Most of the Christians here appear to believe that they are rewarded with eternal life NOT because they live their lives - inspired by Jesus - trying not to be "evil and wicked", but instead they are rewarded with eternal life because they believe they are forgiven - by Jesus, and because of his death - for being "evil and wicked".
Do any Christians dissent from this encapsulation?
Originally posted by @fmfAccording to the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, eternal life is about actually becoming righteous. Not merely "trying" to be righteous.
Most of the Christians here appear to believe that they are rewarded with eternal life NOT because they live their lives - inspired by Jesus - trying not to be "evil and wicked", but instead they are rewarded with eternal life because they believe they are forgiven - by Jesus, and because of his death - for being "evil and wicked".
Do any Christians dissent from this encapsulation?
Originally posted by @thinkofoneOK, but the angle I am interested in is the ideology of attaining eternal life through believing that one's "evil and wickedness" is forgiven [a.k.a. "Grace"] rather than through overcoming "evil and wickedness".
According to the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, eternal life is about actually becoming righteous. Not merely "trying" to be righteous.
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @fmfI've never really liked the description given to ALL humans as evil, wicked and a sinner....all seemingly because of the decisions made by Adam and Eve.
Most of the Christians here appear to believe that they are rewarded with eternal life NOT because they live their lives - inspired by Jesus - trying not to be "evil and wicked", but instead they are rewarded with eternal life because they believe they are forgiven - by Jesus, and because of his death - for being "evil and wicked".
Do any Christians dissent from this encapsulation?
Even an infant is said to be a soon to be sinner.
Most Christians seem to walk around with baggage on their shoulders of "no good", sinner, and whose attempts at anything good are like "filthy rags" anyway.
The label bothers me.
Originally posted by @fmfAs worded your OP indicates "trying" rather than actually "overcoming 'evil and wickedness'". It's a very important distinction.
OK, but the angle I am interested in is the ideology of attaining eternal life through believing that one's "evil and wickedness" is forgiven [a.k.a. "Grace"] rather than through overcoming "evil and wickedness".
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @chaney3It's a psychological gimmick.
I've never really liked the description given to ALL humans as evil, wicked and a sinner....all seemingly because of the decisions made by Adam and Eve.
Even an infant is said to be a soon to be sinner.
Most Christians seem to walk around with baggage on their shoulders of "no good", sinner, and whose attempts at anything good are like "filthy rags" anyway.
The label bothers me.
The profoundly misanthropic ideology of a lot of self-styled Christians ~ albeit generally not the ones I live and work among who are people walking the walk rather than thinking the think ~ seems to involve pissing on everybody's back, telling them it's raining, and then offering a kind of imaginary 'Emperor's New Clothes' umbrella. .
Originally posted by @chaney3That theology is an incoherent mess. From what I can tell, it was devised in an attempt to explain the necessity of Jesus' "atoning sacrifice".
I've never really liked the description given to ALL humans as evil, wicked and a sinner....all seemingly because of the decisions made by Adam and Eve.
Even an infant is said to be a soon to be sinner.
Most Christians seem to walk around with baggage on their shoulders of "no good", sinner, and whose attempts at anything good are like "filthy rags" anyway.
The label bothers me.
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhile I see the relevance, I personally am not interested in the distinction you wish to discuss with people. What I am interested in, though, is the notion of "Grace" - the idea that "forgiveness" renders "evil and wickedness" 'not the issue' ~ instead the issue is 'belief'. My previous comment about the imaginary umbrella illustrates the angle I am interested in.
As worded your OP indicates "trying" rather than actually "overcoming 'evil and wickedness'". It's a very important distinction.
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @fmfYou seem to have missed the point again. That said, you'd have been better off leaving the other side of it out of your OP altogether.
While I see the relevance, I personally am not interested in the distinction you wish to discuss with people. What I am interested in, though, is the notion of "Grace" - the idea that "forgiveness" renders "evil and wickedness" 'not the issue' ~ instead the issue is 'belief'. My previous comment about the imaginary umbrella illustrates the angle I am interested in.
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI agree, because it puts us all in a revolving catch 22 dilemma:
That theology is an incoherent mess. From what I can tell, it was devised in an attempt to explain the necessity of Jesus' "atoning sacrifice".
We are "no good", so we try to "do good", which is "never good enough".
This line of thinking is terrible for self esteem and self worth.
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI am not interested in the distinction you seek to make between overcoming "evil and wickedness" and trying to overcome "evil and wickedness". Maybe someone will use this thread as an opportunity to engage you on that distinction but it's not going to be me. The OP is fine as it is.
You seem to have missed the point again. That said, you'd have been better off leaving the other side of it out of your OP altogether.
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @fmfI don't understand your illustration.
It's a psychological gimmick.
The profoundly misanthropic ideology of a lot of self-styled Christians ~ albeit generally not the ones I live and work among who are people walking the walk rather than thinking the think ~ seems to involve pissing on everybody's back, telling them it's raining, and then offering a kind of imaginary 'Emperor's New Clothes' umbrella. .
Originally posted by @chaney3It's even worse than that. They don't believe it possible, so they of course they'll never get to where Jesus and God said they need to be.They cause themselves and others to "stumble".
I agree, because it puts us all in a revolving catch 22 dilemma:
We are "no good", so we try to "do good", which is "never good enough".
This line of thinking is terrible for self esteem and self worth.
Also, in their attempts to prop up their nonsensical theology, many deem themselves "righteous" even though they are not.
Originally posted by @fmfAnd you've missed the point again.
I am not interested in the distinction you seek to make between overcoming "evil and wickedness" and trying to overcome "evil and wickedness". Maybe someone will use this thread as an opportunity to engage you on that distinction but it's not going to be me. The OP is fine as it is.