Apokatastasis in the early church

[St. SteVen]

That was a powerful testimony. Not one Fundamentalist theologian can ever take away his supernatural experience.

We overcome by the word of our testimony and the blood of the Lamb.

/

 

[BarneyFife]

The narrow path? Do you mean the one that few find?
Which means God is making sport of our eternal destiny?
Solve the puzzle and you are in. Otherwise you are toast.

Is that the great news you proclaim?

/

I know we're not exactly on the same page here, but I get a little bewildered sometimes by the attitude that salvation is a long-odds game. I don't believe everyone will be saved, even if against their own will, but I do believe everyone could.

I've given some really deep thought to problems that folks won't talk about like how people who live extremely short and tormented lives can be fairly or justly judged or saved and what God actually does with truly ignorant sin, etc., ad infinitum and I don't have all the answers by an infinitely long shot but the way I hear some people talk, I don't even know how some folks are going to recognize Jesus when they see Him. And they will see Him.

The dismissiveness with which "Christian" bigots write off people who don't toe their party line is irksome, at best. These people are going to be very lonely in the "Heaven" they are, hopefully, unwittingly imagining to exist.

I get a lot of mileage and traction out of "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" and I all too often have to turn it back onto myself. I have it on very good authority that I can be quite a bonehead.


.

 

[St. SteVen]

I know we're not exactly on the same page here, but I get a little bewildered sometimes by the attitude that salvation is a long-odds game. I don't believe everyone will be saved, even if against their own will, but I do believe everyone could.

I'm flabbergasted by the idea that SOME don't WANT to be saved. Say what? Against their own will? !!! ???

I've given some really deep thought to problems that folks won't talk about like how people who live extremely short and tormented lives can be fairly or justly judged or saved and what God actually does with truly ignorant sin, etc., ad infinitum and I don't have all the answers by an infinitely long shot but the way I hear some people talk, I don't even know how some folks are going to recognize Jesus when they see Him. And they will see Him.

Right.
If Jesus showed up would they recognize him?

The dismissiveness with which "Christian" bigots write off people who don't toe their party line is irksome, at best. These people are going to be very lonely in the "Heaven" they are, hopefully, unwittingly imagining to exist.

Right.
They will be very surprised by where they end up.
I imagine them arguing doctrine with Jesus. - LOL

I get a lot of mileage and traction out of "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" and I all too often have to turn it back onto myself. I have it on very good authority that I can be quite a bonehead.

I can empathize. - LOL

/

 

[MatthewG]

Do you think it is fair to say that seminarians know about the things presented in the video, but will never share them with their congregations?

It's impossible to say that it is not something that not possible to happen. I never asked anyone what they learned from seminary class, and after sharing some of my understanding and perspective of the bible with a person who said for a while he taught on the bible, just seen me as strange for believing that even Satan has been done away with, and God through Christ reconciled the world unto himself, and is the savior of especially those who believe.

Like the creation account and the flood account are only legends. There was no exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were actually Canaanites, there was no "entering" the Promised Land, only genocide to remove the OTHER Canaanites, that Daniel was a pretend prophet, etc. ???

Somethings are just completely unknowable, and how one looks and can see what may be taught through the narrative, could be beneficial if they are seeking God by and through their heart and mind, as he writes on their mind, and heart as they seek him out in faith, which pleases him.

I would have to actually go read the narrative, and when having read Joshua, I had no problem with him leaving nothing undone, and when it takes accounts of what is written within the bible, are things which are ultimately taken in faith, and hopefully people seek to understand what is being said by the spirit, and also looking at the narrative of the concerning Chosen nation of Israel, which God had chosen, with 12 nations in total, or 12 Kingdoms, who were also destined by their own choices to disobey Yahava, destruction of their nation in whole materially.

God is the life giver, and the life taker. God will give life to a hardened heart of what a person wants and use it towards his purpose, God will give life to a hardened heart to a softer heart, if they continue to listen and not disobey looking towards the Father in heaven, and seeking the Lord.

I know that the denominations force Pastors to sign an agreement with their established doctrines, from which they are forbidden to "stray".

There are some out there, no doubt.

And then there's the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. ??? The evangelicals can't even agree on the definition of inerrancy. - LOL

/ @Chadrho

Inerrent, - Jesus. As long as it is all by worshipping and seeking God in spirit and truth. Loving God, and loving others, even if they reject you for believing in the Word coming down from heaven, living a perfect life, giving up his life for the ability to complete and fulfill the law, with him becoming King after being resurrected by the Holy Spirit of Yahava, and afterwards a little while later ascended into the heavens, until his return and rescue of those 144,000, supposed virgins, of the 12 tribes, kingdoms, or the nation of Israel collectively, despite their seperations.

 

[BarneyFife]

I'm flabbergasted by the idea that SOME don't WANT to be saved. Say what? Against their own will? !!! ???

I understand that no one wants to die or, worse yet, be barbequed forever(¿). But I'm including in the idea of salvation my own belief (but not mine alone) that the only thing we take with us beyond this life is our character and whatever memories are left after God does whatever it is He will do to wipe all tears from our eyes and make all things new.

I mean, to me, it has implications regarding the very nature of salvation itself. What is it that's being saved—our souls or just our hides (like Judas, the insane mob that nearly stoned Joshua and Caleb, or Saul)? Am I tracking anywhere near reason, here?

I'm not boned up on Universalism but I'm assuming God is believed to do some kind of overhaul on people's wills to make them suitable for holy society? Certainly, there'll be a monstrous learning curve for everyone but for folks who cursed God and Heaven while going down to their graves? It's new territory for me. I never had a friend who believed that way before, so you'll have to bear with me, I guess. :cool:


.

 

[Hillsage]

I understand that no one wants to die or, worse yet, be barbequed forever(¿). But I'm including in the idea of salvation my own belief (but not mine alone) that the only thing we take with us beyond this life is our character and whatever memories are left after God does whatever it is He will do to wipe all tears from our eyes and make all things new.

I mean, to me, it has implications regarding the very nature of salvation itself. What is it that's being saved—our souls or just our hides (like Judas, the insane mob that nearly stoned Joshua and Caleb, or Saul)? Am I tracking anywhere near reason, here?

I'm not boned up on Universalism but I'm assuming God is believed to do some kind of overhaul on people's wills to make them suitable for holy society? Certainly, there'll be a monstrous learning curve for everyone but for folks who cursed God and Heaven while going down to their graves? It's new territory for me. I never had a friend who believed that way before, so you'll have to bear with me, I guess. :cool:


'.

Everything you've posted so far here, makes me think you have a good heart and more importantly haven't manifested an unteachable spirit concerning a doctrine as radical as this, when it comes to the modern church. And you saying that you have never had a friend who believed that way is very understandable to me. I hope I'm correct in assuming you are surely 'aware' of this doctrine, after 8,000+ posts here.

'Free will' is one of those beliefs/doctrines which is really not that well supported biblically in Steven and my opinion. But especially so when discussing the salvation that pertains to your spirit getting saved. The spirit is the 'first' salvation, and the one that gets you IN TO heaven in the hereafter. And that plays an important part also in this 'reconciliation of all' (salvation of all) subject. I really don't like the term Universalism really, because it is too broad and error filled with splinter groups IMO.

Some scriptures concerning God not 'forcing' your will, but He will definitely allow forces to change your will IMO.

PHI 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

ROM 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

JOH 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

A question, if I may? How important was 'your will' when it came to being 'born' into your earthly family?

 

[Hillsage]

Everything you've posted so far here, makes me think you have a good heart and more importantly haven't manifested an unteachable spirit concerning a doctrine as radical as this, especially so, when it comes to the modern church. And you saying that you have never had a friend who believed that way is very understandable to me. I hope I'm correct in assuming you are surely 'aware' of this doctrine, after 8,000+ posts here.

'Free will' is one of those beliefs/doctrines which is really not that well supported biblically in Steven and my opinion. But especially so when discussing the salvation that pertains to your spirit getting saved. The spirit is the 'first' salvation, and the one that gets you IN TO heaven in the hereafter. And that plays an important part also in this 'reconciliation of all' (salvation of all) subject. I really don't like the term Universalism really, because it is too broad and error filled with splinter groups IMO.

Some scriptures concerning God not 'forcing' your will, but He will definitely allow forces to change your will IMO.

PHI 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

ROM 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

JOH 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

A question, if I may? How important was 'your will' when it came to being 'born' into your earthly family?

 

[BarneyFife]

A question, if I may? How important was 'your will' when it came to being 'born' into your earthly family?

I don't know, but I don't remember ever feeling forced by anything supernatural to make decisions about religion in a positive way. I do, however, remember sensing a lot of coercion toward the negative, which would bear out my general belief on the matter, I would say, i.e., God woos; Satan harasses.


.

 

[St. SteVen]

I'm not boned up on Universalism but I'm assuming God is believed to do some kind of overhaul on people's wills to make them suitable for holy society? Certainly, there'll be a monstrous learning curve for everyone but for folks who cursed God and Heaven while going down to their graves? It's new territory for me. I never had a friend who believed that way before, so you'll have to bear with me, I guess. :cool:

I run into this idea of "the angry and willful sinner in the afterlife" claim quite often.
It doesn't work for me. The idea that someone would be "happier" in hell than in heaven. Seriously?
Preferring to burn rather than be healed and comforted? Is that supposed to make sense?
Choosing the furnace over a shoulder to cry on? Really?

As I have often said, those who "claim" to hate God haven't met him yet.
Pretty sure the two can sort things out face-to-face. God is love, after all.

Many Christian are repelled by the idea of UR because they want "justice".
We can't have all these horrible sinners getting off "Scot-free", now can we?
(seems to me that our redemption meant that for us, right?)
Unfortunately, what they mean by "justice" is revenge. Seven-fold if they can get it.

But revenge is a sin. God commands us not to do it. He will repay. (whatever that means)
And if it is a sin for us, it would be a sin for him.
Unless he operates under a lower standard than he holds us to.

/

 

[Hillsage]

I don't know, but I don't remember ever feeling forced by anything supernatural to make decisions about religion in a positive way. I do, however, remember sensing a lot of coercion toward the negative, which would bear out my general belief on the matter, I would say, i.e., God woos; Satan harasses.


.

I understand what you're saying, and said the very same thing for years. But more scriptual proofs surfaced for me to deal with. Here is one.

JOH 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me DRAW (Gr = helkuo) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

1670 helkuo: to drag (lit. or fig.)

So here, in the words of Jesus, we are told that the FATHER 'drags' us to Jesus. Did I 'feel forced' in hindsight, whenever I read this verse? No I didn't. But the definition used by translators who 'FELT' like you and I did, couldn't wrap their mind around the Gr word helkuo's literal definition and usage.

That word is used 8 times in the NT. When read 'in context' you don't get the "feeling" that any of these verses indicate a 'wooing' type of drawing.

JOH 6:44 sent me [1670] draw him: and I will raise him up at the last
JOH 12:32 earth, will [1670] draw all men unto me.
JOH 18:10 a sword [1670] drew it, and smote the high priest's
JOH 21:6 able to [1670] draw it for the multitude of fishes.
JOH 21:11 went up, and [1670] drew the net to land full of great
ACT 16:19 Silas, and [1670] drew them into the marketplace unto the
ACT 21:30 Paul, and [1670] drew him out of the temple: and forthwith
JAM 2:6 oppress you, and [1670] draw you before the judgment seats?

Your thoughts on just this one word? I don't want to bite of more than small portions here, because this whole subject has been so 'ingrained' into our typical 'church' thinking.

 

[BarneyFife]

I understand what you're saying, and said the very same thing for years. But more scriptual proofs surfaced for me to deal with. Here is one.

JOH 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me DRAW (Gr = helkuo) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

1670 helkuo: to drag (lit. or fig.)

So here, in the words of Jesus, we are told that the FATHER 'drags' us to Jesus. Did I 'feel forced' in hindsight, whenever I read this verse? No I didn't. But the definition used by translators who 'FELT' like you and I did, couldn't wrap their mind around the Gr word helkuo's literal definition and usage.

That word is used 8 times in the NT. When read 'in context' you don't get the "feeling" that any of these verses indicate a 'wooing' type of drawing.

JOH 6:44 sent me [1670] draw him: and I will raise him up at the last
JOH 12:32 earth, will [1670] draw all men unto me.
JOH 18:10 a sword [1670] drew it, and smote the high priest's
JOH 21:6 able to [1670] draw it for the multitude of fishes.
JOH 21:11 went up, and [1670] drew the net to land full of great
ACT 16:19 Silas, and [1670] drew them into the marketplace unto the
ACT 21:30 Paul, and [1670] drew him out of the temple: and forthwith
JAM 2:6 oppress you, and [1670] draw you before the judgment seats?

Your thoughts on just this one word? I don't want to bite of more than small portions here, because this whole subject has been so 'ingrained' into our typical 'church' thinking.

Hey, I like you. We could talk. You don't appear to be consumed with your own point of view. What's up with that? Have you been optimizing your brain, studying emotional intelligence, or maybe just spending a lot of time with Jesus? Benn getting enough sunlight, fresh air, pure water, exercise, and stuff like that? Looks like you might have some well-earned gray hairs, too?

I'm only a junior-senior, but I'm noticing that social media is making a lot of older folks crazy instead of wise. I've also noticed that longevity is starting to drop in developed nations and it probably won't be long until 40 is the new 50.

I am sensing a little apprehension about organized religion, though, to be fair. It's been very puzzling to me to see the non-denom thing evolve into anti-denom over the last 20 years or so. I believe the church needs to be organized to do big things in mission and ministry, and that folks probably should avoid allowing their personal baggage to effectively undermine that. I've got plenty of reasons to be disgruntled and I'm choosing to abstain - lol.

I doubt you'll get off with just getting my thoughts on one word, though. I'm semi-famous around here for rambling.

Anyhow, I'd really like to, but I'm just not getting "drag" from those verses. I gave some thought to what word I might use taking all those verses into account. But I didn't take the time to see which translation you're using or whether you're even using the same translation for all of the verses. I thought "pull" for a few seconds but "draw" just sounds better if I had to use the same English word for every verse. I'm sure there's a reason that Hebrew and Greek words aren't always translated to the same English word in every case (I guess I'm treading close to being facetious here—testing your patience a hair, perhaps). I think I might actually have to pick "draw," if pressed. No doubt, some will think I'm just enjoying the Kool-Aid and struggling to keep my dopamine levels at a respectable average.

A couple of other thoughts you might find interesting (maybe not):

I don't hold to extreme views of inspiration like verbal or plenary. Sometimes I'll go out of my way, to a fault, to portray myself as moderate in various disciplines of theology, knowing full well that there's a time to be emphatic about some things. And I've got the "never let 'em see ya sweat" bug pretty bad. But I do think God has exercised quite a bit more sovereignty and providence regarding the preservation of His word than most folks would be comfortable with. Granted, there may very well be a hundred times as many "versions" of the Bible available online today than could be accessed just 30 years ago, but I suspect He figures the sincere seeker will use some prudence in choosing dependable ones. And I think the ones worth reading might have benefited from linguistic scholarship that I wouldn't care to challenge too much, being mainly unilingual, myself. I'm not at all sure that just anyone with access to Hebrew/Greek tools is necessarily qualified to make wise use of them.

I heard a presentation a few months ago about the inevitability of bringing presuppositions to Bible study and I always suspected, at least, that such was the case. But the speaker made an excellent case, as I recall. There are just some things we're going to have to trust God to work out. No—a whole lot of things, I think.

Also, a few years ago I heard an excellent series on religious liberty that fleshed out ideas about which I always knew, to some degree, but never realized how important they were and, frankly, were not getting enough of my attention and practice.

How's that for a Yellow Brick Road? (No pressure to follow it intended :) )


.

 

[St. SteVen]

Hey, I like you. We could talk. You don't appear to be consumed with your own point of view. What's up with that?

Obi-wan has taught him well. - LOL

/ @Hillsage

 

[Zachariah.]

When many hear about Apokatastasis (the restoration of all things), Universalism, Christian Universalism,
Universal Restoration, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Redemption, UR...

There is an assumption that this is a new idea. Something modern liberal theologians cooked up. Not so.

Apokatastasis was a major part of Christian theology in the early church.

The main Patristic supporters of the apokatastasis theory, such as Bardaisan, Clement, Origin,
Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, St. Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa (and probably the
two other Cappadocians), St. Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem,
Rufinus, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (at least initially) … Cassian, St. Issac of Nineveh, St. John of Dalyatha,
Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, probably St. Maximus the Confessor, up to John the Scot Eriugena,
and many others, grounded their Christian doctrine of apokatastasis first of all in the Bible.
— Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11.

--- Agree or disagree? ---

Quotes from the early church fathers in the next post.


@Chadrho @Patrick1966

There is nothing new under the sun. Truth is eternal.

 

[St. SteVen]

There is nothing new under the sun. Truth is eternal.

Had you heard of Apokatastasis before?

/

 

[BarneyFife]

Had you heard of Apokatastasis before?

/

Have you heard of "The Fire That Consumes?" :cool:


.

 

[St. SteVen]

Have you heard of "The Fire That Consumes?" :cool:


.

Yes.
Something to do with "wood, hay, and stubble." me thinks. - LOL

/ @Hillsage

 

[Zachariah.]

Had you heard of Apokatastasis before?

/

Ya, when the universe folds back in on itself. Then repeats its cycle.

The principle of rhythm

"Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum-swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates."
-Kybalion

 

[BarneyFife]

I run into this idea of "the angry and willful sinner in the afterlife" claim quite often.

You should have no problem straightening me out, then. ;)

It doesn't work for me. The idea that someone would be "happier" in hell than in heaven. Seriously?

Don't we need to define terms here? "In hell?"

Preferring to burn rather than be healed and comforted? Is that supposed to make sense?
Choosing the furnace over a shoulder to cry on? Really?

You've never met anyone who didn't want any sympathy or charity/love? I have.

As I have often said, those who "claim" to hate God haven't met him yet.

What if they don't want to? Is God going to force them?

Pretty sure the two can sort things out face-to-face. God is love, after all.

Again, I've met folks who are having none of it.

Many Christian are repelled by the idea of UR because they want "justice".

Not me—I'm going with mercy.

We can't have all these horrible sinners getting off "Scot-free", now can we?

Well, it certainly cost Jesus something.

Unfortunately, what they mean by "justice" is revenge. Seven-fold if they can get it.

None for me, thanks. I'm drivin'.

But revenge is a sin. God commands us not to do it. He will repay. (whatever that means)
And if it is a sin for us, it would be a sin for him.

Says who?

Unless he operates under a lower standard than he holds us to.

Maybe a higher one that can repay without any carnal satisfaction whatsoever—a "strange act?"

16Therefore thus says the Lord God:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation,
A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
Whoever believes will not act hastily.
17Also I will make justice the measuring line,
And righteousness the plummet;
The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
And the waters will overflow the hiding place.
18Your covenant with death will be annulled,
And your agreement with Sheol will not stand;
When the overflowing scourge passes through,
Then you will be trampled down by it.
19As often as it goes out it will take you;
For morning by morning it will pass over,
And by day and by night;
It will be a terror just to understand the report.”

20For the bed is too short to stretch out on,
And the covering so narrow that one cannot wrap himself in it.
21For the Lord will rise up as at Mount Perazim,
He will be angry as in the Valley of Gibeon—
That He may do His work, His awesome work,
And bring to pass His act, His unusual act.
22Now therefore, do not be mockers,
Lest your bonds be made strong;
For I have heard from the Lord God of hosts,
A destruction determined even upon the whole earth.


.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen wrote:
I run into this idea of "the angry and willful sinner in the afterlife" claim quite often.

You should have no problem straightening me out, then. ;)

In a perfect world... - LOL (dream on)


St. SteVen wrote:
It doesn't work for me. The idea that someone would be "happier" in hell than in heaven. Seriously?

Don't we need to define terms here? "In hell?"

I'm using their definition. (whatever it is)
Anything from the "forever burning hell", to "eternal separation from God". (whatever that means)


St. SteVen wrote:
Preferring to burn rather than be healed and comforted? Is that supposed to make sense?
Choosing the furnace over a shoulder to cry on? Really?

You've never met anyone who didn't want any sympathy or charity/love? I have.

That's what they may "claim". Usually driven by anger or disappointment in their life.
Do you really believe they don't have a deep need that they are concealing?


St. SteVen wrote:
As I have often said, those who "claim" to hate God haven't met him yet.

What if they don't want to? Is God going to force them?

That's the typical companion question that comes with the idea that someone would be "happier" in hell than in heaven.
As if to say, God wants them to be happy, so he complies with their desire to go to hell. Seriously?
That's like leading your children to the freeway because they want to run across. - LOL
The parent says: "Don't blame me. I only gave them what they wanted. I didn't know they would be harmed."


St. SteVen wrote:
Pretty sure the two can sort things out face-to-face. God is love, after all.

Again, I've met folks who are having none of it.

So have I. (liars)


St. SteVen wrote:
Many Christian are repelled by the idea of UR because they want "justice".

Not me—I'm going with mercy.

Good, I think. ???


St. SteVen wrote:
We can't have all these horrible sinners getting off "Scot-free", now can we?

Well, it certainly cost Jesus something.

UR doesn't mean NO consequences!


St. SteVen wrote:
Unfortunately, what they mean by "justice" is revenge. Seven-fold if they can get it.

None for me, thanks. I'm drivin'.

Okay. ???


St. SteVen wrote:
But revenge is a sin. God commands us not to do it. He will repay. (whatever that means)
And if it is a sin for us, it would be a sin for him.

Says who?

Along the same lines as Jesus commanding us to love our enemies. (as godly behavior)
What should he do with his own enemies then? Incinerate them? That's not love. Even if they ask for it!


St. SteVen wrote:
Unless he operates under a lower standard than he holds us to.

Maybe a higher one that can repay without any carnal satisfaction whatsoever—a "strange act?"

Did God give us a human conscience with a different set of standards of right and wrong than his own standards?
Seems that would be a double standard, right?

/

 

[BarneyFife]

I'm using their definition. (whatever it is)
Anything from the "forever burning hell", to "eternal separation from God". (whatever that means)

I guess I assumed a little too much from your reaction to the Fudge movie. My mistake
"Us" being UR and "they/their" being everyone else, maybe?

That's what they may "claim". Usually driven by anger or disappointment in their life.

I can only do so much to dissuade them.

Do you really believe they don't have a deep need that they are concealing?

I know I'm doing the copy thing here, but: Do you really think that's what I believe? It's me, SS.

That's the typical companion question that comes with the idea that someone would be "happier" in hell than in heaven.

I think you're perpetrating the Genetic Fallacy thing on me here, Pal.
It might be par straw man, actually. "Happy in hell?"

As if to say, God wants them to be happy, so he complies with their desire to go to hell. Seriously?

I'm starting to see a slight Calvinist tinge in what I'm learning about UR.

That's like leading your children to the freeway because they want to run across. - LOL

I thought it was more like reluctantly taking them to prison (for a crime they actually committed) in my Cadillac instead of letting them ride the dirty old bus.

The parent says: "Don't blame me. I only gave them what they wanted. I didn't know they would be harmed."

"Didn't know they would be harmed?"

So have I. (liars)

How do you feel about religious liberty?

UR doesn't mean NO consequences!

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it seems angrily expressed.

Along the same lines as Jesus commanding us to love our enemies. (as godly behavior)
What should he do with his own enemies then? Incinerate them? That's not love. Even if they ask for it!

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?"
Are you familiar with "common grace?"

Did God give us a human conscience with a different set of standards of right and wrong than his own standards?

No, we just chose and ended up that way, best I can tell.

Seems that would be a double standard, right?

Yeah, ours(?)


.