(April 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: As a theological idea I think he means that God is not concerned with semantics. Since Christ is the Truth, anyone who believes in ultimate truth is accepting Christ by another name.

If that's what he means, then he is being extremely insulting without even knowing it. The presumption here is that god or christ is the ultimate truth subconsciously known but consciously denied - thereby indicating a fundamental cognitive dissonance - is an insult to those who strive to be consciously rational.

(April 2, 2012 at 9:31 am)BeeDeePee Wrote: If you love, you accept Jesus, even if you are not aware of that.

No. I don't accept Jesus just because I love my family. Don't be silly now.

Quote:You are free to do everything what you think that is good, but you will take responsibility for that.

Assert that rubbish all you want. It doesn't make it so.

Why doesn't god man-up and take responsibility for his own fucked up creation anyway instead of dumping the blame on us?

ChadWooters Wrote:As a theological idea I think he means that God is not concerned with semantics. Since Christ is the Truth, anyone who believes in ultimate truth is accepting Christ by another name.

Do you have any biblical basis for believing this, because it sounds more like philosophical waffling to avoid the idea that god sends good people to hell.

(April 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

ChadWooters Wrote:As a theological idea I think he means that God is not concerned with semantics. Since Christ is the Truth, anyone who believes in ultimate truth is accepting Christ by another name.

Do you have any biblical basis for believing this, because it sounds more like philosophical waffling to avoid the idea that god sends good people to hell.

I can't think of any references off the top of my head but I know I found some scriptural support for it when I was studying Universalism. If you are really interested I can go back and check my notes.

---

(April 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm)genkaus Wrote: If that's what he means, then he is being extremely insulting without even knowing it. The presumption here is that god or christ is the ultimate truth subconsciously known but consciously denied - thereby indicating a fundamental cognitive dissonance - is an insult to those who strive to be consciously rational.

That seems a bit harsh. The idea mainly concerns what's called the problem of the heathens, as in 'how are pre-Columbian native americans saved?' Besides, its an acknowledgement that reasonable people of goodwill deserve all the blessings of the divine even if they do not formally believe in a specific deity. Thus not only atheists, but devout believers of other faiths who value what is good and true will also benefit.

ChadWooters Wrote:I can't think of any references off the top of my head but I know I found some scriptural support for it when I was studying Universalism. If you are really interested I can go back and check my notes.

The specifics aren't important. I was just wondering what your basis for believing that someone can accept Christ without really accepting Christ was.

(April 2, 2012 at 11:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I can't think of any references off the top of my head but I know I found some scriptural support for it when I was studying Universalism.

Universalists still believe God sends people to hell, its just they believe the especially defiant unsubmissive sinners endure it for -billions of years- as opposed to indefinitely, and then go the extra mile and ludicrously assert after such a punishment they're ripe for reconciliation without considering all the mental trauma and scarring caused by suffering torture and isolation for so damn long.

Its all nonsense anyway so don't waste your time.

Quote:That seems a bit harsh. The idea mainly concerns what's called the problem of the heathens, as in 'how are pre-Columbian native americans saved?'

They're dead Chad.

You can't save or condemn the dead. They're dead.