wrong decisions. These two early influences became important to my life and world view.
Hardly university quality, as is NEO’s excellent article above, but they got the job done.

BB

What About The Truth said...

I would say that the complete categories as a whole are not clean. In all my time in the WCG I only recognize point 1 and point 7 as having been taught as you present them. The other points look to be an extrapolation of the intended teaching to form a conclusion. If you would redefine points 2-6 as to how I understood them, then "Armstrongism" would fall far short of anthropomorphism.

Having missed the 50's, 60's and 70's version of WCG teaching maybe I missed the evolution of the seven points.

NEO, do you have any footnotes or specific quotes that establish your basis for this post?

Anonymous said...

"The result is that Armstrongists do not believe in the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition"

No, the God of the Judeo-Christian is going to send multiple billions to eternal torment. At least the Armstrongist God is only going to send those who knowingly rebel to hell where they will cease to exist.

Grant it Armstrong in his arrogance turned that teaching into a third resurrection where if you rebel against his church then you'll be among thousands in the third resurrection. Thousands vs. billions, both are wrong but you make it out like Armstrong's God is so much worse.

Anonymous said...

First of all, it's "granted", not "grant it". The basic problem is that ol' Hog Jowls and his lackeys used their version of a god to inflict far more pain and tyranny on their members in the here and now than do about 95% of the leaders of traditional Judeo-Christian religions. We really don't know what is going to happen in the spiritual realm in the future, so how many get punished, and for what reasons is largely hypothetical. Lots of variables like mercy. Can't really make a comparison between thousands and billions. There'll be some flux.

But, I like that at least if people realize how crappy an Armstrong K o G would be, they have the right to opt out of a bad eternity through T-lof.

Anonymous said...

I may not believe in god, but if he/she does exist and the choice is between the Lake of Fire amd spending eternity with Herbie amd his cohorts, then just point me to the diving board.

nck said...

The nice Muslim people I know say that Isil thugs are not religious people but political.

I once hiked on the Isle of Rugen between Sweden and Germany. A storm howled through the thick ancient forrest as I past pre historic Slavic cultic worship centers. Waves slammed the coastline, leaves fell from the cracking trees, a deafening sound of the wind.

It was the closest I ever was to Wodan or any of the ancient Norse demiurg Gods. Non of the demiurg appeared however as they revealed themselves through me through the "woode/anger" of Wodan. It all was an intangible but profound experience as only the ancients would have experienced it when entrusting their experiences to the Irish monks who respectively present us with their filtered opinions on the demiurgs as opposed to their omnipotent desert God who incidentally Also presents itself as "WIND" or Ruach.

Nck

Anonymous said...

"...[The pop atheist] does not recognize that when Christians, and others, speak of god they are speaking of the Being who created “being” itself."

Yes, we do.

"The notable flaw in this line of reasoning is that the pop atheists mistakenly believe that god is like a contingent object among other contingent objects and not a necessary (uncreated, self-sustaining, logically required) being..."

But we also recognize this as all baseless assertion. What can be asserted without proof can be rejected without proof. Other peoples claim the same of their gods. So what?

This sort of philosophical apologetics is worthless. It establishes nothing. It's like writing a computer program. You create an object, label it "god" and then assign properties to it. It doesn't even make any sense to ask the truth value of computer program.

Steve D said...

I don't think that God is going to send billions of people to a place of torment. A plan of salvation that allowed for such a thing to occur would be out of step with God's stated desires and his character. He did say that he would like to see all people saved. And he does say that he is a God of love, so his plan of salvation must be more inclusive than many think. Only about 30% of those who are conceived experience a live birth. Many who are born die in childhood. Others have defects where they can't understand the Gospel, even if they heard it. Many who have lived to adulthood never heard of the God of Israel or Jesus. So, with this in mind, what size "market share" would God get for all of his efforts and the death of his son if all of these people are lost? But, if we are saved by grace through faith, if we act upon that faith that comes from general revelation (Rom 1:20) and we all have the law of God written in our hearts, as Paul says in Romans 2:14, then those who acknowledge a God, exhibit living faith by doing what is right (natural law), then, I believe, they are saved. That means that the only ones who are lost are those who willfully and knowingly reject the truth that they have been given. Regardless of where we lived, or when we lived, by acting in faith on the illumination we have been given (general revelation and natural law), I think we are saved. We are saved not by passing a theology examination but by living faith. God didn't send his son to die to get a single digit market share and have Satan turn out to be the real winner. If God is just and loving, then all who died in the womb are saved, all those who died in childhood are saved, all those who are developmentally disabled are saved, all those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel have a chance to be saved if they act in faith on the natural law that they have, acknowledging a creator revealed by way of general revelation. Satan is left with the rest a very small market share of those who willfully and knowingly reject the truth that has been revealed to all mankind.

Anonymous said...

NEO has watched too many episodes of Doctor Who or Star Trek The Next Generation. Of course God is limited. How can God possibly know the future if He gives human beings free moral agency? Once something is created, it has certain characteristics. God is not above this basic reality. Christ honored reality when He turned water into wine (wine is mainly water), and when He multiplied a few fish (ie catch or breed animals) and loaves of bread (ie grow crops to make bread) to feed the crowd.
God created the universe out of nothing, so He did not need the water to make the wine. That is, God limits Himself to live in the "real" world rather than NEOs childish Hansel and Gretel lollipop world.

NEO, in the real world, people do lose their eternal lives, and no Star Trek replicators for the masses will ever exist.

Anonymous said...

If you want to know what "pop atheists" do and don't believe, first expunge your mind of the distorted straw man that NEO has constructed and replace it with information directly from the "pop atheists". For example, Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" and many YouTube videos.

Tonto said...

It is important to understand that not all Sabbatarians equate to Armstrongism. The Church of God Seventh Day and Seventh Day Baptists are a whole different species , and should not have to be "guilty by association" with Armstrongism.

The COG7 can be admired for the fact that they expelled HWA pretty quick , once his narcissitic sociopathy was recognized.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:47:

If you recognize the category difference between contingent and necessary, why does the Dawkins-Dennett-Hitchens crowd always accumulate their arguments on the contingent side?

"It establishes nothing …"

To the contrary. It establishes that pop atheism does not address the difficult issue of being itself. This is why they come up with materialist arguments that are supposed to revoke the idea of god. I think you can recognize that there is a category error here.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:18

Because God chooses to use secondary agency does not mean he is limited. This is difficult for Armstrongists to understand. If you claim that god is limited by physical constraints that are a part of this universe, you are making God out to be like a human being. This is the error of anthropomorphism that my article is intended to address. Anthropomorphism is the great error of HWA who made God to be a kind of superhuman, nevertheless subject to physical limitations such as locality. (This could be called HWA's "childish Hansel and Gretel lollipop world")

Using water to make wine is not a limitation to God. It is a willful deployment of resources. God is not going to stand around and wring his hands because there is no water to make wine out of.

Anonymous said...

Brian:

I believe that point 7 came from either Waterhouse or Blackwell. Blackwell was sent out in the late Sixties or early Seventies to address the topic of race in local congregations. He may not have gone to every congregation.

The trouble with doing historical research on Armstrongism is that many views were not documented. GTA tried to document these beliefs in a Systematic Theology Project but HWA terminated that effort and characterized it as an act of rebellion. As a result today we must rely on carefully worded little booklets or just memory.

You could contact a knowledgeable Armstrongist leader about point 7. My guess is that the Armstrongist splinter groups still believe this same idea today. Dr. Don Ward would be a good person to ask on this topic. It would be interesting to find out if they had at some point in the past renounced point 7.

Anonymous said...

"What About the Truth" (6:25)

I don't understand your line of reasoning. Points 1 and 7, that you are familiar with, are blatantly anthropomorphic, as are points 2 through 6. I do not believe there is any way to redefine points 2 through 6 to make them not anthropomorphic. You would have to give me an example.

I do not have notes about the seven points. These are recollected from sermons. My guess is most of them came from Waterhouse or Blackwell. And I would anticipate that if you contacted someone like Dr. Don Ward, he would verify these points.

Anonymous said...

4:13 all that you've done is mix what you learned from the WCG with orthodox doctrine. Orthodox doctrine is that if one doesn't accept Christ in this life they're going to receive eternal torment. I find it interesting how people reject the Sabbath and Holy Days (not saying that you have since neither was mentioned in your post) and the plan of salvation for all of mankind that we learned from them, then enter orthodox Christianity but refused to accept their teachings on hell. They teach that before God created anyone he knew who would be saved and who would receive eternal torment but he created those whom he knew to receive eternal torment anyway. Your salvation scenario is all well and good but it's not what mainstream orthodox Christianity teaches. You're free to believe differently than mainstream but you got that mindset from the WCG. That God will save all who don't wilfully reject him.

nck said...

NEO

The fact that THE STP did not get a HWA approval stamp does not mean that the effort overseen by the most intelligent staff member of the church is not easily available for insight and documentation.

If it is not there then it was not universally preached by 1976ish.

Nck

Anonymous said...

4:13

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sal_over.htm

Anonymous said...


STP http://intercontinentalcog.org/churchdoctrines.php

Anonymous said...


STP sermon

https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getsermon&InfoID=1510495190&page=18&return=sermons

Anonymous said...

STP on banned

https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2011/01/systymatic-theology-project-one-of.html

Steve D said...

Anonymous 8:52, It is my understanding that most Christian churches teach that children, those who have not reached the age of accountability, are saved. Those who never hear the gospel are no more guilty than a child. If a child gets a free pass, shouldn't a just and loving God extend the same courtesy to those who never heard the Gospel, but who, by faith, respond positively to the truth they do have (the law in their heart, natural law and general revelation)?

Anonymous said...

Steve D wrote:

It is my understanding that most Christian churches teach that children, those who have not reached the age of accountability, are saved. Those who never hear the gospel are no more guilty than a child. If a child gets a free pass, shouldn't a just and loving God extend the same courtesy to those who never heard the Gospel, but who, by faith, respond positively to the truth they do have (the law in their heart, natural law and general revelation)?

You express certainty that young children are saved if they die before the age of accountability, yet you aren't quite as certain ("shouldn't" God do as you hope?) about older people who never hear the Gospel. If this is true, then the most moral and considerate thing you could do would be to murder as many children as possible before they reach the age of accountability.

This paradox is just one of many reasons why Christianity is unsatisfactory.

Anonymous said...

The discussion of salvation seems to have begun with the view that the Armstrongist god is better than the God of Judeo-Christian tradition because the former will save many more people. A book well worth reading on this topic is "The Evangelical Universalist" by Gregory MacDonald (a nom de plume of Robin A. Parry).

I am an evangelical universalist. I find it implausible that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God cannot save everyone. I believe Hell is rehabilitative. My views align with Parry, Talbott an Hart.

Byker Bob said...

Universalism makes perfect sense, NEO, if non compliance of the individual is based on misunderstanding, ie lack of correct knowledge. Often, we as humans are fighting our own imaginations, and not God per se. Surely the God who made us has the specific key required to unlock each of our minds, and to prompt understanding, and rational response. Armstrongism was presented in such a negative way, that we were virtually baited and dared to rebel. The leaders felt entitled to do anything they saw fit to any one of us, and it was our responsibility to control the very normal attitudes which this generally provoked. They did not practice Eph. 6:4, a scripture normally quoted with regard to child-rearing, but still very appropriate to any mentoring relationship.

BB

Anonymous said...

BB:

I think God created everyone salvable. And he knows what process to use for everyone. Christ said there would be a renewal of ALL things - the entire Universe. Evangelical universalism is not what most people believe universalism to be - everyone is handed a "get out of jail free" card. In the evangelical version, people who reject God in this life will have to be rehabilitated in the next life and salvation is exclusively through Christ. Parry roots this all in scripture. I don't mean to proselytize.

Neo

Anonymous said...

" I find it implausible that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God cannot save everyone."

It is illogical that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god exists. That does not agree with reality. But I can't say that the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, malevolent Christian god does not exist.

Anonymous said...

NEO said: "I am an evangelical universalist. I find it implausible that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God cannot save everyone."

I'm still open to universalism myself NEO. The reason for this is as follows:

1) Parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7) The shepherd searches for the 1 sheep that has wandered off out of the 100 he keeps and doesn't stop till he's successful.
2) Parable of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10) A woman looks for the 1 silver coin she's lost out of the 10 she owns and doesn't stop till she's successful.
3) Christ's declaration that nothing is impossible for God (Mat 19:26; Mar 10:27; Luk 18:27)
4) All who have died in Adam shall be resurrected to life in Christ (1 For 15:22).
5) In between Rev 20:10 and 20:15 only the devil, death and hell are cast into the lake of fire.

So to God a 90% success rate isn't good enough (parable 2) nor is a 99% success rate (parable 1). God demands nothing less than a 100% success rate. But, for us humans such is an impossible feat. Thus, God enters the picture through His Son. And so all that have been conceived and died in Adam will be resurrected to life and given an opportunity for salvation. The end result is to my line of thinking at present that all mankind will be saved and thus as Revelation depicts no human will be cast into the lake of fire.

Anonymous said...

9:10 NEO, how do you know that this life isn't our rehabilitation? What if we were among the angels that sinned and putting us in physical bodies to really experience sin hands on isn't his way to rehabilitate us and those who choose sin and reject God have failed the process and will be destroyed? I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying what if. Makes as much sense as your speculation.

Anonymous said...

God is not above basic reality. In chemistry, there's the periodic table. All these elements that make up the universe have certain traits. For example, metals have a certain hardness, malleability, melting point, electrical conductivity, etc.
God is not above this. Ordinary glass is brittle. God with all His powers cannot change this. Likewise, once beings like angels and humans are given free moral agency, they can choose evil over good. They can choose to become like demons. God cannot change this. Hence the lake of fire.
The Protestant doctrine of universal salvation is not true. There Weill be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Anonymous said...

Rev 20:15 - And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Selective reading much 2:40?

Anonymous said...

Weeping and gnashing of teeth is not necessarily those being cast into hell!

km

Anonymous said...

8:53: "Rev 20:15 - And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Selective reading much 2:40?"

I'm simply looking at it in from a "universalist" perspective 8:53 that's all. Revelation 20:10-15 states:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Looking at it from a "universalist" perspective where does it specifically state that any mortal human raised in the the GWT period is sentenced to death in the lake of fire?

True it states "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." But, it doesn't explicitly affirm that there will be incorrigible humans who will be "cast into the lake of fire."

The only beings it states that are "cast into the lake of fire" after the GWT period are death and hell.

Hence, my openness to the possibility that God will completely annihilate Satan's plot to murder the entire human race that has ever been conceived. Imagine that! A God so omnipotent that He can save every human ever conceived and so utterly destroy Satan's wholly futile attempt to thwart God's mind-blowing plan!

I'm not saying that this is what God will do. But, I'm simply open to the possibility. Ultimately it's up to God whether He is 100% successful in saving the entire human race or at best 99.9% successful and there'll still be a 0.1% incorrigibly wicked that are to be eliminated in the lake of fire "prepared for the devil and his angels." Either way if I'm saved all the credit goes to Him! And if I'm lost that's His call. So be it. Ultimately His sovereign will shall stand in all things and places. I was created by Him. I am His to do with as He deems fit. Be it for salvation or annihilation. Glory be to His name now and forever! :-)

Anonymous said...

"And if I'm lost that's His call. So be it. Ultimately His sovereign will shall stand in all things and places. I was created by Him. I am His to do with as He deems fit. Be it for salvation or annihilation."

That is probably the dumbest statement that I've ever read. No personal choice, no personal responsibility, how ignorant! Back to the book of life, can you show me anywhere in the bible where anyone or anything other than humans having their names written in the book of life? That means when the bible says, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." then it is obviously talking about humans. How dumb!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

4:13: "That is probably the dumbest statement that I've ever read. No personal choice, no personal responsibility, how ignorant! Back to the book of life, can you show me anywhere in the bible where anyone or anything other than humans having their names written in the book of life? That means when the bible says, 'And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.' then it is obviously talking about humans. How dumb!!!!!!!!"

It might sound "dumb" to you, but that's because you're not seeing it the way I do. Maybe I'm not expressing it clearly and that's my fault. I'm sure there are others more eloquent than I so I can only suggest you google for yourself the position of Christian Universalists. I like to know what other Christians believe and this is just 1 subject I wanted to learn more about. There was 1 article I read years ago I wanted to link to, but I can't find it. It made an interesting point about choice and the illusion of it in our world like we don't choose to be born or where or when or to whom or our race or gender or our intelligence etc. so it ultimately concluded the choice to save all or most or only a few people is really up to the sovereign will of God. I'm not saying I believe in universalism completely. But, neither do I reject it wholesale like you seem. One reason for this is a lot of passages discussing hell like what you quoted can be interpreted universalistically to me as a warning to us of a potential consequence IF certain conditions are/aren't met. It doesn't mean to me that ultimate outcome will actually happen. To explain it a little more if I can, you quoted: "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." We assume, therefore, that this means there'll be humans whose names won't be in the book of life who'll die in hell. But, I can also read or interpret it universalistically since it doesn’t give a specific quantity or any number at all of the supposed lost. So it can be alternatively interpreted to me as if there was no one found whose name wasn't ultimately written in the book of life (except those already mentioned i.e. devil, death, hell). You can disagree with me. Many have who I've shared this with. It doesn't bother me. Likewise your put down of my acceptance of God deciding my ultimate fate doesn't bother me either. Ultimately it's not me who makes the final decision whether you, Hitler, QEII, Trump, Jack the Ripper, HWA etc. is to be rewarded with eternal life or sentenced to eternal death. That prerogative belongs to God. So will I do all I possibly can to the best of my ability to be saved? Obviously! Do I want to die in hell? Hell no! But, I must reconcile myself with the fact that ultimately God is the decider of my eternal fate not me. Only He can deem me worthy or unworthy. He gave me life. Only He can take it away. He is THE Supreme and Sovereign Judge. Does this scare me? No. Because ultimately I believe and know that God is LOVE. So ALL of His decisions are LOVE although to our fallen and finite minds we might think Him wrong or harsh when in reality He is anything but.

Byker Bob said...

In the meantime, I’m just glad that God gave us motorcycles, rock n roll, and beer. Those things, and a representative of the fairer sex who loves you, are what makes our holodeck experience on planet Earth tolerable.

BB