Steve meant to touche the idea that we also have the same attitude that Jonah had, since Steve has insinuated this repeatedly before. And the quote in Editors post was from that same context. And I explained why Steve's comment suggests we are just like Jonah: 'You are suggesting Jonah's own feelings about the situation negate the urgency and implications of the message'.
This confirms what I have been thinking for some time. I am assuming that anyone reading the context of my "Touché" and following the flow of discussion would easily see that I was not in any sense making a reference to JR or to Homer:
1. I was asked by JR what Moses and Noah would think if God forgave their detractors.
2. I said that I thought any godly man would be glad to see this result. I said, "Who wouldn't?"
3. TheEditor answered this rhetorical question by pointing out the case of Jonah, and
4. I acknowledged that he had indeed found an exception to my statement.
There was no allusion to JR, Homer, or any other contemporary person in that entire discussion.
JR and Homer often act as if I have insulted them in my posts. A case like this statement before us, where JR thought I was attacking him, confirms my suspicion that these men are taking my honest questions and my answers to their questions in a manner other than I intend, and other than is justified. I suspect that the accusations of my unkindness to them are greatly exaggerated.
My post had nothing to do with the Patriarch’s love or not for the lost: the point was that all their writings and dealings in the bible would then make no-sense! If God goes through all the work of giving warnings creating this world and giving warnings of death, why kill men just to have them back where they started?
Sinners who die are simply back to where they started? If you are referring to universalism, isn't it clear that those who accuse you of not understanding what universalism teaches are vindicated by such statements?
Flooding the earth, wiping out everybody so that they become dead. Then immediately on the other side the same scenario exists, everyone is alive again and this scenario can be repeated over and over into eternity. It sounds like Ground Hog Day. Why not just let the test continue, or life, as a chance to grow and become whatever.
I confess that I don't have a clue to what you are saying. However, none of your sentences have any obvious connection to the teachings of universal reconciliation. When people tell you (as they repeatedly have done) that you apparently have no grasp of the teachings of evangelical universalism, why don't you take it to heart, instead of continually proving that they are right about you. Why not either learn what the view teaches, and craft your arguments accordingly, or else just drop out of the discussion? There are intelligent and articulate advocates of annihilationism here whom you can trust to defend the view without bringing embarrassment upon the position.