On Universalism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

The included (in mainstream culture) have no need of being included (in Christianity)?

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

"Inclusive" in the sense of a set or a Venn diagram, I suppose. "Inclusive" in the sense of being welcoming or embracing of all cultures? I think that's debatable.

 

[lunamoth]

I like Acim's post #35, and agree with much of that [nice!]. I especially like the part about salvation as already done (in fact it is only missing if we don't see it), and it is a matter of acceptance. Salvation, to me, is making it part of our deep understanding that we all are connected. This is love. I see this as supported by our experience and by our growing scientific knowledge.

I also like Acim's comment about forgiveness. While perhaps in one sense there is nothing to ever forgive, for all practical purposes our egos and attachments cause us to behave as if we do not have salvation. In this sense we are broken, or fallen, or sinful. Forgiveness is the mechanism for healing.

$0.02

 

[sojourner]

The included (in mainstream culture) have no need of being included (in Christianity)?

Remember, I'm talking about Xy at its base -- not what it has become. Xy is a movement -- not a religion. It seeks to include everyone -- to create community. Those who are already included in the community have no need to be included in the community.

"Inclusive" in the sense of a set or a Venn diagram, I suppose. "Inclusive" in the sense of being welcoming or embracing of all cultures? I think that's debatable.

Again: That's what it was meant to be. What it has become is a members-only club, exclusive to itself, because Paul's statement that we have to be in the world but not of the world has been misinterpreted.

 

[sojourner]

I like Acim's post #35, and agree with much of that [nice!]. I especially like the part about salvation as already done (in fact it is only missing if we don't see it), and it is a matter of acceptance. Salvation, to me, is making it part of our deep understanding that we all are connected. This is love. I see this as supported by our experience and by our growing scientific knowledge.

I also like Acim's comment about forgiveness. While perhaps in one sense there is nothing to ever forgive, for all practical purposes our egos and attachments cause us to behave as if we do not have salvation. In this sense we are broken, or fallen, or sinful. Forgiveness is the mechanism for healing.

$0.02

I like that, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Remember, I'm talking about Xy at its base -- not what it has become.

So am I.

Xy is a movement -- not a religion. It seeks to include everyone -- to create community. Those who are already included in the community have no need to be included in the community.

Hmm. My sense is that it's directed specifically to the outcasts and the downtrodden, not to all people in general. At least, that's what I get from Jesus' message in the Gospels. IMO, he goes to great lengths to exclude the comfortable and those in power.

 

[sojourner]

Hmm. My sense is that it's directed specifically to the outcasts and the downtrodden, not to all people in general. At least, that's what I get from Jesus' message in the Gospels. IMO, he goes to great lengths to exclude the comfortable and those in power.

Because the comfortable and powerful are already included. Healthy people don't need to go to the hospital.

 

[lunamoth]

So am I.


Hmm. My sense is that it's directed specifically to the outcasts and the downtrodden, not to all people in general. At least, that's what I get from Jesus' message in the Gospels. IMO, he goes to great lengths to exclude the comfortable and those in power.

Wouldn't it be the case, though, that once enough outsiders are included they start to be the insiders? The apostle Paul's points about the law indicate, to me, that he recognized this aspect of defining communities by imposing boundaries, as humans tend to do. Instead, his intention seemed to be to have a Community held together by attraction to the center, Christ's love. The fact that we continue to get this wrong does not negate the value of the ideal, the Beloved Community.

 

[Storm]

Penguin, did you miss post # 30?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the comfortable and powerful are already included.

In what, exactly?

Not in the Kingdom of God, if Jesus' words are any indication.

Healthy people don't need to go to the hospital.

Yes... so we could say that the hospital is not for healthy people. In that sense, it's not "universal".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't it be the case, though, that once enough outsiders are included they start to be the insiders?

At a certain point, yes. However, I think that the Bible (or the Gospels, anyhow) seem to be written with the assumption that this would never happen... that Christianity would remain a "fringe" religion outside of the "mainstream".

In fact, it seems to me that this is one of its defining characteristics: IMO, Christianity - as preached by Jesus, according to the Gospels - is meant to be extreme. There's no such thing as "mainstream extreme"; once the extreme becomes mainstream, it ceases to be extreme.

 

[sojourner]

Yes... so we could say that the hospital is not for healthy people. In that sense, it's not "universal".

the hospital isn't what we're talking about, though. Health is what we're talking about. You're confusing the Church with the community. The church doesn't supplant the community -- rather it is a balm that infuses into the community to create wholeness.

 

[sojourner]

At a certain point, yes. However, I think that the Bible (or the Gospels, anyhow) seem to be written with the assumption that this would never happen... that Christianity would remain a "fringe" religion outside of the "mainstream".

In fact, it seems to me that this is one of its defining characteristics: IMO, Christianity - as preached by Jesus, according to the Gospels - is meant to be extreme. There's no such thing as "mainstream extreme"; once the extreme becomes mainstream, it ceases to be extreme.

I agree. The church has largely abdicated its parabolic identity for a mythic identity. The balm must always be at odds with the bacteria of wealth and power that seek to destroy true community from within.

 

[lunamoth]

At a certain point, yes. However, I think that the Bible (or the Gospels, anyhow) seem to be written with the assumption that this would never happen... that Christianity would remain a "fringe" religion outside of the "mainstream".

In fact, it seems to me that this is one of its defining characteristics: IMO, Christianity - as preached by Jesus, according to the Gospels - is meant to be extreme. There's no such thing as "mainstream extreme"; once the extreme becomes mainstream, it ceases to be extreme.

Maybe, maybe not. The Way taught by Jesus was subversive and in many interpretations radical, and I would agree that it has the hallmarks of an end-of-the-world cult. Be that as it may, it remains that the law binds and excludes, while love frees and includes. We can see this message in the Gospels (esp. John) and Paul's writings.

 

[Acim]

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.

I assure you, I understand what I mean by Revelation. Feel free to ask whatever is on your mind with regards to the topic.

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.

Very much agree with what you have said here. I think the totality of God and core essence of unconditional love are beyond comprehension we are generally inclined to go with. In my experience, the more immersed I am in Presence, the more knowledge grows and doubt subsides. The fear, for the uninitiated, can then become "holy crap, I wasn't ready for this, let me go back to that familiar place where awe is not found."

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 put 'my own holy book' in single quotes cause I was drawing reference to text that supports my spiritual understandings. I do not think the book is holy, nor do I think anything perceived as 'outside consciousness' is holy. It is neutral. For most part, in way I am reading your words on guides, I agree. I am imagining there may be slight difference in how available experience is to us without guides. But that is a discussion with nuances I don't care to address right now.

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.

You speak as one who knows and understands much about the topic. Whereas you seem to question what others relate, I tend to give benefit of doubts I have in others. I fully believe all reading this have experienced Oneness, Revelation, Divinity and have other names for it, which may appear on the surface as having next to nothing to do with 'spirituality.' As one prone to Universalistic understandings, I don't feel a need for others to conform their inspirations and realizations to my core beliefs and spiritual jargon. There's a little of that going on me, but I tend to catch it quickly and laugh at myself for 'going there.'

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I wasn't thinking so much in terms of history as motivation. I can see how universalism would be appealing to some people, but merely being appealing doesn't mean that a thing is necessarily true. What indication does the universalist have that universalism is correct?

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

Okay... now we may be getting into history a bit after all.

Where does the "belief in God" part of universalism come from, then, if not from taking pre-existing religious beliefs and stripping out the "objectionable" parts?

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.

Hmm... so you reject (for yourself, at least) the only reason that comes to my mind as a motivation for universalism. I'm not sure where that leaves us.

BTW - I always considered the term "universalism" to refer to the belief that all people will receive salvation. If you don't believe in salvation, wouldn't this make you not a universalist?

Or are you thinking more of universalism (for yourself, anyhow) as something like "'reunion' for all"?

 

[Acim]

You're confusing the Church with the community. The church doesn't supplant the community -- rather it is a balm that infuses into the community to create wholeness.

I like this and what #52 is saying as well.

I see Church as catalyst for conception of Divine Reunion to be experienced (by one and all). In the perceptual order, like all buildings around us, it can reduced to conception of institutionalism and division.

 

[Storm]

I wasn't thinking so much in terms of history as motivation. I can see how universalism would be appealing to some people, but merely being appealing doesn't mean that a thing is necessarily true. What indication does the universalist have that universalism is correct?

Well... none. It's theology, not science. There's no evidence to be had, for anyone.

Okay... now we may be getting into history a bit after all.

Where does the "belief in God" part of universalism come from, then, if not from taking pre-existing religious beliefs and stripping out the "objectionable" parts?

Well, that's one way of looking at it. But I see it as stemming from faith in God's love.

Hmm... so you reject (for yourself, at least) the only reason that comes to my mind as a motivation for universalism. I'm not sure where that leaves us.

BTW - I always considered the term "universalism" to refer to the belief that all people will receive salvation. If you don't believe in salvation, wouldn't this make you not a universalist?

Or are you thinking more of universalism (for yourself, anyhow) as something like "'reunion' for all"?

Yes. If I were a theist, it would be salvation; as it stands, it's more like moksha. We all learn and evolve until we're sufficiently advanced to shed the ego and reintegrate with the divine. No judgment, good or bad.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

What do you think of the doctrine of Universalism?

Lovely, but two points to note:

1) It doesn't go far enough. I'd actually go with apocatastasis. Because it makes more sense to me and I love Origen.

2) It's very hard to reconcile with theodicy.

 

[Caladan]

Where has that gotten us?

Well I dont know. I sure dont plan to take on the role of miss America.
I am pretty content with who I am. I am even content with the world we live in.

 

[Storm]

Lovely, but two points to note:

1) It doesn't go far enough. I'd actually go with apocatastasis. Because it makes more sense to me and I love Origen.

2) It's very hard to reconcile with theodicy.

Elaborate, please.