You are forgiven. 
Perhaps it would. And perhaps we would be blessed for even trying to.
Tris
We won’t agree on what that gift is and I’m not interested in a debate on Christian doctrine. My observation is that to often in Christianity the brand name is stressed over the actual application of the principles JC taught. Accepting the gift isn’t something that’s done at an emotional tear filled alter call one time. It’s doing our best to live those values and principles day after day, choice after choice. Embracing long held traditions instead of the truth impedes our growth rather than encouraging it.
Which brings us back to the OP {hopefully} There are principles widely accepted as being taught by JC such as those contained in the sermon on the mount. My point is that by insisting we stamp the Christian label on principles and values taught by other religions as well we are encouraging division rather than unity. The manner in which those terms are commonly used implies to me that it isn’t the values of compassion toward others and the brotherhood of man that are of primary importance, but rather the recognition of Christianity.
I find this unacceptable and detrimental. I’d even say it is worshiping Jesus with their lips but not with their hearts since the name of Jesus and his iconic image becomes more important than the actual living of his teachings.
To say most of the founding fathers were Christians may be true as an interesting historical note, but to say “this country was founded on Christian principles” is a phrase designed to stress Christianities dominion more often than not. I find that to be a particularly uncharitable act not to mention historically meaningless.
Many Christians already realize that the principles and values they find attractive in the teachings of Jesus are shared by others who discovered them through a different vehicle. Focusing on the values rather than the vehicle moves us more toward unity and cooperation while allowing people to approach those values with whatever vehicle works best for them.
The word devils is a mistranslation in the KJ Bible, there is one devil, the word should be demons. Demons don’t have to appear to be evil, though they are - scriptures speak of a slave girl who’s demon would allow her to tell the future - doesn’t sound bad, and sounds a bit like Socrates demon.
One theory in Christian demonology is that the earthbound demons are there to interact with man to guide their destinies in this world. They take their orders from the fallen angels ( Mt. Olympic gods), possibly from a intermediate class of higher demons.
Though the above is just a theory, there is nothing in scriptures that I’m aware of that contradicts this, and some aspects can be supported.
The split between use of the word demon for Christian demonology and Daemon for Greek. Before that it was the same word, the word Jesus chose to use. If it was not the same entity Jesus could have chosen a different word, perhaps leppercon <sp>, or just stuck with evil spirit.
Cite?
While this is a aspect of it, it’s not the only aspect. The other side of this is that tear filled call to God (not the alter), is surrendering yourself to God, telling God that you give your life to Him, to do as He choses, God then starts to transform your life to His will. The amount of transformation and service to God has to do with your own subberness, but God is able to break your will.
I hear what you are stating, and understand this POV you are expressing. Jesus stated love for God first, love for man second. Jesus didn’t hate the sinner, even ones who rejected Him. Division is not in the Spirit of God and doing so is falling into sin.
As a believer I don’t even like the term Christian as it’s meaning is pretty meaningless IMHO.
Some aspects of it are very Christian in the spiritual sense, and anti-Christian in the worldly sense. The freedom of religion seems like something Jesus would have approved of, as no one can be forced by man to come to God, only God can do that, but we wuld need a system that would allow God’s people to be able to reach others. I don’t think it’s a issue if man founded a Christian nation, but did God found a Christian nation.
But it is not by works we are saved.
Czarcasm
Bold mine, showing at the time of Plato, daemons were know to be largely evil, which IIRC Plato was a student of Socrates.
OK it was the 14th Cent, not the 17th, and this is not the cite I was looking for but shows they were the same at one time.
**Czarcasm
** does this sound like a evil spirit, or more like Socrates daemon?
The problem is that people like Fred Phelps swear they are giving their lives to God yet his actions speak of something quite different. Jesus taught that it is by the nature of our actions that we reveal what spirit moves us.
So God gave us free will in order to break it?
This smacks of “I know I have the truth and I know God wants me to share it” It’s that kind of attitude that bothers me. Aren’t we all God’s people? The system for us to reach others is life and living it. Our interaction with others sets an example. As we grow we provide a better example.
I think it is only man that places such importance on labels like Christian and non Christian when it comes to individuals or nations. Were those who committed horrible acts during the crusades or the inquisition part of a Christian nation established by God? Hardly
says Christian tradition according to certain interpretations of the a 2000 year old book.
Have you noticed how many times the NT says we will be judged according to our works rather than just our beliefs?
I think you have summed it up well with your quotes. Spiritual people usually call it the “Christ Consciousness.” You can practice it without being a Christian, and yes, it is not unique. But it will bring you untold wealth and peace.
Daimon is Greek, Daemon is Latin. There was no Greek “demonology.” There was a Greek work for minor spirits and deities which was selected as the most passable translation for an Aramaic word referring to evil spirits.
Jesus did not speak Greek. The Gospels do not reflect Jesus’ actual words but translations of his words from Aramaic into Greek. Jesus would not have literally said daimon.
Do you think that makes a diiference if that’s what He said?
Since Kanicbird is trying to make an argument that Socrates claimed to be possessed by a demon based on the specious argument that the same Greek word is used in the NT for Palestinian demons that Socrates used for an indwelling spirit which he believed disuaded him from doing evil, then it is indeed relevant that Jesus did not actually used the same word but an Aramaic word which was translated approximately into Greek in the Gospels. Socrates’ daimon had no theological relationship to Christian “demons.”
I’m thinking po tay toe, po tah toe. Since Jesus spoke of demons many times in the new testament I don’t have any don’t about what he was speaking.
Neither do I. I’m saying that’s not what Socrates was talking about.
Yeah. I’ll be quiet now. 
Can’t argue with that!
I was clumsily trying to respond to <<This “love everyone” stuff may be the values they’re technically supposed to have, but it’s not what they’re selling to the public.>> and veering off into something else. :smack: If you think of love as a happy emotion toward someone, it feels like a conflict to then point out moral shortcomings (on your own or in response to the sincere question from someone) because it feels like negative emotion. But if love is intelligent and a logical desire, feelings aren’t really the issue.
But you’re right, ultimately I’m only responsible for my own morality.
Maybe we need a thread to learn about love and other emotions?
I was raised to believe that Christians value forgiveness over revenge, love over hate, kindness and charity over selfishness, and community good over individual desire. I was also taught that, while it is really, really hard to actually achieve such a state of grace, a Christian’s life is to be spent constantly and persistently pursuing it.
Maybe. I’m always up for learning something new.