Universalism VS. Scripture

[Lilly of the Valley]

How does one "accept" grace?

You just recieve it. The most obvious way is to confess and repent and then rely on God. By repenting and confessing you acknowledge that God can forgive you and by relying on God not to do certain sins, you are relying on His strength and grace not to do it.

 

[Scholar in training]

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.

Actually, rejecting a gift from one's patron is a great insult to that patron's honor.

If someone refuses a patron's gift - he will not be receiving that gift. Humility is the appropriate response to that patron, not refusal.

 

[ottaia]

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)

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

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)

The Bible is the word of God. It is His very word and He impresses people to read it and also speaks through it.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

The only reason the Bible is important is because it's God's word. That gives it the weight and importance.

 

[ottaia]

But when we use the Bible to constrain God, we sin through the Bible.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

But when we use the Bible to constrain God, we sin through the Bible.

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.

 

[Charlie V]

And one thing Liberals always try to get out of, is work..

The smile face doesn't take away from the obvious anti-liberal slandar.

The bible says unless you repent, you will perish.
Luke 13:3
I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
Luke 13:5
I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Context.

Luk 13:1 And there were present certain at that time, telling him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate did mingle with their sacrifices;Luk 13:2 and Jesus answering said to them, `Think ye that these Galileans became sinners beyond all the Galileans, because they have suffered such things?Luk 13:3 No -- I say to you, but, if ye may not reform, all ye even so shall perish.Luk 13:4 `Or those eighteen, on whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them; think ye that these became debtors beyond all men who are dwelling in Jerusalem?Luk 13:5 No -- I say to you, but, if ye may not reform, all ye in like manner shall perish.'



They'll perish a premature and violent Earthly death, as the Galileans suffered by Pilate.

Where does one draw the doctrine that says you don't need to repent or trust in Christ to be saved?

Certainly not the universalist.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

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.

Exactly what the universalist believes.

Charlie

 

[Rae]

rejecting a gift from one's patron is a great insult to that patron's honor.

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.

 

[Scholar in training]

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.

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?

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.

What's the problem? I thought that pagans believed in anthropomorphic gods.

 

[Rae]

God is generous enough to "love us first" - is he expected to continue holding out his hand for people who refuse to take it?

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.

I thought that pagans believed in anthropomorphic gods.

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.

 

[katallasso]

Wow!! Some of this has really gotten away from the orginal topic. Maybe some new threads should be started.

 

[Scholar in training]

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 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.

That is not to say that God lacks mercy. He reinstated Peter after Peter had denied him - but Peter did not refuse God's hand. He understood the importance of interpersonal obligation to God.

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.

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?

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.

An extreme consequence of believing that one cannot "fight off the gods" through ritual.

 

[Rae]

One who is not willing to take God's hand

Does not exist. Sorry. Pull the other one.

They don't believe in gods who are worse tyrants than humans

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.

 

[Scholar in training]

Does not exist. Sorry. Pull the other one.

It is merely an anthropomorphism, like saying that God "walked" in the Garden with Adam and Eve.

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.

I see. However I have already addressed this belief in this very thread.

 

[Rae]

However I have already addressed this belief

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.)

If you're interested in convincing me, come up with something different or admit you can't change my mind.

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.

 

[Scholar in training]

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!"

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.

(No God would let anyone torture him/herself forever.)

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.

If you're interested in convincing me, come up with something different or admit you can't change my mind.

Discussing a topic doesn't always entail changing the other person's mind.

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.

Then how about you respond to the Peter analogy and interpersonal responsibility rather than use a "said-so" statement in support of your belief.

 

[Rae]

To do otherwise would be to deny his creation freewill

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.

As for your alleged "Peter analogy," you mean you're still clinging to the idea that sane people knowingly reject God? That's silly. Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, no one knowingly rejects God. Atheists honestly believe there is no such being. The others honestly believe they are following Her to the best of their ability.

 

[loriersea]

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?

I loved my son before he loved me. Should I be expected to hold his hand when he refuses to take it, or should I simply allow him to run out into the street and be hit by a car because he doesn't want to hold it?

Obviously, as a loving parent, it is my responsibility to take my child by the hand (or pick him up, if I must) to keep him from danger, even if that is what he wants. Are we to believe that God is less loving or responsible towards his children? Would God allow anyone to run headlong into hell? I think that would be impossible.