Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
Universal salvation somehow implies non-believers are bound by the beliefs of Christianity?
Totally illogical.
But what makes you think that Universal salvation is bound to Christianity?
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!
Universal salvation somehow implies non-believers are bound by the beliefs of Christianity?
Totally illogical.
But what makes you think that Universal salvation is bound to Christianity?
That's not what universal salvation means to me. To me, it means that all will be saved from the permanance of death to something much grander than this life.Universal salvation somehow implies non-believers are bound by the beliefs of Christianity?
Totally illogical.
AS an atheist I don't believe in any salvation, therefore, by definition, salvation cannot be universal.
Her way, we don't have to die.To further clariify, if I insist that salvation does not include me, (is not universal) and you insist it does, what makes your belief better than mine?
How about universal salvation means that salvation is OPEN to everyone who wants it, ie - does not deny anyone? If there's a party and you don't want to participate that's your prerogative.To further clariify, if I insist that salvation does not include me, (is not universal) and you insist it does, what makes your belief better than mine?
Your inference is totally illogical.Universal salvation somehow implies non-believers are bound by the beliefs of Christianity?
Totally illogical.
Her way, we don't have to die.
Universal salvation by definition, includes all people. Regardless of race, color, creed, or religion even.
Eventually everybody returns to God.
Oh? How?Except it is illogical and frankly impossible.
As an atheist I've always contended that needing saving from something as esoteric and hard to define as "sin" is quite illogical. The idea of "universal salvation" is illogical from it's basepoint.
Case in point.I think logic is sometimes overrated. People conflate it with reason or rationality, when it's really just a tool to determine whether an argument/ position is internally sound. It tells us nothing about whether that position is right.
In what way is sin "hard to define?" It may be "hard for Logician to understand," but your lack of understanding does not constitute sin as "esoteric." The "basepoint" of sin is not your lack of understanding. The "basepoint" of sin is our propensity to wander off from communion with God. All have done that...all need reconciliation.As an atheist I've always contended that needing saving from something as esoteric and hard to define as "sin" is quite illogical. The idea of "universal salvation" is illogical from it's basepoint.
In what way is sin "hard to define?" It may be "hard for Logician to understand," but your lack of understanding does not constitute sin as "esoteric." The "basepoint" of sin is not your lack of understanding. The "basepoint" of sin is our propensity to wander off from communion with God. All have done that...all need reconciliation.
He doesn't need to back it up. He's got faith! :angel2:You keep making positive claim, logician. Can you back it up?
Of course, you're able to stand completely apart from the universe, and are able, therefore, to objectively look both at the whole and its constituent parts, measure and qualify them, and come to this conclusion?Sorry, but there is no god, and no "sin" as you try to define it.