An interesting Find.

A good case for Universal Salvation can be found here.

“1. The NATURE, CHARACTER and ATTRIBUTES of GOD. The nature of God is LOVE. This love is infinite in degree unlimited in extent, and endless in duration. It therefore extends to every sentient being that ever did, does now, or ever will, exist in the universe. In character, God is kind, good, benevolent, merciful and just. God’s attributes are omnipotence omniscience, omnipresence, infinite wisdom, holiness, justice, mercy and truth. Every quality, characteristic and attribute of God, is under the supreme control and direction of goodness or love. God is the primary cause of all things He is, therefore, the author of man’s existence; and, consequently, his Creator. God never acts without a design. He must, therefore, have had some design in creating man. God is impartial. He has, therefore, the same design in creating all men, that he had in creating the first man. God is good; and no good being can act with a bad design. The design which he had in creating man, and the design which He has in creating all men, must therefore be good. To create beings for misery, would be to create them with a bad design. To create beings for happiness, would be to create them with a good design. Therefore, God created man for happiness; and the existence which he conferred upon him, he designed to be, on the whole, a blessing and not a curse.”



8 Comments Add yours

  1. Anony Mole says:

    Were one to accept that package of attributes then I would insist on adding one more: god is full of contradictions.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I appreciate your opinion but do you have an argument? Which attrabutes can’t exist together in one entity?


      1. Anony Mole says:

        I think the standard argument goes something like this: omnipotence + omniscience + Good != the pain and suffering of children.

        If god is love and goodness then love and goodness includes some of the most heinous evils that have ever been perpetuated. Therefore, to me, that poses a contradiction, does it not?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That’s a good Argument, though, it isn’t perfect. I’ve watched my mentor suffer recently due to an accidental overuse of a prescription drug that, upon realizing what he did quite cold turkey and is currently living through ramifications of it; his nerves are overstimulated, his muscle always tight, his mind foggy. He lapses in and out of intense anxiety and depression.

          I was there with him as he sobbed and prayed to God to let him sleep that night; for his heart can’t stop racing just above the threshold of sleep. And I couldn’t help but wonder why a good and loving God would allow this; it seems a rather imperative contradiction that God can’t be good if he is Omnipotent or Omnipotent if he is good.

          But, “perhaps, what we call evil is, to the person that needs it, the best good.” Perhaps what is good isn’t simply being and feeling good, but being good even in the mist of hell. Perhaps God allows evil, or is even in a sense responsible for it because it is better for all of us to go through it and overcome then to live without a knowledge of what sin is.


          1. Anony Mole says:

            It seems to me that often times the basis or aspects of a religion require rationalization.
            If you find you must rationalize evil into good, torture into fun, murder as a hobby, etc. (I’m being facetious here for effect), that any god that one would be defending with such rationalization is not one I would care to believe in, much less honor or worship.
            I’m speaking from a theoretical position here, I personally only worship the heat death of the universe, but still, thinking that one can some how rationalize the most heinous, abominable behavior as some manifestation of a god’s love and goodwill, well, I’d say that was a stretch.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I can see where your coming from; especially with worshipping a God that doesn’t deserve to be believed in. I’ve had a qualm with my evengelical friends about an eternal Hell once I realized it’s antithesis was much more acceptable if God was a God of love.

              That said. I don’t see anything wrong in rationalizing a worldview; it by no means makes it wrong, it merely means that you’ve made an incoherent worldview coherent. I realize that in no ways proves my claim, but it’s rather absurd to accept a veiw because a fault once seen was shown to be faultless.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Anony Mole says:

            If one were to surrender just one of those OMNI – attributes, then most monotheisms probably hang together alright.
            Mainly this one: omnipotent. If you get rid of that but still let a god be omniscient and omnipresent, then I think one needn’t be coerced into a twisted rationalization.
            If a god knows about evil but can’t do anything about it that god still might be all good and love and such, but just be powerless to fight evil.
            It’s the combination of the omnis that creates the conundrum.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Again, I can see where your coming from, but I disagree.

              Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s