WordWolf

socks: So yeah - it does appear that the religious ideas of eternal/eternity and "forever" have been embedded into how people understand the translation of these words. Aion/aeon and the Greek's use of those words is of what you're calling a period of time, an "age", dispensation, part of a process - of sorts. It's an interesting topic and I think I get where you're going with it. I'd put it like this - A lot of man's idea of "eternity" is covered in our idea of "time". But - really, the most real definition of what eternity "IS" as it applies to God isn't primarily a matter of measured time..........in other words the word "eternal" isn't a clock that reads "always" or something.......(little humor there)......from the angle of aeon/aion I wouldn't answer the question "how long is eternity", I'd use it to answer the question "where am I and what's going on?" That's a really sucky way to describe what I mean but if I started stacking up verses about God in the Bible it would give the impression that to me - as a creation of God's, eternity as some kind of time that has no beginning and no end would be GREAT because I measure time as a very measurable and trackable quality of life. "What time is it" and where is this moment in relation to all the moments I'm going to know is VERY important to the average citizen of Planet Earth, for obvious reasons. But it wouldn't be for someone who actually existed in my concept of Eternal Time would think about it. Which is hard for me to write, it's like trying to say I like a color I've never seen. Anyway - where I see what you're saying is in the context of the statements in the Bible - the sentences and verses don't always impose a concrete definition of the word aion (and it's forms) to mean "forever" or "eternal" - the meaning what it is, comes from the context. "I'm barely going to make it".... Doesn't usually mean I'm going to make something like a cake and that I'll be bare when I do...... It usually means that I'll get somewhere I'm going when I'm expected but not early and hopefully not late. Etc. : )

Mark S: Biblical Usages of N.T. Greek word, Aion Page 3 of the article. Article Written by someone named Mark Sanguinetti, I wonder who that person is??? Perhaps the most confusion of understanding on this subject is the lack of understanding of the Greek word translated either as age, world, ever, forever and with other translated version words. In Koine Greek this is the word aion, which is also written in English as aioon. When seeing the following biblical usages of this word aion, a clear definition is age with a limited duration of time, or a period of longer or shorter duration having a beginning and an end. When seeing other biblical usages, which will be covered on the final page of this study, this word could also be understood and used in context as an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity. However, this usage would require multiple ages and as it relates to God the creator of life. This Greek word is used as a noun. There are 125 usages of this word in the New Testament. From a number of usages of this word it is clearly seen that age has a limitation of time with an end to the age. In the King James Version this is often translated world. However, most if not all of the newer biblical versions use the word age for aion more often. On the below link are verses with aion from the King James Version, followed by other biblical versions chosen randomly. As I stated previously, with editing biblical versions can improve for truth and clarity. http://www.christian-universalism.info/agegreekwords-pg3.html Reading the above should take less than 2 minutes. I hope that is not to long of a time to spend.

socks: I don't want to make this a "verse battle" where one side stacks them up against another side and in the end we just have fat stacks of opinions that we had when we started, but since the Bible is my source book for trying to understand this topic....some more verses.... --- John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish (apollumi - end, abolish....and Strong's gives "put out of the way entirely") but have everlasting (aionios - or ever, without beginning nor end) life (zoe - hmmm..."life") Again, a fundamental verse for Christianity - whosoever BELIEVES in His "only begotten Son" will not die, perish, become abolished and put permanently out of the way .....but rather will have this unending transcendent LIFE. Nothing in one of Christianity's core verses about being punished and tortured if you don't - but you are being told you will at the least avoid ending, perishing. --- John 10:10 - The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy (apollumi - end, abolish....and Strong's gives "put out of the way entirely"). I am come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." One of the biggies and there it sits like a big ol' duck. Compared to a thief that wants to steal kill and destroy their victims, Jesus gives more abundant "LIFE". I guess many of us see the "thief" there as "the devil" but we can understand a thief to be someone who wants to take our stuff and will kill us doing it. I could build a solid 30 minute sermon around the Devil's intentions as the "father" of rebellion and self centered focus who wants to steal our futures and see us destroyed forever but I don't want to forget that Jesus counters that with a bigger, better more abundant LIFE. So again - death is contrasted with LIFE here, not an eternal torment. A bad ending to life compared to a much better life, and we lose to the thief that opportunity for an ongoing life, "eternal". Granted if it means getting tossed into a lake of fire and ending it all that way then it's not something I want. Given eternity or termination, I want eternity. --- I'm resisting the cheesey logic stuff for now - why would a loving God do something unloving, etc. etc. buuuuut - I also think people under value our time on this planet in this life when they say "how come 80 years will get you eternal termination cuz you under performed in what amounts to the tiniest imaginable increment of time in that eternal arc....? How can that be fair?"......................................aaaaand that's a deeper topic, but from the perspective of this life I have, 80 years isn't a small part of anything, it's a huge part of everything, of all there is. That's something to consider in this mix, I think. Today we throw everything away, if it breaks we toss it, recycle it, dump it. Just get rid of it because most stuff doesn't get repaired, it gets replaced. "LIFE" is unique and individual - I can't be replaced. Another "like" me yes, but never another me. Life isn't cheap just because there's a lot of them. Each one counts, is "precious" and represents a much bigger picture of reality. THAT makes complete sense then for it to be non terminating and eternally resilient. What is God's greater long term plan? To answer that I have to ask myself what do I not know that I can't even know I don't know, for whatever reasons? I only know what I know and I gotta go with that - there are some things I can and do know now, I'm not floating in a sea of unknowns.

socks: I want to be careful with not getting too far off your original topic, buuuut I would say that how we define mans' so-called "free will" and "freedom to choose" are important in this topic. In the bible anyway, will is associated with what we "want" to do, and what we plan to do....I will go to the store, I will open the door. It's a capacity, ability to determine or decide. It would be a function of our "nous" then, our minds which is part of the "psuche" or life we have. We're living breathing people, and we have individual minds that can think, consider, decide, plan. BUT WITHIN THE SCOPE AND PARAMETERS IN WHICH THAT CAPACITY EXISTS. We're human, we're not God. I can't say "Let there be light" and expect anything to happen unless I turn on a lamp, as a human being. Freedom to choose, making a choice, is us exercising that will, that capacity. Like picking which shirt I want to wear tomorrow. I have the ability to choose - there's more than one shirt I could wear, and I can then pick which one I will wear. My will or plan is to wear a different shirt tomorrow, and there are several shirts I could wear, so I pick...that one. Pretty simple. The Bible makes it clear that man's CAPACITY in which he picks and plans is limited, and in fact is unreliable and unpredictable, mostly because man's physical realm and capacities are fairly limited on a large scale - sure, I can decide to wear that shirt tomorrow but if a fire burns through my town over night I'm not going to do it as I planned. Many places in the Bible compare man's capacity to God's and how limited it is - like Proverbs 19:21 "Many plans are in a man's heart, but the purpose of the LORD will prevail." So we can't decide to do or say or have or change or make something that can't actually be done, and even if it can be done we may not be able to control circumstances in such a way that would guarantee it to happen. God can of course, so the comparison is easy to understand. If God says it's possible, then it is and it may be within my ability to then decide and choose...whatever it is...but the fuel comes from God, not me. I may turn the key but that's nuttin' if there's no gas in the tank. The will to decide and the ability to choose and act are all actually the mechanics of "believing", of pistis. It's what believing really is, all it is - not to say it's a small thing but it's not a magical thing. If we understand how to decide and choose and how to take action (or not take action depending, etc) then we completely understand how "believing works". So - God's sovereignty and authority is untouched and supreme when He....allows....us......to choose......to believe in God, to follow Jesus Christ, and to accept forgiveness as the New Gold Standard of life. God would "have all men to be saved", and so they will be as they respond but our choice to respond IS ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF GOD'S GRACE. We can't manufacture even the opportunity or invitation, so to speak, as it's "not by works". There's lots of places that help to define what God means by hell - like Romans 6:23 For the wages (apsonion - pay, allowance) of sin (harmatia - a mistake, missing the mark) is death (thanatos - death, end of life); but the gift (charisma - free gift) of God is eternal (aionios - for ever, without beginning nor end) ) life (zoe - the living soul) through Jesus Christ our Lord. I'm not told there that the payment for disobeying God is to be tortured for eternity in some hellish environment - it says it's death. Actual ending of life. The payment of God's gift to me though is ETERNAL life. Actual life that doesn't die but lives forever. So the contrast here in relation to what God wants to do with us is between death and life. Termination and continuance. Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill (apokteino - kill, destroy) the body (soma - the physical body), but are not able to kill the soul (psuche - life): but rather fear him which is able to destroy (apollumi - to destroy, abolish, out an end to) BOTH soul and body in hell (geenna - from Gehenna, the place where trash and dead animals were burned) Again, the concern is to defer to God, who is able to destroy both soul and body - everything that we are - in "hell", a place or process or (fill in the blank) where that destruction is done. I'm not told to fear Him who is able to torture and punish me forever, endlessly. I'm told to fear the one who can end the entire body and soul. Could God do that, torture everyone for eternity? Yes. Sure. But that doesn't seem to be what is said in these and many other verses and contexts. Because - well, it doesn't say that or even imply it. There's other verses too, of course, other places we get context and scope. The real issue here is LIFE and the QUALITY of that life. There is a kind of life that is part of that "free gift" of God that's ETERNAL. Without that we don't "live forever". Eventually it gets to Bell's point, or at least the question which is - why would a Creator decide or even allow that some of His creation won't live forever, when some clearly can and will. Why even allow for that outcome. Why not "save" everyone? Or does God plan for that? And if so, what about those WHO CLEARLY DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THAT PLAN - people who would even think that eternity with a God they consider unfair wouldn't be desirable? And I've talked to people who do say they think like that. Lots of stuff to this.

socks again: Well, couple things off the bat, and I'm sure others will chime in.... First point - The issue of God's sovereignty - some people want to believe that if some of us aren't getting condemned to hell forever then some of us are "getting off the hook".....that a righteous God will serve up justice to those who disobey him and the penalty needs to be eternal punishment of some sort. Needless to say whether it's eternal burning or getting pitchforked forever or maybe just having to hang out with Hitler and some of those nasty assed Popes, it's not something anyone will like. Conversely they believe True Justice will be served when God extends magnanimous gestures of grace and mercy to some of us, no matter how bumbling, incompetent, selfish and inept we really were and waves us through to an eternity of fun with the Son because - I dunno - He "Likes Us", maybe, for whatever reasons....? The assumption is that those who believe this will be most likely to get the pass, of course. The scariest version of this is hard core Calvinist theology, salvation by grace, not works, and that God by His own will chooses who will and won't "be saved". One of the weirder splinter teachers of Christian Reformed Calvinist theology was "Harold Camping" who taught what they call hyper Calvinism with a twist of his own to it - he made the news for awhile because he was predicting the return of Christ from the Bible's "data". More than once. I loved to listen to his call in radio show at night when I'd be on long drives. He was down right creepy, but it kept me awake. : ) That hyper Calvinism also covers the section in Ephesians where it talks about "predestination" - in that Calvinist view that means that God predestines and decides everything - who believes, who doesn't, what happens and when, etc. Everything that happens must happen that way because God is "in charge". So if God doesn't want some of us to believe in Him, we're not going to. Some of us will "go to hell" forever, because that's what He wants. "The Elect" and those He chooses, those "sheep" He gives to His Son the Shepherd, will be saved. Others, won't be, by God's determination. These beliefs were codified by some churches in response to theology like Bell's proposing so that they could shut the door tight on any possibilities that might include those who might get or even deserve "a second chance" or perhaps never had even heard of Jesus Christ. Figure - if God wants them, they're gettin' in, regardless. And If I understand it correctly this drills deeper into that predestination plan of God's where He already knows who would believe or not BECAUSE HE MAKES THEM THAT WAY. BUT - This "administration of grace", of the church of Christ of both Gentile and Jew reflects an inclusion of PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED BEFORE CHRIST. So really, the very existence of this time period reflects God's desire for the world to be drawn to Him in ways PREVIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTOOD but now in movement as an entire world hears a message that the Jews didn't believe was directly for anyone but themselves.....ironic in a way. So, this is kind of chatty I know, but I don't want to presume to try to teach a history of theology here - there's a lot of things this doesn't cover, but I as far as I've studied, the real core, real platform, real foundation of disagreement on any of Bell's premise(s) is the question of heaven or hell, but under it all it's the belief that Bell's position questions and demeans God's Ultimate Authority. And by association, their authority. Cause there's a LOT OF POWER in having the one clear voice of God's will. Lot of power. Hell, you can even demand people pay you to hear it. - My take on it is that if God has given us the ability to choose - and He clearly has from Day One of man's relationship with Him - then it reflects His sovereign will to use it. Remember the "first and great commandment" is "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. " If I don't insert my own logic into that statement then I have to assume that God's logic is clear - He's telling me what He wants me to do, so that I can do that. It's not of concern to me whether or not I am even able to do it or not - if I hear that I have to assume that I should choose to do that, to obey that commandment and my next concern is "how". It's important to see that Jesus never taught people that came to Him to hear him and be helped by Him that they couldn't be helped. He never said "No, my Father has said I can't heal you", or "Sorry, you can't have any of the bread or fish, you're not included in this, my Father doesn't want you". He did reject those who rejected Him, who sought to kill him, He did reprove those who taught error and led people astray and who sought their own good and not the good of God and His people. Not many were turned away who came to Him seeking help - there was the one guy who asked Him to help settle a family inheritance issue, and he told the guy he wasn't a judge of those affairs over him (there were others who could do that).....There were some people who turned away from Him after one particular teaching, but it doesn't said He sent them away, it says they left. Another person He told to see all he had and give it away and that person didn't want to do that so they left. But Jesus never looked a person in the eye who was asking Him and who wanted to follow Him and said "Beat it, my Father tells me He didn't plan for you to believe". People say that today, but I don't see that Jesus took that route. God's "sovereignty" means that what God has put in place and done is what's going to happen, and since He's given us these lives and minds that are designed to think, act, choose, respond and learn, we are going to have to learn to function in this world the way He's made it and with the plans He's put in place.

socks on this subject (or on a book on this subject): At the risk of over generalizing and not really getting into the weeds on his book (yet) I would say I agree more with the side he's on (I think) .... more than not. I'll try to come back to this Rocky - it's an invigorating topic. In brief, I don't see that the Bible teaches specifically that the outcome of God's creations, expectation of that creation and subsequent evaluation (judgment) of those creations is to exalt and reward the one's He likes forever (approves of, let's say) and to punish those he doesn't. God's view of things is often described in very human terms in the Bible, even what I'd call humanistic terms - like God being a "jealous" God and God's "vengeance"....mans' definition of many of those words doesn't fit with the God we see presented in Genesis nor in how He trends throughout the subsequent records, although that's how He's described but I never come to the same conclusion as say an angry Preacher shouting out God's Just Hell to all sinners everywhere - God clearly complex but seems to be put forward as One who is at work "creatively" - a word that gets closest to how I (in what I will confess to be very humble perspective) see the Bible's Elohim/Jehovah working. Sovereign, yes. Creative, yes. At work, yes. That's not to refute the inspirational source of the Bible itself, but rather to say it puts meat on the bones of how to understand it..........and the angst of man's struggles isn't one that's going to be at the essence of how a creator and giver of life who nourishes His relationships....feels. Or thinks. It does however give a level of emotional definition to God, and that's an important aspect of understanding God that Bell's book retains. Put another way I see God, whoy loves as strongly as many believe He hates and the result is a level of paradoxical "love" that we come to understand through qualities like grace, mercy and forgiveness...qualities that would seem to hint at a far broader Mind at work. I don't believe there's eternal punishment in store for those who don't accept Christ as savior, no but I can get into that further in this discussion (it involves what "Life" is and how the Bible teaches it). I do believe the entire message of Christ we're to live and spread is one of hope, of trust and of caring. I can't "BE" a Christian or "BE" saved and hate my brothers or even those who strike out against me - Jesus said "Father forgive them, they don't know what they're doing"...... we are not all made by our own hand and intent - we are born who we are, where, at the age and times and to the people we are - completely outside our own ability to plan. People like to say we're accountable and responsible and we "make our own choices"....and we are and we do but we are not a law nor a law give unto ourselves....... So our ability to be right or wrong or even understand either one and "believe" in any one thing or not, is limited outta the gate. IMO. And Bell hits on that somewhat in that Book if I remember right, I read it years ago, seems like it anyway. PEACE!!!

Mark S: Here also is a web site article that I have learned from on the subject of age using the original Greek N.T. words. I have read this article at least once and learned from it. This article was written by someone named Mark Sanguinetti. I wonder who that person is because I sometimes call myself Marky Spaghetti instead of Mark Sanguinetti? Age and the Greek Words Aion and Aionios

Mark S said: Yes and the word sometimes translated as eternal in bible versions are the Greek words "aion" and "aionios"". In English these biblical words are also often translated 'age". All usages of the Greek word for eternal in the book of Revelation is the Greek word often translated as "age" or "ages" in other New Testament scriptures. I can looks this up because of my biblical study software that I have. Age is a period of time that could be long or short.

While I can't say I agree on ALL points, I agree with Mark that a lot of the doctrine was adapted from Greco-Roman mythology, of shades in the underworld, tortured for eternity. I agree with him and Rob Bell that I don't buy the idea that lots of humanity will be (or are) tortured for centuries or forever. I don't see that squaring the the Bible, and I don't see that squaring with God's M.O. There was a quote, attributed to Mark Twain, where he supposedly didn't agree with it, either. It's one thing to destroy a villain, it is another to punish for a time during his sentence, but to torture forever made no sense to him. (I just don't see "eternal torture for humanity" working on paper.)

Mark S already had this to say.... The Myths of Hell My goal is to also write a book. One of the chapters of my future book is on this web site with link above which I did. Rob Bell sounds like he is not a hateful person mixed with common sense and likely a study of the bible also. To use demonic theology and believe that immediately after death all people go to either hell for eternal torment or heaven for eternal pleasure is crazy. This was not part of the Old Testament theology. Hell is instead the grave or the place of death. And biblical translators see this with newer biblical versions for example the NIV, having ZERO usages of the word Hell in the entire Old Testament. The doctrine of hell originated with Greek, Roman and perhaps other mystic theology. Hell is simply the grave or the place of death. It takes God the creator to raise people from the dead. The first man to be raised from the dead to live eternally is Jesus Christ. All Christian who read the bible and believe in Jesus Christ should see this. Otherwise they are dumb-dee dumb dumb. In the actual bible for people who know how to read. After the resurrection of Jesus Christ we have the followers of Jesus Christ to be raised from the dead next and this is when Jesus Christ returns. We have seen this in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Then in the figurative book of Revelation chapter 20, we have the first resurrection with those who were persecuted for the work of God being raised from the dead. Next we have what can be called the resurrection of the unjust. The outcome of this resurrection is not clearly stated in the figurative and not literal book of Revelation. However, since God is referred to as the God of love. What is the purpose of raising humans from the dead???? To torture them only? Or to improve them with perhaps some punishment, which we often get now, but to at least try to purify their sin nature so that they can see how good and loving Jesus Christ is, while following him. The clearest example of this in the bible is Jesus Christ appearing to Saul, also named Paul; and getting him to change from one of the most hateful persecutors of the followers of Jesus Christ to the best teacher of Jesus Christ and God's word as seen in the New Testament. This is clearly seen by reading Acts chapter 9. Acts Chapter 9

No matter what your position on the subject, I think few would deny it's an emotionally-charged subject for many, and for some it's one of the main, if not THE main, topic for thought concerning God, the Universe, and so on. After all, if life on Earth is temporary, and something after that is eternal, then what comes after might be seen as a lot more important than what happens here. It's certainly been talked about a lot down the centuries. Shakespeare himself makes a passing reference to the subject in Hamlet's famous "To Be or Not To Be" soliloquy, and final disposition became a minor point in that story (that of Hamlet's father, that of Claudius, etc.) Hamlet said we didn't know what happens, and no traveler returns to tell us what happens, and I'm sure none of that was too obscure for Shakespeare's audiences. They were neither the first nor the last to think about all this. To some, the answer is OBLIVION. We live, and after that, there is nothing whatsoever. That's perhaps the default position of those who believe there's no Higher Power, no Fate, no Destiny, and so on. There's no reason to live, so there's no reason to exist after "life" in any form. To some others, the answer is "reincarnation." To them, all of a person's existence can be thought of as a wheel. They live, they die, then they return to live again as a human or an animal. I've heard it expressed that the goal of such returns and reincarnations is so that a person can improve over multiple lifetimes and lifeforms, eventually improving enough to get promoted, so to speak, from the wheel of lives and go on to some form of afterlife, some form of Heaven or heaven. My main problem with these systems is that I don't think they work on paper. Any statistician can explain the concept of "regression towards the mean." In any group (and moreso as the numbers of individuals increase), all the members of a population tend towards "average." The outliers are high and low, with most clustered around the mean, and possibly the median or mode. So, based simply on statistics, I would expect any one lifetime to be average, neither moving one up nor down the ladder. The outliers might point higher- but it's equally likely they will point LOWER, possibly canceling out the gains of the previous lifetime. For an individual, one would expect to live a few higher and a few lower, and most as average. So, over 50 lifetimes, one should, statistically speaking, expect to remain effectively walking in place. Don't expect the average person will make it to promotion even over 1000 years. In fact, the numbers will suggest the longer they try, the more likely they go NO PLACE but remain at the same level. It's only if one counts one or possibly 2 lifetimes that one should expect to be either significantly ahead or significantly behind. The more lifetimes one averages in, the more likely they will end in an "average" result.

This is a thread for discussing the various positions concerning humans, eternity, and their final disposition in eternity, infinity, and so on. I'll primarily come at it from a perspective reflecting what I think the Bible says, but that's not the only perspective allowed for this thread. All positions are fair game, as are all sources (like books).

Sure sounds like Rocky AND "Time.com", whom Rocky chose to quote, are claiming "universal salvation" is a main thrust of the book, if not THE main thrust of the book. But, no discussing either- or vpw's position on it or vf's position on it, for that matter, without discussing Rob Bell's position on it. No idea why that's such an issue when the alternative is to just open a new thread right next to this one with that as the subject, but that's how Rocky wants it, so I'll let him have it his way.

I normally wouldn't consider that as an option, but now I'll consider "borrowing" it that way. Presuming their system lets me. I'm curious why you're being so cagey about the book's contents, but I'll play along anyway.

One of our posters once insisted vpw never plagiarized. Then, once it was incredibly obvious he DID plagiarize, the poster went on to say that God Almighty either gave vpw the same material He gave others, so it was God Almighty who apparently plagiarized. Then he switched to "but we're all God's Children so God authorized him to plagiarize it and it was OK because it all belonged to God so He could authorize plagiarizing it." So, it would not surprise me if somebody tried that, somewhere.

the original F13, Jason was not "present a lot." Furthermore, we learned that, years ago, he was a kid who went to Camp Crystal Lake for Summer Camp, and supposedly died because he fell in the water, and the counselors on-duty were slacking off and weren't where they were supposed to be, so someone blamed them for Jason's "death."

The address of the main characters- and the setting for many scenes- was 328 Chauncey Street, in Brooklyn. The main restaurant mentioned was "the Hong Kong Gardens." One character didn't seem to wear a watch, but could tell the time by smelling out his window. They had a Chinese take-out place downstairs, and-they cooked by a strict schedule. So, based on the dish he could smell, and whether he was at his own window or his downstairs neighbor, he could tell what time it was, unless someone ordered a family special, which threw him off completely. Although none of the characters were astronauts, and despite all of the scenes taking place on Earth, there were frequent mentions of one of the 4 main characters possibly being sent to the Moon or going there- some of them outright, some of them rephrased but obvious in context. BTW, not really a clue per se, but I was surprised that the title of this series actually can translate properly into Spanish without losing meaning or connotation. Depending on how you define the concept, this was either a short-lived show, or a very long-lived show. Some time before this show, 2 of the main characters had used "pet names" for each other- "Buttercup" and "Bunny." Another of the principal cast was an "engineer of subterranean sanitation."

Considering all of that (especially the number of sequels), is this "Friday the 13th", either "Part 2" or "Part 3"?

A) I'm not posting from the USA, so it's not in any public library local to me. I also don't want to sign up for Amazon solely to read this. If it's available online without signing up, sure I'll read it. I'm pretty sure I have a program that will render it on a desktop already. B) We either dance around a book's contents, or we discuss the book's contents. If we dance around them, this is not a discussion OF the book's contents. If we discuss the book's contents, the thread makes plain what the topics are of the book (to the degree they're discussed.) Based on what you've posted so far, the author is either stating outright he's supporting "universal salvation", or he's insinuating it while refusing to state it outright (I find that intellectually dishonest no matter WHO does it.) I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's saying it outright, sooner or later in the book. It seems Mark S came to much the same conclusion (his posts reflect that understanding.) So, either the author is supporting that position (based on what you, the thread-maker, posted) or he is not and your communications made it look otherwise. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're representing the book's contents fairly faithfully. C) I'm not asking you to "change" anything. You seem to be pretty specific that you're tightly defining the discussion. If the author wrote a book espousing "universal salvation", then discussing "universal salvation" while discussing that selfsame book sure sounds completely on-topic, at least by our usual practices. If we have to only discuss the subject in light of direct quotes from the book, then it seems this thread is very limited- and needlessly so, IMHO. So, normally we'd just discuss both in one thread. Since you seemed opposed to that, I asked. Mainly, I want to know if you're going to have issues discussing it on this thread. If so, then I'll open a parallel thread where we can actually discuss the topic you brought up, and both the content the author provided as well as what we ourselves bring to the table. I think it's a waste of time and would rather just continue on this thread, but if so, you'll have to ease up and let people chime in without prefacing their sentences with "In accordance with Rob Bell" or something along those lines. This is not a rigorous academic forum instituted by a university. We can decide to what degree we're unclenching today. So, simple question, IMHO. Can we discuss "universal salvation" in general in this thread, or will we need to open a parallel thread to do so?

In case anyone's wondering, the quote from the Amplified Bible is NOT a departure from vpw, it is right out of his playbook. The only difference is that they are admitting that's where its from (if not, a few seconds of a websearch would reveal it, of course.) vpw used to do "literal translations according to usage" that looked an awful lot like the Amplified Bible's rendering of the same verse. The best known is probably Philippians 4:13. vpw rendered it "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses inner strength into me." (Sing along if you want, Acts 29 did a song including it, probably because they were told that was HIS rendering of the verse.) Philippians 4:13 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC) 13 I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me [I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him Who infuses inner strength into me;[/u] [/u]I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency] I'm sure there's someone out there who's ready to say that both rendered it the same because both got Divine Revelation to do so, rather than vpw just lifting their work without attribution- which was the basis for his entire career, as we now know in these parts.

Granted, he's not addressing quotes from Rob Bell's book. That having been said, is this topic tightly confined to that? It seems the thrust of the book- if I understand correctly- is that of "universal salvation", that is, that all of humanity will be saved. Are we unable to discuss that if it isn't tied to a direct quote? If not, my own involvement in this thread's going to be minimal at most.

The address of the main characters- and the setting for many scenes- was 328 Chauncey Street, in Brooklyn. The main restaurant mentioned was "the Hong Kong Gardens." One character didn't seem to wear a watch, but could tell the time by smelling out his window. They had a Chinese take-out place downstairs, and-they cooked by a strict schedule. So, based on the dish he could smell, and whether he was at his own window or his downstairs neighbor, he could tell what time it was, unless someone ordered a family special, which threw him off completely.

No, that takes place primarily in Manhattan.

Next show. The address of the main characters- and the setting for many scenes- was 328 Chauncey Street, in Brooklyn.

*does some quick research* Super Fetch is an optimizing program. Its purpose is to use processor power you're NOT using and use it to pre-fetch things you commonly use. This means that programs you use all the time may load faster (they're already loaded) or files you use a lot may open faster (it's already accessed). If you turn it off, you won't have performance problems. At worst, some things you used to see open faster will open slower, but they will still open in standard amounts of time. The only reasons this would be an issue is if you're using a low-performance PC and it was already taking a long time even with Super Fetch, or you're using a slower machine to run PC games. PC games often use a LOT of the processor power, and sharing it with Super Fetch may make it struggle to keep up. So, it's safe to stop the service, but you probably don't need to anyway.