I DID NOT CUT ANYTHING NC
The bible is not reality NC its just an aspect NC. The choice in relation to going to hell is not there's to make. The option is offered when it is
appropriate by the ONE who makes that decision.
NC beyond the link you have offered do you have any other reference which supports your claim?
They are not distortions they are interpretations.
"Handy" is a word you apply I have never stated anything different in relation to my beliefs. You seem to want very much to stereotype me as a
someone, who wants very much to lie about what I am.
I am not lying NC but you have manufactured issues. Clearly in my responses to you I have made reference to their origin. This is not a book NC I am
not required to catalogue my sources every time I present a point. If that is the case the Simon needs to update his regulations. There are places in
the bible where Reincarnation is denied and as well where it is accepted. specifically it does portend to inconsistencies.
Something you seem to be very good at (inconsistent). If you want to argue with the writer of the website that is your problem. My point is that
despite your repeated FALSE accusations I did not "cut" anything!!!
When in the past I have placed my comment in a post along with text from a website I do always place a line.
This has not changed and if you wish I would be happy to forward you copies of every interaction I had (in my lifetime) in relation to forums or
bulletin boards I have had discussions on in my lifetime (I do have 3.5 floppy copies of all of them). I assure you there is no discrepancy.
I am still waiting for your retraction and apology????
Let continue with the refference as well
as FMs homework
The doctrine itself
Looking at the sequence of creation from its inception to its conclusion, one could summarize Origen's theological system as follows: Originally all
beings existed as pure mind on an ideational or thought level. Humans, angels, and heavenly bodies lacked incarnate existence and had their being only
as ideas. This is a very natural view for anyone like Origen who was trained in both Christian and Platonic thought. Since there is no account in the
scriptures of what preceded creation, it seemed perfectly natural to Origen to appeal to Plato for his answers.
God, for the Platonist, is pure intelligence and all things were reconciled with God before creation - an assumption which scripture does not appear
to contradict. Then as the process of the fall began, individual beings became weary of their union with God and chose to defect or grow cold in their
divine ardor. As the mind became cool toward God, it made the first step down in its fall and became soul. The soul, now already once removed from its
original state, continued with its defection to the point of taking on a body. This, as we know from Platonism, is indeed a degradation, for the
highest type of manifestation is on the mental level and the lowest is on the physical.
Such an account of man's fall does not mean that Origen rejected Genesis. It only means that he was willing to allow for allegorical interpretation;
thus Eden is not necessarily spatially located, but is a cosmic and metaphysical event wherein pure disincarnate idea became fettered to physical
matter. What was essential for Christianity, as Origen perceived, is that the fall be voluntary and result in a degree of estrangement from God.
Where there is a fall, there must follow the drama of reconciliation. Love is one of God's qualities, as Origen himself acknowledged, and from this
it follows that God will take an interest in the redemption of his creatures. For Origen, this means that after the drama of incarnation the soul
assumes once again its identity as mind and recovers its ardor for God.
It was to hasten this evolution that in the fullness of time God sent the Christ. The Christ of Origen was the Incarnate Word (he was also the only
being that did not grow cold toward God), and he came both as a mediator and as an incarnate image of God's goodness. By allowing the wisdom and
light of God to shine in one's life through the inspiration of Christ, the individual soul could swiftly regain its ardor for God, leave behind the
burden of the body, and regain complete reconciliation with God. In fact, said Origen, much to the outrage of his critics, the extent and power of
God's love is so great that eventually all things will be restored to him, even Satan and his legions.
Since the soul's tenancy of any given body is but one of many episodes in its journey from God and back again, the doctrine of reincarnation is
implicit. As for the resurrection of the body, Origen created a tempest of controversy by insisting that the physical body wastes away and returns to
dust, while the resurrection takes on a spiritual or transformed body. This is of course handy for the reincarnationist, for it means that the
resurrected body either can be the summation and climax of all the physical bodies that came before or indeed may bear no resemblance at all to the
many physical bodies.
There will come a time when the great defection from God that initiated physical creation will come to an end. All things, both heavenly bodies and
human souls, will be so pure and ardent in their love for God that physical existence will no longer be necessary. The entire cohesion of creation
will come apart, for matter will be superfluous. Then, to cite one of Origen's favorite passages, all things will be made subject to God and God will
be "all in all." ( 1 Cor. 15:28 ) This restoration of all things proposed by Origen gave offense in later centuries. It seemed quite sensible to
Origen that anything that defects from God must eventually be brought back to him. As he triumphantly affirmed at the end of his "On First
Principles", men are the "blood brothers" of God himself and cannot stay away forever.