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.
AndreLinoge said:How does one "accept" grace?
Actually, rejecting a gift from one's patron is a great insult to that patron's honor.ottaia said:If someone offers you a gift and you reject it, you still get the gift. If someone gives me a car and I reject it, then it just sits in the driveway. That is different than the gift being taken away.
ottaia said:Sin is placing something in the place of God. When we place the Bible above God, then the Bible can become sin. (Actually, the Bible is not the sin, the attitude toward the Bible is the sin)
ottaia said:But when we use the Bible to constrain God, we sin through the Bible.
Mailman Dan said:And one thing Liberals always try to get out of, is work..
Mailman Dan said:
Mailman Dan said:Where does one draw the doctrine that says you don't need to repent or trust in Christ to be saved?
Lilly of the Valley said:God won't go against Himself. He says things in the Bible and He doesn't lie, so He won't go against His own words.
Among human beings whose egos are bound up in others accepting their gifts, yes. Sounds pretty petty and small for an infinite God who supposedly loves everyone and gives to us freely, though. I'd rather go with the universalists on this one. Their God doesn't sound like a bigger human with a bigger ego that needs stroking by us in order to care for us.rejecting a gift from one's patron is a great insult to that patron's honor.
Or the issue has to do with interpersonal obligation, not ego stroking. God is generous enough to "love us first" - is he expected to continue holding out his hand for people who refuse to take it?Rae said:Among human beings whose egos are bound up in others accepting their gifts, yes. Sounds pretty petty and small for an infinite God who supposedly loves everyone and gives to us freely, though.
What's the problem? I thought that pagans believed in anthropomorphic gods.I'd rather go with the universalists on this one. Their God doesn't sound like a bigger human with a bigger ego that needs stroking by us in order to care for us.
Yes. In fact, I believe She already picks everyone up and loves them, whether they "accept" or "reject" Her actions or not. That seems far more Godly to me.God is generous enough to "love us first" - is he expected to continue holding out his hand for people who refuse to take it?
Funny. I've known Pagans personally for over thirteen years and I know none who believe in Gods who are basically bigger and badder tyrants than humanity. I know many Christians who believe in a God who's basically a tyrant who requires their obeisance to keep him from squashing them like flies, though.I thought that pagans believed in anthropomorphic gods.
God will not be played for the fool. One who is not willing to take God's hand - but wishes to experience his favor regardless - hardly seems interested in anyone but himself.Rae said:Yes. In fact, I believe She already picks everyone up and loves them, whether they "accept" or "reject" Her actions or not. That seems far more Godly to me.
They don't believe in gods who are worse tyrants than humans...? Implying that they do believe in gods who are no better than humans?Funny. I've known Pagans personally for over thirteen years and I know none who believe in Gods who are basically bigger and badder tyrants than humanity.
An extreme consequence of believing that one cannot "fight off the gods" through ritual.I know many Christians who believe in a God who's basically a tyrant who requires their obeisance to keep him from squashing them like flies, though.
Does not exist.One who is not willing to take God's hand
Sigh. Meaning that the God you posit is a worse tyrant than any human being who ever existed. He tortures people forever. The worst human tyrant can only do so for the span of a human lifetime.They don't believe in gods who are worse tyrants than humans
It is merely an anthropomorphism, like saying that God "walked" in the Garden with Adam and Eve.Rae said:Does not exist.Sorry. Pull the other one.
I see. However I have already addressed this belief in this very thread.Sigh. Meaning that the God you posit is a worse tyrant than any human being who ever existed. He tortures people forever. The worst human tyrant can only do so for the span of a human lifetime.
That's nice. Everything I've ever read, here and elsewhere, promoting that Gods do evil things has not yet convinced me that any God would do anything so evil as to torture someone forever. Not the Christian cop-out of "But...but...but they choose to torture themselves!" (No God would let anyone torture him/herself forever.)However I have already addressed this belief
Under the paradigm of eternal shame I have already discussed (which is hardly a cop-out, but rather a social analysis of the issue of hell) anyone who does end up in hell would be torturing themselves in the sense that they would want to get away from God. That limit would be self-imposed, not forced upon them. To draw upon an analogy from C.S. Lewis, the shame of living in the presence of God would be too much for those in hell, and they would endeavor in vain to run from his presence.Rae said:That's nice. Everything I've ever read, here and elsewhere, promoting that Gods do evil things has not yet convinced me that any God would do anything so evil as to torture someone forever. Not the Christian cop-out of "But...but...but they choose to torture themselves!"
To do otherwise would be to deny his creation freewill. I have heard at least one person say that he would rather "fight" God than enter gehenna (hypothetically assuming that God and hell exist and that he was not going to heaven). Some people (the same people who advocate relativism, in some cases) believe that their opinions about God are objective, and would rather not experience theosis in the presence of God for eternity.(No God would let anyone torture him/herself forever.)
Discussing a topic doesn't always entail changing the other person's mind.If you're interested in convincing me, come up with something different or admit you can't change my mind.
Then how about you respond to the Peter analogy and interpersonal responsibility rather than use a "said-so" statement in support of your belief.And yes, I believe the Gods reject no one. Christian, Jew, Pagan, Buddhist, Pastafarian, doesn't matter. Humans reject each other and are petty and jealous over religion. The Gods don't and aren't.
Wrong. We don't have free will when we're so miserable that we choose to torture ourselves. Any God worth Her/His salt would heal us of the desire to harm ourselves, and then, sane, we'd choose God. Simple as that. No self-inflicted torture. That's not denying anyone free will. That's RESTORING free will to them.To do otherwise would be to deny his creation freewill
Scholar in training said:Or the issue has to do with interpersonal obligation, not ego stroking. God is generous enough to "love us first" - is he expected to continue holding out his hand for people who refuse to take it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?