- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,589
- 6,066
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I do not use the term ECT it's not biblical. I first attended Sunday School when FDR was president. The only thing I remember was how good the red Koolaide tasted. I attended Sunday School sporadically through my childhood especially when near my paternal grandmother. I did not become a Christian until my mid 20s when LBJ was president. Unlike many others I did not have any denominational baggage to unload. I questioned everything from day one. I can understand the attraction UR has, people can live like the devil and believe they will still be saved. Unfortunately neither the Father nor Jesus ever say unequivocally that all mankind will be saved.No. That's why if I really believed your exegesis was right I'd be an atheist. The exegetical argument matters for me. But if the question is why people are attracted to universalism it's because they consider Christianity with ECT self-contradictory, and they'd like for other reasons to believe that it's not.
Many people grew up believing in hell. We don't typically reconsider that kind of belief without some reason. I believe in most cases the reason is a moral concern, not stumbling on some better exegesis. Once you think there's a problem with ECT, it's then natural to ask: does this invalidate Christianity, or can one find some reasonable understanding of Christianity that doesn't include ECT? That's where the popularity of universalism came from, which was the question here.
There is a followon question of whether one can reasonably understand Christianity as not including ECT. That's what you keep talking about. But you're not addressing the question that was originally asked, about why people are interested in universalism. There have been plenty of threads in which you argued that ECT is inherent in Christianity. I don't agree with you, but that's not the question for this thread.
Upvote
0