On Universalism

[Astravalon]

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?

During the final phase of my Christian walk, I was a Christian Universalist, and I say this rocks! If I ever go back to identifying as a Christian again, it will be of the Universalist variety. Even though I don't call myself Christian, I still believe that salvation would be for all mankind (and that's assuming we needed saving in the first place).

I can't think of any other soteriology that speaks so well of God's Love and Power the way the universalistic one does.

Whether or not salvation is necessary, the ultimate and eternal well-being of all mankind is, imo, the most God-glorifying of any scenario a religion can come up with.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not so sure people mean the same thing when they utter Universalism. If they mean that God can save whom He wishes, then you can call me a universalist. If they mean that people with two completely contradictory moral beliefs will enter together, then I most definitely would not subscribe to that.

 

[sojourner]

During the final phase of my Christian walk, I was a Christian Universalist, and I say this rocks! If I ever go back to identifying as a Christian again, it will be of the Universalist variety. Even though I don't call myself Christian, I still believe that salvation would be for all mankind (and that's assuming we needed saving in the first place).

I can't think of any other soteriology that speaks so well of God's Love and Power the way the universalistic one does.

Whether or not salvation is necessary, the ultimate and eternal well-being of all mankind is, imo, the most God-glorifying of any scenario a religion can come up with.

What could denote well-being as clearly as "no matter who you are, who you are is OK?"

 

[Storm]

I'm not so sure people mean the same thing when they utter Universalism. If they mean that God can save whom He wishes, then you can call me a universalist. If they mean that people with two completely contradictory moral beliefs will enter together, then I most definitely would not subscribe to that.

Neither is really accurate, really.

The first implies there are some God doesn't wish to save. This completely contradicts Universalism in toto.

The second implies that everyone everywhere automatically goes to Heaven as soon as they die, with no effort on their part or God's, which... yeah. Pretty dumb, though I won't swear there's not someone out there who believes it. (And thinks it's Universalism.)

So, instead of focusing on everyone, why don't you tell me what you think of my last few posts? (I pick me because it's my thread, and I'm the one typing this post. Me, me, me, all about me. So there! )

 

[nazz]

How could he be? Calvin lived 1500 years later than Paul.

precognition?

:run:

seriously though, it is where Calvin got his ideas. I think they would have agreed.

 

[nazz]

I really recommend reading the whole thing. I mean to do so (again) when I get caught up. The link's in the op.


I'll agree with that if you agree to my addendum, "in OUR hearts." The whole premise of Universailism is that God doesn't give up on us, regardless of whether we give up on God.

I can agree that there is never a time when God is not available.

Does that work?

 

[Storm]

I can agree that there is never a time when God is not available.

Does that work?

I'm not sure what it means.....

 

[nazz]

Oh, I think God can wait us out.

I'm just saying that the free will to resist God could be eternal

 

[Storm]

I'm just saying that the free will to resist God could be eternal

Mmmm, I rather doubt that. The why of it depends on the specific theology, though. So I'll let you pick one before I go on.

 

[nazz]

Mmmm, I rather doubt that. The why of it depends on the specific theology, though. So I'll let you pick one before I go on.

Not sure I understand. What are the choices?

 

[nazz]

I'm not sure what it means.....

I mean even if one resisted God for an eternity and then changed one's mind God would still always be there and open to receive.

 

[Storm]

Not sure I understand. What are the choices?

Pick a God, any God!

I'm a panentheist. The whole vocabulary of Universalism is theistic. I honestly don't know what you are yet.

There's a few.

 

[Storm]

I mean even if one resisted God for an eternity and then changed one's mind God would still always be there and open to receive.

I can go with that.

 

[nazz]

Pick a God, any God!

I'm a panentheist. The whole vocabulary of Universalism is theistic. I honestly don't know what you are yet.

There's a few.

Panentheist would fit me I think. Maybe Gnostic panentheist, although that almost sounds like a contradiction in terms.

And then there is syntheist--a whole other ball of wax!



Oh well, it's complicated, my view of God.

 

[Storm]

Panentheist would fit me I think. Maybe Gnostic panentheist, although that almost sounds like a contradiction in terms.

And then there is syntheist--a whole other ball of wax!



Oh well, it's complicated, my view of God.

So, which vocabulary should I use?

 

[nazz]

So, which vocabulary should I use?

since you are a panentheist try that one and I will see if I can relate.

 

[Storm]

since you are a panentheist try that one and I will see if I can relate.

K. Very long story short, I believe the cosmos is God's body. All consciousness is its mind.

In this context, whether or not I believe in free will at all is.... arguable, and largely semantic. Nobody can do anything God against God's will, but otoh, God's will isn't decided (yet). Humanity's purpose in my view is to enact God's internal debate on morality.

However, as God progresses, so do we, and we eventually all end up in the same place.

Did that make any sense at all?

 

[nazz]

K. Very long story short, I believe the cosmos is God's body. All consciousness is its mind.

In this context, whether or not I believe in free will at all is.... arguable, and largely semantic. Nobody can do anything God against God's will, but otoh, God's will isn't decided (yet). Humanity's purpose in my view is to enact God's internal debate on morality.

However, as God progresses, so do we, and we eventually all end up in the same place.

Did that make any sense at all?

Yes, in the sense that I think I understand what you are saying. But that is not exactly how I view God so it doesn't quite work for me.

 

[Storm]

Yes, in the sense that I think I understand what you are saying. But that is not exactly how I view God so it doesn't quite work for me.

Hee! That was the way, way WAAAAAAAAAAAY oversimplified version, too.

Don't feel bad, I'm pretty damn weird (and proud of it)!

 

[nazz]

Hee! That was the way, way WAAAAAAAAAAAY oversimplified version, too.

Don't feel bad, I'm pretty damn weird (and proud of it)!

Without getting too far into my own complicated beliefs about God I just think that the existence of independent minds and wills is a brute fact to be acknowledged. Even if in an ultimate sense they are all part of God. Heck, even in a strictly Christian context, Christ, as part of the Trinity, prayed "not my will but thine be done". If there can be two wills within the Godhead then there can certainly be multiple wills outside of it.

From one proud weirdo to another