It took two years from the time that God’s grace entered the captain of that slave ship and had his spiritual epiphany - you know, the one who wrote Amazing Grace - to eventually stop his slave trading.
I suppose that finances pawn grace. But I know that human consciousness does not always work in leaps and bounds. I suppose that it is also possible that we do not see the gift which has been given so freely…both to ourselves and others.
Do we think that grace is like magic?
The grace of God implies a quality of God that is given with ease, fluidity and in an unbiased manner (it is full of grace - graceful in nature).
Is it being redundant, then, to say that the grace of God is graceful? Or at least a tautology?-- as in–the taste of a peach is peachy.
Meaning, the grace of God is effortless and fluid (as in “this” is “that”).
If everything is attributed to God’s grace, then people are purely puppets … they are not responsible for anything that happens.
That’s one of the problems with the concept of God’s grace … How much free will does an individual have?
Pragmatically, it is about the reduction of non-virtuous pride.
No comprende. 
phyllo,
Who said "everything?
Anyway, phyllo, it hasn’t actually been established that grace necessarily comes from God (speaking as an agnostic). It might be nothing more than being in the right place at the right time and a highly conscious realization and awareness flows into our “entire” beings as a result of some sense of qualia pervading our higher spirits. Like any epiphany, it might appear to come out of the blue, but I do not intuit that this is the way that epiphanys or transformations come to us. They have been seething and working underground for quite awhile.
If i were ever to “see” a God again, it would be a highly impersonal one so grace for me would be as i described above. More like an interface between mind/emotions being and the workings of the universe.
There are more things in heaven (deep space lol) and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
And if there is a God and this God sends grace, again, meaning free, for me, it is presupposed that the person receiving the grace also has the freedom to reject it. How can one receive grace and be a puppet at the same time.
Doesn’t one have to see the value of something in order to accept it?
When I give a gift, especially if I do not know if the person will like it, I always keep the receipt and I tell them that naturally they can return that gift if they want to. It was freely given and it can be freely taken back for something else. If I feel that way, why would a God not feel that way?
Well, if there IS a God, that would depend on the individual but I daresay it might also depend on the omniscience (if there be such a quality) of that God and how pragmatic and non-wasteful that God is.
Why waste grace on someone who sees no value in it.Is grace simply for the use of the person him/her -self or for the whole of humanity or at least a small area of it?
Quite a few theologians. It’s been a major issue in Christianity.
I guess that’s irrelevant since you are not using the standard definition of God’s grace. 
I’m with Patrick Henry - “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Why would we have evolved into consciousness, conscious thought, the freedom to make our own choices - we can after all do this to more than a certain degree - if EVERTHING is attributed to a god’s grace?
That would seem to be illogical to me.
That seems to come from a “Daddy in the sky” issue to me. Daddy does everything, gives everything.
How can an individual grow and mature under the albeit even the benign control of a god?
I choose NOT to be a part of the Borg.
I prefer the deists’ view of things, the hands-off laissez faire view.
As a teacher, I predetermine the conditions for each child’s growth based on each individual child’s needs and through this hidden process the child grows and matures and hopefully, as they age, they remain as students and are lifelong learners (as I view myself).
John Lennon thought so too and then he got shot dead in the face by a pistol. Define irony.
John Lennon was a wife beating communist.
I believe somebody needs to keep women in line. People don’t keep women in line anymore and they just act like fickle brats.
Someone’s gotta do it, but it hurts me more than it hurts them.
How about the communist part?
John Lennon didn’t believe in the State and he wrote a song against slave jobs. So you calling him a communist is misleading
In relation to “imagine” John Lennon himself refered to it as essentially a communist manifesto and said “us, we should have a nice … British Socialism” and so there is nothing misleading about what I said.
You are being dishonest. John Lennons full words are thus:
Further more, by “One World” he was not referring to a one world government or New World Order, but a world without government or politics, because in the song he says “Imagine no more politics”.
Yes, so he was a wife bashing communist, or a wife bashing socialist if you want to sugar coat it (no lies from my side).
I thought Lennon’s song was about what the world could be like without -isms or -ists.