Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[catfish]

"All" is highly subject to context, and in this case, context is provided by 'in Christ'. Where is your proof that this is intended to cover even those condemned to hell, especially when what dooms one to hell is not being 'in Christ'?

Please explain how "all" is subject to context...

This should be entertaining...

[Ryantology]

If you do not understand how language works, there's nothing I can do to help you.

[catfish]

So you'll deprive me of a good laugh?

Out of your league brother...
.

[Violet]

Please explain how "all" is subject to context...

This should be entertaining...

All things are subjective, innately possessing context by which they are then summed, judged, and systematically ignored.

That which should be entertaining is a lot less of a hook to me than that which is guaranteed to incite chortling: someone making an argument that includes the word 'objective' or any number of its forms (vly, vizing, er).

Now that's some good stuff ^_^

---

If you do not understand how language works, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Do you understand how language works? I might be able to help you with that...

But then, despite my incredibly adventurous English vocabulary, and my quaintly creative sentence structure (or intentional omissions of proper prose): I am a terrible communicator.

Half the time, someone will think I'm insulting them; the other half openly mocking them; AND THE REST JUST THINK I'M PLAIN CRAZY, and perhaps more than a little silly.

I'm really quite the charmer (it's true as God is true!) Infact, twithout such... who would I be?



'After all, what would the world be like without Captain James Hook?'

PS: don't let the original question become burred 'neath harmless harangue. More pointedly: can you tell us how English works?

[Ryantology]

See, many words either have multiple meanings, or different values when referring to words which are quantitative in nature (unless the words in question are specific numbers or describe amounts tied to specific numbers; 'dozen' is always twelve). Such words, by themselves, cannot have a single exclusive meaning. It depends on context provided by words surrounding them.

In this particular example, it might mean that everybody, ever, will be brought back to life. However, it cannot, because there is a qualifier: 'in Christ'. Acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior is paramount to the Christian idea of everlasting life, it is, indeed, one of its very core tenets. It is made abundantly clear throughout the New Testament that rejection of Christ denies one this alleged gift and the gift of salvation, the price of which is to be refused entry into Heaven and to be cast into the lake of eternal fire.

You assert that everybody, including those damned, will be brought back to life. The term 'in Christ' denies this; its very meaning exempts the damned from resurrection, because they are not 'in Christ'. They have rejected him. It's the very reason they were damned. Thus, 'all' in this statement means 'all who have accepted Christ', as the following descriptions of this event all focus on the truly faithful. Those who are not are nowhere mentioned or described in this chapter. It is made abundantly clear that resurrection is a reward to be earned by the select.

"I used all the eggs" can mean "I used all the eggs in the world", but "I used all the eggs in my fridge" cannot have the same meaning unless all the eggs in the world resided in my fridge.

And that is how context works.

[catfish]

Ok, then by your reasoning, only those who accept Adam will die, right? You reject the OT stories, does that mean you're immortal then?

How does your "context" deal with this?

Philippians 2:10-12
King James Version (KJV)

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Do you have an alternative definition of "every" too? It seems pretty damn obvious that everyone will eventually accept "Jesus" according to the text...
.

[Esquilax]

Ok, then by your reasoning, only those who accept Adam will die, right? You reject the OT stories, does that mean you're immortal then?

How does your "context" deal with this?

If he rejects the old testament and believes there is no god, does that not also mean that any and all reasoning presented in such books is nothing but fantasy to him?

You're asking him to provide reasoning for a conclusion when he doesn't even accept the premise. It's silly, for the same reason asking you why you're not afraid of the muslim hell even though you don't pay proper deference to Allah would be silly.

[catfish]

Ok, then by your reasoning, only those who accept Adam will die, right? You reject the OT stories, does that mean you're immortal then?

How does your "context" deal with this?

If he rejects the old testament and believes there is no god, does that not also mean that any and all reasoning presented in such books is nothing but fantasy to him?

You're asking him to provide reasoning for a conclusion when he doesn't even accept the premise. It's silly, for the same reason asking you why you're not afraid of the muslim hell even though you don't pay proper deference to Allah would be silly.

The first line of my response was actually "tongue in cheek"...

The question regarding his "context" was in reference to the Philippians passage that followed which uses the word "every"...
.

[Esquilax]

The first line of my response was actually "tongue in cheek"...

The question regarding his "context" was in reference to the Philippians passage that followed which uses the word "every"...
.

Fair enough. It just sometimes become hard to tell occasionally. Poe's law and all.

[Ryantology]

Ok, then by your reasoning, only those who accept Adam will die, right? You reject the OT stories, does that mean you're immortal then?

Unless I'm mistaken and that passage makes 'acceptance of Adam' a requirement for dying, I'd have to say that you have a poor grasp of my reasoning.

Do you have an alternative definition of "every" too? It seems pretty damn obvious that everyone will eventually accept "Jesus" according to the text...

No, it covers 'every' quite well by using context. It also appears to imply one of two interesting things.

1. Confessing that Christ is Lord is not the same thing as accepting him as savior. I can accept that he is what he says he is, and still refuse his salvation. It could also mean that God just wants to rub it in on those who snub him (which is completely befitting his character). So, this does not prove that hell is a finite sentence.

2. Confessing that Christ is Lord is the same thing as accepting him as savior, which may imply that a stay in hell is finite. Which makes the entire religion a giant farce; you're going to do it one way or another. You ultimately have no choice. So, the one single incentive to do it now is because God is a sadistic psychopath and in spite of being eternal, is apparently pressed for time (but also apparently not so much that he just can't make you kneel right now, but nobody sane thinks this shit makes any sense).