XnForums

I'm not sure I agree that leaving something behind and embracing Universalism is drawing closer to Atheism. Would you care to explain? (And if you can, please leave American politics out of it.)

I like Pearson and I don't think he is anywhere near becoming an atheist. Some people do become atheists via a path that lead through universalism, but certainly not everyone does and it is not necessarily a direct path there either.

Funny thing, I could say my atheism lead me into Buddhism and then on into Hinduism by that same logic.

unifying people is the Universalism of which Pearson supports. Christianity in his previous connection with televangelists such as Oral Roberts disagreed. Religious fundamentalists (Right Wing) in their interpretation of the bible sees no equality with homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, and so Pearson moved on and away from those RW precepts. Leaving these precepts behind effectively pushed him forward into a progressive movement of Christianity. Which also took him away from the false precepts once applied to him in his previous affiliation in the RW televangelism. In this regard, Pearson is now atheist - a non-believer in precepts still held by the RW.

Pearson is not a full atheist or what some would call a strong atheist because he has yet to decide whether he wants to continue the lie (the bible) or come out of it completely. He's already separated himself from its laws for Jews in tolerating homosexuality. This, in fact, shows his denial of the Hebrew God's commandments, the very commandments he had been taught were meant for him to obey. I don't think Pearson is stupid, and do think he has realized that the bible story was meant for Jews/Israel and no other people.

Politics doesn't have anything to do with Pearsons decision making. Why would you bring politics into it?

I like Pearson to. I think he has a deep compasion for people, especially those who the piious elete refuse to acknowledge as human. I think Pearson would even like and have compasion for us atheists, as he is one in his own right. He simply doesn't believe the same things that other people might believe as he has proven by breaking away from those Right Wingers who hated homosexuals. Pearson saw another god, a god of compasion and not punishment. He no longer believed in the Right Wing god of Leviticus fame.

My atheism might lead me to investigate Buddhism or any number of the other religious groups, but none I would consider worthy enough to hold my full attention. I really enjoy being free to inquire and discuss things without the need to belong.

So many "isms." Myself, I have no ism and don't want one.

Ism, ism......here an ism, there an ism, everywhere another ism.

Why?

Vanity. Humans have a vain need to be special and unique. Somehow, most of them seem to feel more secure in a niche.

So we get isms.

Who is most proud of their ism, I wonder? FundaGelicals? Atheists? Both seem rather haughty and superior in the respective niches they have carved out.

Vanity......just vanity.

Even Universalism is just another niche......another ism.

Perhaps the ism chasers could get together by just calling themselves Vanitists. At least they all have that in common.

Pax!

Well, I don't have a niche in my freedom to disagree or agree with arguments presented. And I think all people are atheists in their own right of disbelief. To then accuse me of being less human because of my atheism I find illogical and deceiving of ones own self.

Is Logos an ism of one?

Nope, I just ain't no ism and refuse to belong to one!!!

yous is just a hism, or is that hiism, maybe his-um. wahtever, but never a ism.