Universalism

[lilithu]

I will admit that I used to be one of those who would answer, "saved from what?" Not because I thought everything was just fine but it was more of a reaction to that word, "salvation" which has very Christian connotations for most and definitely did for me. There is this idea that if you don't have salvation then you are doomed to a lake of fire for eternity. Which is something UUs (I dare say all) reject.

Hi Maize, namaste.

Yeah, I know that a lot of UUs are dealing with that, especially since so many of us are UUs specifically because we rejected that type of Christian theology. I understand that, been there myself, and really should have more compassion for it. The reason why I "go bonkers" is because, as I'm sure you now know, rejecting someone else's theology isn't enough to build a sustaining spirituality. We have to affirm our own.

I think we UUs can use the word and not mean the alternative is everlasting torture. The torture is now in this lifetime, and so can salvation be found.

Hell is now. Heaven is now. We use Christian language because that's where our roots are from. Not that we're limited to Christian language. Another way of saying the same thing is Samsara is Nirvana but not as many people here in the west would understand that.

I only skimmed the rest of the thread last night before I posted, but yes, I completely agree with your response as to 'why be good.' For its own sake. For the pure love of goodness.

Victor, remember that those of us UUs who are theistic tend to see God as immanent. That means divinity is in creation, and in us. And most all UUs whether theistic or not, uphold an inherent goodness in humanity. Which is not to say that we always do good, clearly not, we are fractured and imperfect. But we believe that humans have an innate tendency towards good, which naturally expresses itself, without fear of punishment or promise of reward, when the circumstances permit.

 

[BrandonE]

Victor, remember that those of us UUs who are theistic tend to see God as immanent. That means divinity is in creation, and in us. And most all UUs whether theistic or not, uphold an inherent goodness in humanity. Which is not to say that we always do good, clearly not, we are fractured and imperfect. But we believe that humans have an innate tendency towards good, which naturally expresses itself, without fear of punishment or promise of reward, when the circumstances permit.

Well said. Also out of that comes our bent to social justice, effectively improving the circumstances to allow that good to come out.

So maybe that answers Victor's question even that much more. Not just doing good for nothing, but doing good to INCREASE good.

 

[uumckk16]

I completely agree with your response as to 'why be good.' For its own sake. For the pure love of goodness.

Victor, remember that those of us UUs who are theistic tend to see God as immanent. That means divinity is in creation, and in us. And most all UUs whether theistic or not, uphold an inherent goodness in humanity. Which is not to say that we always do good, clearly not, we are fractured and imperfect. But we believe that humans have an innate tendency towards good, which naturally expresses itself, without fear of punishment or promise of reward, when the circumstances permit.

Lilithu, I just love the way you put things! I completely agree. :yes:

 

[Karl R]

Do you personally hold to a Universalist salvation ideology?

I don't.

I feel that speculation about the afterlife is pointless. It's like worrying about what the weather will be like on July 4th. I don't know. I won't know until I reach that point. Even if I knew, I can't change it. And worrying about it is a waste of energy.

What I do know is a little bit about how I'm supposed to act and how I'm supposed to treat others in this life. This is something I can control.

That said, the traditional conservative protestant view of salvation, heaven and hell seems logically inconsistent to me. It might be correct, and my opinion doesn't change it's validity (or lack thereof), but it seems to have some obvious flaws.

If you don't believe in the after life, there is nothing to get saved from, right?

So why in their minds should I care to do good then?

What if the question is not 'saved from what' but 'saved for what'?

My answer to all these is pretty closely related.

I'm a better person now than I would have been otherwise. (There's still room for improvement.) I like being that better person.

Asking what I'm saved "from", or saved "to", or saved "for" just becomes a matter of semantics. In my opinion "salvation" or "enlightenment" or "gnosis" aren't intended to be definitions of a destination. They're intended to be clues to point us in the direction we're supposed to be headed.

what happens to the very evil in the afterlife?

Eternal damnation seems illogical to me, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a non-eternal hell. The muslim concept of hell or the catholic concept of purgatory both seem logically consistent. (They might be incorrect, but I won't rule them out as possibilities.)

On a deeper level, we really need to let go of our own judgemental attitudes. We like to think that Hitler is suffering in hell for his hatred and atrocities. Would you be angry at god if Hitler got to go straight to heaven despite his actions? Why should it be something that concerns us? A thirst for vengeance is a bad thing, even if we're merely expecting god to fulfill it for us.

 

[lilithu]

What if the question is not 'saved from what' but 'saved for what'? Would that make a difference to how you view the Christian concept of salvation? It certainly did to me when I found that was the question in Orthodoxy. Personally, I think that question is more compatible with universalism/apokatastasis. It seems as though St. Gregory of Nyssa would likely agree, and he's one of my favourite theologians for his loving hope that all would be saved. What do you (all of you UUs) think?

James, namaste.

I guess I cannot see the difference between those two questions. Saved from ourselves. Saved for ourselves. Saved from each other. Saved for each other. Saved from the challenges that is existence. Saved for the challenges that is existence. For me (and I would venture for most UUs), reward/freedom/privilege and responsibility are integrally entwined. One cannot be without the other. ("Of those to whom much has been given, much is expected.") If we are saved from something then of course we are also saved for something. Otherwise, existence is meaningless, right? Or am I misunderstanding you?

btw, I like Gregory of Nyssa too. I don't know his writings as well as you do, but from what I've read he does seem to have a very compassionate heart. I love the way you described his "loving hope." In the end, I don't know that everyone will be saved, as if it were an objective fact. If I tried to look at it purely rationally, it would be very depressing indeed. I have faith that everyone will be saved, and that difference is the difference in how I approach the world (ideally). Everyone is saved; everyone has worth. No one is to be "written off."

 

[uumckk16]

I feel that speculation about the afterlife is pointless. It's like worrying about what the weather will be like on July 4th. I don't know. I won't know until I reach that point. Even if I knew, I can't change it. And worrying about it is a waste of energy.

Karl, I like your post. And I really like this analogy, I agree with you. But I think there is something that I would add. I hope that the weather will be nice on July 4th. Even though I can't possibly know what it will be like and I can't change it anyway (as you pointed out), I can still hope that it will be nice, because it makes me feel better. Likewise, as Thomas Paine says, "I hope for happiness beyond this life." For me, personally, it's more comforting to think that there is something beyond this life (and I do believe that we will all go the same place, wherever that may be) than to think that I'll just be a body decomposing under a gravestone. So I choose to believe that, while at the same time acknowledging that I just don't/can't know.

On a deeper level, we really need to let go of our own judgemental attitudes. We like to think that Hitler is suffering in hell for his hatred and atrocities. Would you be angry at god if Hitler got to go straight to heaven despite his actions? Why should it be something that concerns us? A thirst for vengeance is a bad thing, even if we're merely expecting god to fulfill it for us.

I agree with you here as well. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I was thinking about the "forgive and forget" idea, and how maybe it's not always the smartest thing to do (a killer may kill again). But ideally, I think forgiveness is a virtue. Obviously, I picture God as virtuous, so I feel God is infinitely more forgiving than any human could ever be. So I do not feel that God would send anyone to Hell for eternity (if such a place exists), no matter what they did. If that paragraph made any sense

That's not to say that I believe we can "do whatever we want". But that's already been addressed and I agree with what was said, that we should be good for the sake of goodness.

 

[lilithu]

I feel that speculation about the afterlife is pointless. It's like worrying about what the weather will be like on July 4th. I don't know. I won't know until I reach that point. Even if I knew, I can't change it. And worrying about it is a waste of energy.

What I do know is a little bit about how I'm supposed to act and how I'm supposed to treat others in this life. This is something I can control.

When Henry David Thoreau was on his deathbed, his loved ones gathered round him and one of them asked, "Henry, can you see the other side?" And Thoreau said, "One world at a time friend, one world at a time."

I know nothing about any possible afterlife (tho my beliefs tend to conflict with the possibility of any afterlife as it is generally conceived). What I do believe with all my heart is that if there is an afterlife, then the things that one needs to do to have a good afterlife are the same things that one needs to do to have a good this life. (And no, I don't mean a house in the burbs and a big screen tv. )

 

[lunamoth]

When Henry David Thoreau was on his deathbed, his loved ones gathered round him and one of them asked, "Henry, can you see the other side?" And Thoreau said, "One world at a time friend, one world at a time."

I know nothing about any possible afterlife (tho my beliefs tend to conflict with the possibility of any afterlife as it is generally conceived). What I do believe with all my heart is that if there is an afterlife, then the things that one needs to do to have a good afterlife are the same things that one needs to do to have a good this life. (And no, I don't mean a house in the burbs and a big screen tv. )

Rats, I couldn't frubal you again so soon. Excellent posts Lilithu, and actually I've enjoyed everyone's posts in this thread. Sign me a 'little u' universalist-Episcopalian.

luna

 

[James the Persian]

James, namaste.

I guess I cannot see the difference between those two questions. Saved from ourselves. Saved for ourselves. Saved from each other. Saved for each other. Saved from the challenges that is existence. Saved for the challenges that is existence. For me (and I would venture for most UUs), reward/freedom/privilege and responsibility are integrally entwined. One cannot be without the other. ("Of those to whom much has been given, much is expected.") If we are saved from something then of course we are also saved for something. Otherwise, existence is meaningless, right? Or am I misunderstanding you?

btw, I like Gregory of Nyssa too. I don't know his writings as well as you do, but from what I've read he does seem to have a very compassionate heart. I love the way you described his "loving hope." In the end, I don't know that everyone will be saved, as if it were an objective fact. If I tried to look at it purely rationally, it would be very depressing indeed. I have faith that everyone will be saved, and that difference is the difference in how I approach the world (ideally). Everyone is saved; everyone has worth. No one is to be "written off."

Well, the difference I see between the two questions is mainly one of our relationship to God. Being saved for God (and for us salvation is an ever ongoing process, not a state) does not necessarily imply that there is any kind of punishment meted out, hence why St. Gregory of Nyssa could, in genuine love for all, hope for apokatastasis (and I honestly share his hope). Salvation from something has, rather than a growing relationship with a loving God, more of a rescue from eternal pain feeling. It would not matter to us at all if there were no hell, we could still speak in just the same way about salvation. I'm not sure that such would be possible for those who think of salvation as being kept from hell fire (and that tends to be about all many people think of when they hear the word). All I was really asking was whether salvation as I see it is more in line with and acceptable to UU beliefs than the latter idea.

James

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, remember that those of us UUs who are theistic tend to see God as immanent. That means divinity is in creation, and in us. And most all UUs whether theistic or not, uphold an inherent goodness in humanity. Which is not to say that we always do good, clearly not, we are fractured and imperfect. But we believe that humans have an innate tendency towards good, which naturally expresses itself, without fear of punishment or promise of reward, when the circumstances permit.

Thank you Lilithu.
I was raised around controversy and disagreements all my life. My family make-up is one that can make a good Soprano sequel to say the least. Everything to a lesbian cousin, Mexican cartel, to a Catholic Bishop in Mexico, are in my large family. I say this because this idea of doing good for "inherent goodness in humanity" is so muddled in the grand scope of things that I hold almost zero hope for it. Just being honest... . Granted, I realize my view is tainted with pain and a variety of visuals that I can trigger at any moment.

This idea of we can move forward on our own, without the need of assistance from the divine is out right scary to me Lilithu. I've seen how far tolerance, disagreements, etc. can be stretched without a person or group turning to violence. If it does some how manages to work without violence it turns into thousands of fragmented groups who find it difficult to eat in the same table.

Tell me Lilithu, do you think my perception is unrealistic in the scope of universalism?

 

[lilithu]

Thank you Lilithu.
I was raised around controversy and disagreements all my life. My family make-up is one that can make a good Soprano sequel to say the least. Everything to a lesbian cousin, Mexican cartel, to a Catholic Bishop in Mexico, are in my large family. I say this because this idea of doing good for "inherent goodness in humanity" is so muddled in the grand scope of things that I hold almost zero hope for it. Just being honest... . Granted, I realize my view is tainted with pain and a variety of visuals that I can trigger at any moment.

This idea of we can move forward on our own, without the need of assistance from the divine is out right scary to me Lilithu. I've seen how far tolerance, disagreements, etc. can be stretched without a person or group turning to violence. If it does some how manages to work without violence it turns into thousands of fragmented groups who find it difficult to eat in the same table.

Tell me Lilithu, do you think my perception is unrealistic in the scope of universalism?

But we're not without assistance from the Divine, Victor. Universalists have never denied that we get help from the Divine. (Unitarians otoh...) The Spirit moves in us. Even if you believe in supernatural intervention, what does the Divine do other than soften our hearts, inspire us, give us courage... I've read about burning bushes and walking on water but in my lifetime, the holiest things I've ever seen are Spirit-filled people standing up for what's right. Heck, even if I had personally witnessed water turning into wine, I would still contend that the holiest things I've ever seen are Spirit-filled people looking out for one another. From the Universalist perspective, humans are inherently good because[/b] of God. It is not a worship of the self. And it is not a denial of Divinity. far from it.

When you talk of needing assistance from God in order to be good, what do you envision? Surely it can't just be a Divine threat of hell or a Divine bribe of heaven. If the motivation for goodness is only external, then what happens after the Last Judgement? What happens after the "good" have been gathered into heaven and the "bad" have been cast into hell? The "good" now no longer have a threat hanging over them; nor do they have a promise of any greater reward than they already have. So if they have no inherent goodness in them, what's to prevent them from falling into sin again?

The only way it could work is if you believe that there is some inherent goodness in at least some of humanity. I know you believe this Victor, even if you're feeling discouraged by us at the moment, because I see it in Catholic doctrine. Humanity is fallen and imperfect but we still bear a likeness to God. Afterall, you're Catholic, not Calvinist.

 

[Quiddity]

But we're not without assistance from the Divine, Victor. Universalists have never denied that we get help from the Divine. (Unitarians otoh...) The Spirit moves in us. Even if you believe in supernatural intervention, what does the Divine do other than soften our hearts, inspire us, give us courage... I've read about burning bushes and walking on water but in my lifetime, the holiest things I've ever seen are Spirit-filled people standing up for what's right. Heck, even if I had personally witnessed water turning into wine, I would still contend that the holiest things I've ever seen are Spirit-filled people looking out for one another. From the Universalist perspective, humans are inherently good because[/b] of God. It is not a worship of the self. And it is not a denial of Divinity. far from it.

Well that certainly clarified things immensely. I really was looking at the universalism movement as a non-theistic approach of moving toward good. Hence my response.

When you talk of needing assistance from God in order to be good, what do you envision? Surely it can't just be a Divine threat of hell or a Divine bribe of heaven. If the motivation for goodness is only external, then what happens after the Last Judgement? What happens after the "good" have been gathered into heaven and the "bad" have been cast into hell? The "good" now no longer have a threat hanging over them; nor do they have a promise of any greater reward than they already have. So if they have no inherent goodness in them, what's to prevent them from falling into sin again?

The short answer is that God will take even the lowest motive (fear of hell/reward) and help form the person from there. The intention is to form the person/bring about a change. Love would definately be the best, but certainly not the only.

The only way it could work is if you believe that there is some inherent goodness in at least some of humanity. I know you believe this Victor, even if you're feeling discouraged by us at the moment, because I see it in Catholic doctrine. Humanity is fallen and imperfect but we still bear a likeness to God. Afterall, you're Catholic, not Calvinist.

I certainly do see it. I just don't see inherent goodness being sufficient to bringing about any unity. Without something external assiting. I think history has shown just how brutal and intolerant we can be. Unless we are all flat out anarchist and tolerate absolutely everything, I hold little hope for it.