On Universalism

[Storm]

Universalism accepts that God will save every human being, and that God provides paths for people to follow that will lead them to a place of salvation (whatever that means -- I prefer to think of it as "union with God"). The "need for salvation-based" religions mostly hold that their belief -- their concept of God -- their tenets -- their rituals are what save people, ergo, universalism is wrong. If universalism holds that salvation is already efficacious -- that is, that God is already about the business of drawing people to God, then any number of paths can be "correct" -- it simply becomes a matter of finding the one that's right for you. In other words, if universalism says that "everyone's OK in God's eyes -- and God's love overrides your propensity to sin -- then I'm aboard. I think that Xy is, at its heart, a universal religion.

I agree. Thank you for explaining.

 

[Storm]

The following is pertinent, in my opinion.

[/b]

That was a beautiful passage, but I don't see how it was a relevant one.

 

[Archer]

What do you think of the doctrine of Universalism?

Stemming from Christianity, Universalism teaches universal salvation. In my own words, it's the belief that no matter how low we sink, God's love runs deeper.

The Reverend Dr. Mark Morrison-Reed delivered a powerful sermon on the topic at my church: Dragged Kicking & Screaming Into Heaven (12/6/09) You can find the .pdf as well as a link to the podcast here. A couple of excerpts:

The great insight of Universalism is that you cannot coerce people into loving oneanother. The commandments are not threats. If they are not fulfilled God will notwithdraw His love. No one has ever or will ever draw true love out of another with punishment. God’s love is given to all and is a more a positive force for good than fear ever will be. Behind this is a simple truth: in being loved we learn to love. Those who are loved will in turn love others. Those who feel God’s infinite love within themselves will in turn feel so good about themselves, so connected to life and so full of compassion that they will not be able to help but to spread that love for they will overflow with it.

...

The “Gospel of the Larger Hope” is a gospel of inclusion that proclaims God’s enduring and undaunted love. What has always puzzled me is why it didn’t sweep the world? Why after the boom in the first half of the 19th century did it collapsed? Why is it the afterthought in Unitarian Universalism? Why is Universalism and its proclamation of unconditional and uncompromising, all-embracing and over-powering Divine Love more
difficult to believe in than the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth? Why is it easier to believe the unbelievable than to believe we are one human family beloved by God?

...

The world needs to hear about this faith that soothes wounded hearts and shapes attitudes that embody the Spirit of Love rather than that of wrath. In the face of neo-tribalism we need a message that challenges the “axis of evil” rhetoric, contradicts the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality and proclaims the oneness of the human family. There is only ‘us’ beloved by a God who, dismissing free will (You heard me correctly. You do not get to decide), and embracing the saintly and despicable alike; created both Mother Teresa and Saddam Hussein, understands Major Nidal Malik Hasan and grieves for his victims, supported both McCain and Obama, loves both Bush and Ben Laden, and drags Hitler into heaven, as well.​

So, what do you make of it?

Philosophy loosely based on older philosophy that is based on another that stems from legend and myth. Yes I believe in legends.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that Xy is, at its heart, a universal religion.

Some forms of Christianity, perhaps, but Christianity as a whole? Certainly not, IMO. For instance, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism could be considered "universalist", which excludes the vast majority of Protestants.

 

[Yerda]

So, what do you make of it?

If the deepening mystery of everything were to convince me of the need for a God, it would do nothing to suggest God's love.

From where does universalism draw support?

 

[Storm]

If the deepening mystery of everything were to convince me of the need for a God, it would do nothing to suggest God's love.

From where does universalism draw support?

It depends on what support you're looking for. If you want science, as you seem to, it has no more than any other theology.

 

[Yerda]

Some forms of Christianity, perhaps, but Christianity as a whole? Certainly not, IMO. For instance, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism could be considered "universalist", which excludes the vast majority of Protestants.

I was raised as a Catholic, and my local priest and my Catholic schoolteachers certainly didn't create that impression either.

If not the Catholics and the Protestants, which Christians believe in universalism?

 

[Yerda]

It depends on what support you're looking for. If you want science, as you seem to, it has no more than any other theology.

Do you hold to it because you feel it is satisfying?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends on what support you're looking for. If you want science, as you seem to, it has no more than any other theology.

But most theology comes from some sort of source: scripture, tales of divine revelation, etc. Where does universalism come from?

It's always struck me as a sort of picking-and-choosing from pre-existent beliefs. Universalists see religions preaching belief in a vengeful God; they decide that they like the "God" part but not the "vengeful" part. What I wonder is that if individual aspects of religious beliefs are up for debate this way, why accept the "God" part at all?

The only reason I can see is personal comfort derived from the idea of salvation.

 

[Storm]

Do you hold to it because you feel it is satisfying?

No. There are emotional elements which I don't deny, but I hold to it because it makes sense to me.

But most theology comes from some sort of source: scripture, tales of divine revelation, etc. Where does universalism come from?

Well, I'm not that studied in the history of theology. I'll take a stab at sharing what I've gleaned if you'll agree to keep in mind that I'm not entirely certain of the details.

It's always struck me as a sort of picking-and-choosing from pre-existent beliefs. Universalists see religions preaching belief in a vengeful God; they decide that they like the "God" part but not the "vengeful" part. What I wonder is that if individual aspects of religious beliefs are up for debate this way, why accept the "God" part at all?

That may be the case for some, but not necessarily all, or even most.

The only reason I can see is personal comfort derived from the idea of salvation.

Now that I can help with.

I don't believe in salvation, in fact. As a panentheist, I don't believe there's anything to be saved from. "Reunion" would be a more accurate word, and it's the logical conclusion of the rest of my theology.

 

[sojourner]

Some forms of Christianity, perhaps, but Christianity as a whole? Certainly not, IMO. For instance, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism could be considered "universalist", which excludes the vast majority of Protestants.

I see what you're saying and I agree. However, I should have written the post better. By "at its heart" I mean the basic tenets of Xy as put forth by Christ. Calvinism, Arinnianism, modern American Protestantism, and most of the expressions of Xy that stem from our imperial hijinks do not (IMO) represent Xy as it was meant to be. When Xy became imperialized, it became "mainstream." And "mainstream" advocates for the included -- not the excluded. Xy adapted itself to Judaic and Greek cultures successfully. Then it moved on to North African cultures and Celtic cultures. Recently, it has found massive inroads into central African and Native American cultures, where it, likewise has adapted itself in marvelous ways. By finding a unique voice wherever it finds itself, it shows itself to be universal in nature.

 

[atanu]

That was a beautiful passage, but I don't see how it was a relevant one.

That there are not two is an essential knowledge before true universalism replaces hatred in Heart. But love cannot be taught.

 

[Caladan]

What do you think of the doctrine of Universalism?

Stemming from Christianity, Universalism teaches universal salvation. In my own words, it's the belief that no matter how low we sink, God's love runs deeper.
So, what do you make of it?

The low place that people sink into, is pretty much a natural. it has never helped any major country to bring hopes of a world to come or salvation. they are still going to return to the same basic routine.
the normal thing to do would be to practice the routine as people in the rest of the world.

 

[Storm]

The low place that people sink into, is pretty much a natural. it has never helped any major country to bring hopes of a world to come or rather of salvation from whichever condition. they are still going to return to the same basic routine.
the normal thing to do would be to practice the routine as people in the rest of the world do.

Where has that gotten us?

 

[Acim]

Well, this thread is in domain of my spirituality.

What do you think of the doctrine of Universalism?

Stemming from Christianity, Universalism teaches universal salvation. In my own words, it's the belief that no matter how low we sink, God's love runs deeper.

I would concur.

I'll just add since it comes up on this thread, that my understanding is that salvation has already come, and is why it is universal / applies to all. It then becomes more of a matter of acceptance. And acceptance as experience, rather than (only) intellectual. I have tasted this experience, and it is joyful in ways I find challenging to put into words.

As described in OP, from Reverend Dr. Mark Morrison-Reed, the experience is a lot like:

Those who feel God’s infinite love within themselves will in turn feel so good about themselves, so connected to life and so full of compassion that they will not be able to help but to spread that love for they will overflow with it.​

It is very much in vein of "not be able to help but spread that love." To me, this is precisely what Jesus did when he performed miracles, and he is far from only one to do miracles. As I've noted elsewhere, my understanding of miracles are:

a) use of them as spectacles to induce belief is a misunderstanding of their purpose

b) when they do not occur, something has gone wrong​

This is abbreviated version of my understanding, and lends to point of what I experienced. I distinctly recall performing miracles, but I assure anyone reading this, that is so far down on the totem pole when compared to overflow of joy. Miracles are welcomed events for sure, but akin in 'power' to someone asking you to hold the door for them. You do it, and you are not very likely to be wowed by the power, but more prone to be inebriated by the opportunity to share/spread the love.

Also, in relation to this quote from OP (from the Reverend):

In the face of neo-tribalism we need a message that challenges the “axis of evil” rhetoric, contradicts the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality and proclaims the oneness of the human family.​

...this speaks to me. I understand "enemy" and "them" to be within me. Admittedly, this is more intellectual in how I 'work through things,' but it is message I tend to spread whenever opportunity arises. Often what I see is we (all of us, includes me) project traits of discord and justifiable dislike onto others, and operate as if the projection is not where 'they' are coming from. I find it easy to witness to this, and say pick a thread, any thread in debate, and the "us" and "them" exchanges are quite visible in the projection. Another (less profound) way of putting this is taking things at face value and hearing without listening.

To me, forgiveness is the work around. That can take practice to deepen just how effective it is and applicable to all situations where a problem (in relating) is perceived. I find this quickly restores the mind to understanding of oneness, where the universal love / salvation principle can be realized. I get glimpses of the experience I referenced before just about everyday. And I fully believe all reading this do, but may downplay it as 'something else' occurring. For sure before I felt it for several days on end, I attributed the minor or brief experiences to something other than how I understand it now.

I'm interested in responding to other questions on this thread as well as exploring what others think about Universalism.

 

[Acim]

From where does universalism draw support?

(Divine) Revelation. Always occurring.

I have text I read as 'own holy book,' but is a) not the sort of book that instructs me to stop reading other doctrines and b) that understands inner Guide trumps what it is able to teach.

I draw support from more places in this world than I care to ever count. Let's just say well over 10,000. Yes, Divine Revelation can be found in that many (and much more) sources.

Ears with which to listen, eyes with which to see.

 

[Yerda]

(Divine) Revelation. Always occurring.

I have text I read as 'own holy book,' but is a) not the sort of book that instructs me to stop reading other doctrines and b) that understands inner Guide trumps what it is able to teach.

I draw support from more places in this world than I care to ever count. Let's just say well over 10,000. Yes, Divine Revelation can be found in that many (and much more) sources.

Ears with which to listen, eyes with which to see.

No idea what you just said, mate.

 

[YmirGF]

(Divine) Revelation. Always occurring.

I am not a fan of so-called "revelation", but I do actively support realization. That said, I am worried about people who claim connection to "divine" anything. I'm quite sure they don't really understand what they are talking about. If we listen to Storm, she claims it (god) is beyond our comprehension. I have the temerity to disagree. As an olive branch to Storm, I'd suggest that once we remove "god" from its pedestal and no longer view it with our old ways of thinking, projecting qualities that are not there, we just might, might, begin to scratch beneath its surface and start to comprehend the seemingly unfathomable mysteries therein. The idea being that as long as one thinks something is incomprehensible, so that something shall remain.

I have text I read as 'own holy book,' but is a) not the sort of book that instructs me to stop reading other doctrines and b) that understands inner Guide trumps what it is able to teach.

I am certainly aware of "guides", both inner and outer, however guides are just that. The horse must want to drink the water. Personally, I don't see anything as being holy, especially mere books, but that's just me.

I draw support from more places in this world than I care to ever count. Let's just say well over 10,000. Yes, Divine Revelation can be found in that many (and much more) sources.

Ears with which to listen, eyes with which to see.

I draw inspiration from my local wildlife. It's always so wonderful when I have a pack of excitable deer come by to visit and feast on a bit of apple. They are so wary, and yet, they let me stroke their necks and kiss them on the bridge of their nose. That's real trust... then again, it could just be a ploy to get another bit of apple out of me.

Again, I'm not big on revelation and am quite skeptical of those who put their faith in it. I question what they actually know. Oneness is a bit more involved than most appreciate. In my view, if one is still seeing divinity, one still have a ways to go. Once one perceives Oneness, thoughts of divinity fade into the background noise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see what you're saying and I agree. However, I should have written the post better. By "at its heart" I mean the basic tenets of Xy as put forth by Christ. Calvinism, Arinnianism, modern American Protestantism, and most of the expressions of Xy that stem from our imperial hijinks do not (IMO) represent Xy as it was meant to be. When Xy became imperialized, it became "mainstream." And "mainstream" advocates for the included -- not the excluded.

But if Christianity wasn't intended to be mainstream, how could it be said to be inclusive? If you're leaving out the mainstream, then you're leaving out a huge segment of the population.

Xy adapted itself to Judaic and Greek cultures successfully. Then it moved on to North African cultures and Celtic cultures. Recently, it has found massive inroads into central African and Native American cultures, where it, likewise has adapted itself in marvelous ways. By finding a unique voice wherever it finds itself, it shows itself to be universal in nature.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd call that "universal". "Adaptive", maybe, but I don't think they're the same thing.

 

[sojourner]

But if Christianity wasn't intended to be mainstream, how could it be said to be inclusive? If you're leaving out the mainstream, then you're leaving out a huge segment of the population.

the included have no need of being included, do they?

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd call that "universal". "Adaptive", maybe, but I don't think they're the same thing.

Xy is not exclusive to any culture. Therefore, it is inclusive.