• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
You don't know that this never happens. "Christian" is just a word. One could be a capitalist at heart without ever having heard the word "capitalism".

Just to interject, your comparison of economic beliefs to religious beliefs hardly seems fair, since economics is more natural to humanity in some sense than religion, except in the most nominal sense of theism in some original sense, along with animism, perhaps. Just because someone believes in the existence of a free market for optimal profit, etc, doesn't suggest that capitalism isn't something people can find out on their own.

Being a Christian has more specifics to it than just believing in some general free market economy. Unless you think God judges by ethical behavior in which case it seems to contradict the notion of God's grace converting the hearts of people.
 
Upvote 0

pocaracas

Active Member
Jun 14, 2011
85
3
Lisboa
✟222.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


AH!! Great save on that quote that got removed by some mod who is also going to delete this...

Anyhow, when I said that, I used the word god, not Christ or any other prophet-like man.
I meant the concept of god, in general.. you know, the being responsible for creating the whole Universe and some other minor stuff, like humans and, who knows?, ETs!
But, being this a christian forum, I'll grant that, here, it can be applied to just that corner of human faith.

So, how can someone acquire the concept of god, while not trusting any one person to teach him about it?
You always go to the book... But there are some.. I don't know... 80% of humankind who don't trust the christian book. Are they wrong? Are christians wrong? They can't both be right! How can we decide who is right?

I chose to use my experience here on this planet to judge that all that is claimed as divine can be misinterpretation of a natural phenomenon or downright deceit by humans for humans.
So the book is a collection of rules which humans in Israel were meant to abide over 2000 years ago. It also depicts the lives of some so-called "prophets", people who had close contact with that god.... what do we call such people nowadays? Then, why should we believe what they said and wrote way back then?
Christ, the last prophet to some, the son of god made man to others, why blindly accept that that man was who he claimed to be? If someone, today would claim to be the son of a god, how would that person be treated?

Besides, before him, there had been other sons of gods (and human females, always very beautiful), Hercules being one very famous from greek mythology. Maybe he just picked that detail from neighboring states (perhaps from merchants) and applied it to himself, narcissistic as he was...
I think I've digressed far from the thread's subject... sorry.
 
Upvote 0

elman

elman
Dec 19, 2003
28,949
451
85
Texas
✟54,197.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I don't see God's grace as forcing anything on us. I see the grace as accepting us with our faults as His child. Jesus seems to indicate the last judgment will be based on ethical behavior--Matt 25:31 and following--feeding the hungry-visiting the sick etc.
 
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian

I don't think I ever implied that God's grace forced anything on us, though it could be interpreted that way. God could be said to reconcile us to itself over time instead of a radical paradigm shift.

If God already accepts us as we are with our faults, it only seems to justify universal reconciliation, since God has all the time in eternity and all the power and knowledge of the greatest conceivable being ever, so one could argue like Origen did, from what I remember, that even Diabolos will be reconciled to God.
 
Upvote 0

elman

elman
Dec 19, 2003
28,949
451
85
Texas
✟54,197.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe in universal reconciliation. I believe we must love others to have hope of God's grace, but at best we cannot love perfectly enough to earn eternal life. It still continues to be a unearned gift, but the wicked do not receive the gift. How wicked is wicked enough to lose the gift?--I don't have a clue.
 
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian

Your disbelief in universal reconciliation doesn't negate the notion that God's grace seems to support the claims of universal reconciliation more than other soteriologies.

Perfect love is a whole other beast, but you hardly have justification to even suggest humans could ever lose the gift of grace you seem to be referring to. That would suggest you could actually overpower God in some sense, which is blasphemous on its ace.
 
Upvote 0
S

solarwave

Guest

For me I am Christian and therefore think that Christianity is right, so it is better to know the truth. I don't know if it is wrong to be a Muslim, in fact some Muslims might be more spiritual than some Christians. So I find it hard to say that Islam is bad and I don't think all Non-Christians are going to hell.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,819
1,925
✟996,220.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
bling said:
The word “Christian” is not meant to be a “label”, but is a descriptive term meaning “Christ like”. The word “Christian” has lost its meaning.
Given that it was coined in Antioch, the term probably originally meant something like "those annoying gits who won't stop banging on about someone they call 'The Oily One'".
 
Upvote 0