Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, I wouldn't. I've been in that situation, and it's far too trivial to do anything else.
Yeah. What's that got to do with Universalism? I'm trying to see your point, I really am.
"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
you're a better person than i... :yes:
what's the point in figuring "it" out if we are given unlimited chances?
:yes:"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
Don't you value knowledge and wisdom for their own sakes?
Loving someone cannot stop them from making a complete mess of themself if that's what they are hell bent to do.
I would answer, but you'll just say you have no interest in conversation again. Which leaves me to wonder why you keep talking to me.
I'm willing to talk to you in this thread.
Sorry, I don't recall where I left you hanging in the other one.
Well, isn't that what this thread is for?
No, this thread is for Universalism. While that's a component of my beliefs, it's a drop in the bucket, and I'd like to keep this thread focused.
I like Universalism...
Save one sect of Vaishnavism, universalism is a standard, implicit belief.
Who relieved themselves in your Wheaties this morning???Frankly, Storm, not a lot.
Then reject the very idea of the need for salvation. You're already halfway there, make the leap.
It is always amusing when something that is patently obvious is regarded as being "great insight".
If they are not implying the threat of judgment, then why, perchance, were they ever called commandments? Why were they not called "The 10 Helpful Suggestions".
So, the Judgment doctrine is simply false. OK. Good enough.
So, are you saying that UU's are full of it? Or are they perhaps, just full of themselves? My guess is this is just another placebo to instill a sense of self-righteousness in the individual that is not apparent in the world they find themselves in.
This strikes me as abject drivel emanating from the mind of one who has succumbed to the pablum of intellectual dishonesty. Simply referring to Mother Teresa, in somewhat saintly tones, is enough to earn a big red F for his paper.
It is likely because people perceive lipstick being applied to the face of the proverbial piggy.
Probably because you are just another group that pretends to have answers that no one else has or know the religions of others better than the adherents of those religions do. By declaring that all religions are special you succeed in confirming that none of them are special or exclusive and sadly you tar yourself, by default, with the same brush.
I disagree, I think we have heard enough from those who think they know better than the rest of us.
It's a pretty idea, but also one that is not very realistic. Pretending our differences away will not erode those differences.
My guess is that the reason why UU sentiments have not gained wide acceptance is because most can see through its namby-pamby, Kumbayah, sentimentality.
