Universalism, the Bible, and Christianity

[sealchan]

If you were convinced that the Bible supported Universalism, how would that change your stance toward Christianity?

It would improve it dramatically...then Christians would practice more what is taught...do not judge!

 

[Faithofchristian]

Consider the parable of the wheat and the chaff (Matthew 3). Google defines chaff as "the husks of corn or other seed separated by winnowing or threshing." The chaff comes from the exact same plant as the wheat. If the chaff is burned up, that would mean that God is destroying the unusable, sinful part of a person (which would definitely go along with Malachi 3:2). It seems that God always provides a way to repentance and purification, an opportunity to enter His Kingdom, the gates to which are always open (Revelation 21:25).



How could one suffer in a state of non-existence? (Revelation 20:10)

They don't their gone out of existence.

You really can't be serious, to think that I'm going to go by Google.

 

[IsaiahX]

How can there be universal salvation if we are consequenced in the meantime? Why would we need to be consequences when we will eventually be saved?

If God will not save sinners while they do not want saved (thus preserving their freewill), He has no alternative to punishing them for their sins, if He is truly just, while they reject being pardoned. The only alternative to being set free is staying imprisoned.

I mean it's rude to say rejecters will be consequences for not opening your gift, but behind the negativity it makes sense that we would be punished or be seperated from god forever. It benefits us because we know what is best for our wellbeing.

The gift is the freedom from consequences (John 3:36). Besides, How could you know what is best for your well being if you haven't even tried the gift yet?

Why do you feel the rest of us dont have real peace? In other words, can real peace exist without christ?/QUOTE]

Whenever a person obtains happiness from something other than Christ it is always fleeting. They are subject to a constant flow of ups and downs. Joy obtained through Christ, however is not dependent on our circumstances. I have heard Christians witness about times that they were in the worst of circumstances, but remained joyous simply because of their unwavering relationship with their God. (Ecclesiastes 2:1-2)

...and how does it benefit your relationship with christ to agree (if this is true) that rejecters arent experiencing spiritual not earthly peace just as you?

I wouldn't say that I or any other christian is benefited by believing only they have true peace. It's not like we want to hoard all the love and joy for ourselves and not allow others to come to Christ.

To me, if my religion said all people will die because they dont follow The Dharma would not be a religion I would follow. It contradicts the nature of Dharma. Instead, since there is rebirth, people will eventually understand birth, suffering, age, and death as to no longer be reborn and die. Its a positive way to say we are stil growing until we have personal understanding by our actions (rather than belief).

What's the difference between someone learning of the futility of rebirth through trial and error and someone learning of the futility of a life devoid of God's presence through being exposed to said life through hell?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If God will not save sinners while they do not want saved (thus preserving their freewill), He has no alternative to punishing them for their sins, if He is truly just, while they reject being pardoned. The only alternative to being set free is staying imprisoned.

Why set us free, though? We dont believe god for a reason. Unless we are forced, what you're saying doesn't make sense. We would have to be forced rather than suffer consequences for our choices. Why would anyone want to live their whole life in a religion that doesn't help them?

The gift is the freedom from consequences (John 3:36). Besides, How could you know what is best for your well being if you haven't even tried the gift yet?

Who said no one tried the gift? I tried it and left because it made me worse inside than better. I felt it in my heart and could not lie to myself and to my friends so I left.

That's like saying you know what's best for the rest of us. I can say that you will go through rebirth until you accept Dharma but it's not about me but about your actions. It's about how you see life and I don't judge what works for you.

You have one gift and I have another. I don't need yours and you don't need mine.

I honestly do not understand that sentiment. People have been killed because the religious murderers felt Pagans weren't receiving their gift. Slavery is built on this concept to. More politics than anything else.

But, really. Why do you feel I will be happy with someone else's gift?

Dharma is my life. Jesus is yours.

What am I missing?

 

[IsaiahX]

They don't their gone out of existence.

You really can't be serious, to think that I'm going to go by Google.

Again, how can you suffer in a state of unexistence?

If google isn't enough for you, how about Merriam Webster? (Definition of CHAFF)

 

[Faithofchristian]

Again, how can you suffer in a state of unexistence?

If google isn't enough for you, how about Merriam Webster? (Definition of CHAFF)

That's the whole point, there is no suffering. When a person has been wipe out of existence.

 

[sojourner]

If you were convinced that the Bible supported Universalism, how would that change your stance toward Christianity?

I think the Bible does support universalism. I think the Xy many practice is much more narrow than intended.

 

[sojourner]

Yet. The people who are acknowledge are gods chosen Israelites. And his chosen the gentiles who believe (whomsoever believes) will benefit and others will not.

The benefit is for those who accept gods grace.



Yet. Those who benefit or those who listen to the call win. All are called and few are chosen. Univeralism says all are saved. The bible never teaches that.

Having no god other than me is a huge one. Buddhism has more than one gods. Wiccan has a goddess. Pagans have more than one gods as well but not eastern gods. Muhammad doesn't teach what jesus does. And so forth. Not universalism.


Yes. One needs to repent to benefit. Universalism promise salvation to all. No where in scripture says all will be saved.



Those resurrected will be alive because they had faith in christ. Those who are not of christ will be dead. Forever.

What you are quoting applies to believers. The rest of us aren't bound by God's laws.



But those who are not of christ are not united. If that be the case the pharisees would be reunited as well as sinners god tossed to the side.



It's an analogy. All those who have faith will be one church. JW believe the new earth thing. But they also believe the rest of us are dead. There is no universalism in the bible. There has always been chosen people vs sinners.

I think you’re reading through too narrow a lens. I wasn’t a universalist until I had delved more deeply into the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Universalism means a Pagan would be saved just as an Athiest, and a Toaist. There is no god at the center; because, universaism doesnt support one person foundation for all.

Correct. All are saved, because the various theologies we embrace are merely different pictures of the same Source of life. We do’t all have to embrace the same avatar or metaphor in order to embrace Source.

Does the person have a say in whether they want to be with god or not?

Does a person have a say as to whether they want to breathe or not? At some point, the body is compelled to try to suck in air. Everyone is compelled to embrace life. God is life.

Some dont want to be with god; so, I dont see the issue with some going to hell and others not. It makes more sense that god be honest to those who want to believe than lie and say, guys you wont make it..oops.. I change my mind, you are all saved.

Some don’t want to embrace the Judeo-Xtian avatar and metaphors, but that doesn’t mean they reject life and its source.

Since we, who reject god, will be in a lake of fire it stops being universalism. Univeralism saves all so there is no punishment for rejection.

Punishment isn’t in the picture. Consequence is in the picture. There’s a difference.

...those who willing fully reject god, a lot of us, like myself, never experienced god to begin with

have you experienced life? That’s good enough.

That's not universalism. It's a trait of extreme division and this is why christianity is a black and white faith.

But it’s not. You (and others) twist it into that, because you insist that Xy is the mythic metaphors that present it to the world. Xy isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship, presented in mythic terms.

Another question. Do you think its better for someone to reject god because he or she follows a practice that benefits his well-being or should he accept gods blessings even though he didn't want them to begin with

If you’re practicing something that sets you free and brings you life, you are embracing God — just not the particular metaphor.

Rejection is rejection. For example, I am rejecting the Christian (muslim and jewish) concept of god as a deity. I will burn forever because of it. Does god want me to lie so I won't go to hell or be honest with him and myself regardless the consequences?

I don’t believe you will. Jesus says, “I am life.” If you embrace life, you’re embracing life, and that’s all that matters. You don’t have to buy into the particular mythic construct.

Some of us don't want to be with god.

You don’t want life?

For example, I receive love and happiness without god

Love and happiness ARE God — just not particularly the Judeo-Xtian mythic construct.

If god promoted universal salvation he would not wait or cleanse us so we Must Eventually accept him. That's not love. Love has no strings attached. He would let people die because he loves and their free will. But that's not the case. It makes more sense if there were no universal salvation. It would be direct: you believe, you are saved. If not, you die. Very clear cut

Love embraces all, because love is unconditional. When you learn to embrace and return love, you’re golden.

 

[sojourner]

That's hopeful wishing. I can pose the same question. You will go through rebirth thousands of times until you understand life and death by training your mind. It doesn't need to be this life time. After years of tuning once you understand that's your last rebirth. Then you die.

I hope that you come to know The Dharma so you won't be reborn. How do you know your beliefs won't change next lifetime of the next?

How can we change our true self? How can I change my race? My heart? My friendship? My creativity?

These things are a part of me as christ is a part of you. There is no either or scenario. No hoping we will be awakened because it would be against our wishes to be awakened. Who would benefit from changing our whole selves to god? It won't benefit us internally. That's not who we are

Same philosophy — different window-dressing. You don’t need to change, because you are already with God in your own way, just as I am with God in my own way. Source doesn’t want us to become something we’re not — only to finally embrace who we are. That’s salvation: to become who we were meant to be.

It says I am not really happy until I follow your faith. It's a nasty abrahamic mindset I never agreed with

I disagree with the prevailing narrow concept, which is why I also identify as “Shamanic.” I don’t believe Xy was intended to be narrow in its scope or embrace.

Yes. I reject. I have consequences. That's your faith not mine. My question is, what is the use of consequence of I will be saved anyway?

Consequence has no “use.” It just “is.”

Does god benefit from saving believers?

Yes! Because then life, love and truth increase when we all come to know who we really are.

Shrugs. I'm more interested in the conflicting messages. Universal salvation with temporary punishment. That sends mixed messages. The bible is very clear if you don't believe in god and reject him you -will not- be with him for eternity.

I don’t think it’s all that clear. It appears to say that — from a particular perspective. But remember: the texts are multivalent.

I see on RF many christians have hope for us rejecters. Maybe because it's hard to believe god would punish his children. One side says I will die and be seperated from god forever. I won't be resurrected nor go to heaven. The other side says if I have faith I will be judged by my deeds and go to heaven because of what I did based on faith

I say that we are all offspring of Source, and that we will all eventually return to Source.

 

[sojourner]

To answer your question, Those that believe in Jesus that call upon his name shall be saved.

There will be many people that will call upon the name of Christ Jesus ,But look what Jesus tells them in Matthew 7:22-23,

22-- "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23-- "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"

Just because someone calls upon the name of Jesus does not mean that they are saved.

As for the phrases made alive in
1 Corinthians 15:22--"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive"
What this mean is, Upon a person accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior, Then that person comes alive in knowing Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Where once they did not accept Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they were dead of not accepting Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior, But now they come to accept Christ Jesus, that now they are made alive unto Christ Jesus.

This mean that they came to the realization of knowing, accepting Christ Jesus, that by accepting Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior they are made alive unto Christ Jesus and God.

Too literalistic and narrow an interpretation for me. Too Pharisaic. Too arbitrary.

What does it really mean to “believe in Jesus?” Does it only mean what you think it means — that it’s a head exercise in coming to embrace doctrines and theological constructs? Or does it mean to embrace life, love, mercy, kindness, justice, forbearance, and hospitality?

 

[sojourner]

The translation in the Eucharistic Liturgy approved for the church in the United States replaces the words "for all" with "for the many." Jesus said that his blood was shed "for many" (see Matthew 26:28). But Jesus died "for all" (1 Timothy 2:6).


Although Jesus died for all, not everyone chooses to accept this gift. Each individual must choose to welcome the gift of salvation in Christ and live according to that grace, so that he or she may be among "the many" that are described in this text.

Possibilities

Jesus’ language at the Last Supper about his blood being poured out "for many" recalls "the many" that are three times mentioned in Isaiah 53:11-12.

Isaiah foretold that God one day would send his servant who would make himself "an offering for sin," bearing the sin of "many" and making "many" righteous (Isaiah 53:10-12).

Jesus at the Last Supper says his own blood being poured out "for many," possibily associating himself with this "suffering servant" figure prophesied by Isaiah. Jesus is the one who offers his life for the "many." Or is this in opposition to the fact that Jesus died "for all" (1 Timothy 2:6)?

This is a reflection of the gatekeeping that the historic church has always engaged in. One must meet certain criteria, embrace certain doctrines, jump through particular hoops. I don’t think Jesus operated that way. The only criteria Jesus set forth were criteria of love and acceptance. In my church, all are welcome at the table, no matter what one believes — or whether one believes, because the invitation is Christ’s, and Christ says: “Come to me all who are weary and I will refresh you.”

 

[sojourner]

It is true that you must accept Jesus' gift to benefit from salvation. However, given enough time to repent in the refining fire of hell, you could propose that, eventually, everyone will accept the free gift. We have hope that God is able to humble even the most conceited heart, given enough time (Daniel 4:37).

I don’t think it’s even that picayune. I think what’s offered is life; we can either accept that or reject it. We cannot reject life for ever. It’s too compelling.

 

[sojourner]

Heh... if I thought the Bible supported universalism, I would think that Christianity - which generally doesn't support universalism - was fundamentally hypocritical.

(FYI - I don't think the Bible generally supports universalism... though it's often not consistent with itself, so there may be some verses that support it)

I think much of Xy largely hypocritical. I think the Bible approaches a universal philosophy through a particular mythic hermeneutic. We get so hung up in the hermeneutic, we can’t see what it’s teaching — which is what we’re supposed to get out of it in the first place. Like Paul, we need to have the scales scraped from our eyes.

 

[sojourner]

Once someone are cast into the Lake of fire, There's is no return, Their gone not to exist ever again.Thats what the Lake of fire is about. They are destroyed never to exist ever again.
That of 2 Peter 3:9 has nothing to do with the Lake of fire.

What's 2 Peter 3:9 is about, that people have the time now and up to just before Christ Jesus returns, to get themselves right with Christ Jesus.
That after Christ Jesus has returned there's no more salvation to be offered to anyone, everyone has made their decisions as to who's side their on.

Too arbitrary for me. In the parable of the prodigal, how long did the father wait for the son to return? Not until dinner time. Not until bed time. Not until the sun went down. Not until he got tired of waiting. The father waited until the son came home. Until.

 

[sojourner]

I grabed the questions I asked. From what I looked up, I asked...

How can there be universal salvation if we are consequenced in the meantime? Why would we need to be consequences when we will eventually be saved?

Why do you feel the rest of us dont have real peace? In other words, can real peace exist without christ? ...and how does it benefit your relationship with christ to agree (if this is true) that rejecters arent experiencing spiritual not earthly peace just as you?

To me, if my religion said all people will die because they dont follow The Dharma would not be a religion I would follow. It contradicts the nature of Dharma. Instead, since there is rebirth, people will eventually understand birth, suffering, age, and death as to no longer be reborn and die. Its a positive way to say we are stil growing until we have personal understanding by our actions (rather than belief).

Personally, I feel religions dependent on gods distract one from understanding the nature of death and dying. However, I only get pushed backs by christians so it makes me wonder with such consequences such as rejection and separation from rejecters and believers, what is the benefit of that faith?

Many Christians espouse a simplistic and shallow spiritual paradigm that is consequence/rewards-based. And it really doesn’t serve them. As a member of the clergy, I see that All. The. Time. Far better to throw “the Rules” out the window and concentrate on loving relationships. Which is really what Jesus taught us to do in the first place.

 

[sojourner]

The only alternative to being set free is staying imprisoned

This right here is the meat of universalism. If we aren’t awakened, we stay asleep. Sooner or later, everyone awakens from the nightmares and begins to construct authentic life by manifesting their dreams.

 

[sojourner]

Who said no one tried the gift? I tried it and left because it made me worse inside than better. I felt it in my heart and could not lie to myself and to my friends so I left.

Then you didn’t really try the gift. you never really found the gift until you embraced Dharma.

Dharma is my life. Jesus is yours.

What am I missing?

Nothing, IMO.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you’re reading through too narrow a lens. I wasn’t a universalist until I had delved more deeply into the Bible.

I read and practiced the bible and accepted the bible is strict on different things such as belief in God and no other and no idolism, at its simplest. It's nice to want everything to flow together. I see that a lot. It helps to understand life when we see things on a single cored.

Then there is life where everyone doesn't need to be one to have its place in the sceme of things. No one is misguided. No one sees things narrow.

I never was an universalist. I remember when I was about seveenteen in the middle of coming out. I was on the computer reading the c/mess about christianity and homosexuality. I came upon bahai and read it until I saw the universalist view. Then I remember just saying that is silly or that doesnt make sense and cut the computer of cold.

Ive always felt people had their uniqueness and their own creativity.

Christianity says there is one god
Hindu says there are many
Buddhism says there are none (that gets people from suffering)
Wicca says there is a goddess
Pagans believe in deities and gods of different definitions


And the list goes on.

How in the world do you universalize these core beliefs? Not abstract themes (love, suffering), but what these foundations have in common. Unversalism says these all go together and lead to one path and one source. I accepted this is not true and that is okay.

Life goes on.

Edited.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Correct. All are saved, because the various theologies we embrace are merely different pictures of the same Source of life. We do’t all have to embrace the same avatar or metaphor in order to embrace Source.


Does a person have a say as to whether they want to breathe or not? At some point, the body is compelled to try to suck in air. Everyone is compelled to embrace life. God is life.


Some don’t want to embrace the Judeo-Xtian avatar and metaphors, but that doesn’t mean they reject life and its source.


Punishment isn’t in the picture. Consequence is in the picture. There’s a difference.

have you experienced life? That’s good enough.


But it’s not. You (and others) twist it into that, because you insist that Xy is the mythic metaphors that present it to the world. Xy isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship, presented in mythic terms.


If you’re practicing something that sets you free and brings you life, you are embracing God — just not the particular metaphor.


I don’t believe you will. Jesus says, “I am life.” If you embrace life, you’re embracing life, and that’s all that matters. You don’t have to buy into the particular mythic construct.


You don’t want life?


Love and happiness ARE God — just not particularly the Judeo-Xtian mythic construct.


Love embraces all, because love is unconditional. When you learn to embrace and return love, you’re golden.

I just dont have that mentality that people are lacking something as if since they dont believe what you do, they are missing out on a big truth of some sort.

Its a nasty part of christianity (and abrahamic faiths) that I never disagreed with. Its hard to converse when you feel we are missing something we obviously not.